Weathy San Francisco Enclave Loses Private Street Over Unpiad $14 Tax Bill...

[vienna]

Sometimes it seems like there is some leveling in the world:

Rich SF residents get a shock: Someone bought their street --

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/m...t-11738236.php




<O>

[Onkel Neal]

I'm sure there's some legal right-of-way thing for accessing their property.

[Buddahaid]

Ha! More power to them... Pretty funny actually.

[Jimbuna]

I laughed at the irony of the text below

There’s a bit of irony in the couple’s purchase. Until a 1948 U.S. Supreme Court ruling banning the enforcement of racial covenants, homes in Presidio Terrace could be purchased only by whites.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

I'm sure there's some legal right-of-way thing for accessing their property.

There might be a possible 'grant of easement' situation wherein the residents could drive over the street but be allowed to park their cars on the street without some sort of payment; this can be a problem in San Francisco where property space has long been at scarce and a lot of older homes don't have garages or driveways; those that do have garages very often have ones that were designed for smaller vehicles or, in the case of very old residences, carriages; in the early 60s, I lived in an old Victorian 'mansion' than had a very narrow garage requiring passengers to exit the vehicle before putting the car in the space and the driver having to exit out the window; the garage had been designed for a carriage to be backed into the space; on one side was the wall of the building, on the other was a massive solid concrete platform about 2-1/2 to 3 feet high with a niche with stair steps cut into the side so, when the carriage was parked, the opening to the carriage would be accessible; unfortunately, the opening in the platform was just about dead center and no car's doors matched up so they could be opened. I'm going to guess most, if not, all the homes on the street have at least a driveway...

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

I laughed at the irony of the text below

Kharma can be a bitter pill...





<O>

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

I'm sure there's some legal right-of-way thing for accessing their property.

Originally Posted by vienna

There might be a possible 'grant of easement' situation wherein the residents could drive over the street but be allowed to park their cars on the street without some sort of payment;

Weird; I've been both the occasional guard and done appraisals here as well over the decades. There is an easement in any private road association; all the home appear to have have driveways.>photo: The new street owner has wasted his money imho as the home owners have sued him already. But the city and county of SF will cringe when the home owners demand a rebate for their assessed property taxes now that they are adjacent to a potential public parking lot; these home range from 4 million to over ten million! The 90K from the sale will be lost in the ferocious rebate from the assessor's coffers. https://sf.curbed.com/2017/8/7/16107160/presidio-terrace-sf-street-auction-lawsuit This situation is common in the mountains where I appraised for 15 years; private road associations are the norm, but the rules apply anywhere.

An easement for a shared driveway allows two or more individuals to use the same property. Each party has equal access to walk on and park a vehicle in the driveway. Neither party can block the driveway or take any action that prevents the other parties from reasonable use. Normally there is a written agreement which spells out the responsibility for maintenance and cost sharing. This private easement is normally used in densely populated urban areas where parking space is at a premium.
Private roadways are the most common example of a right-of-way easement. Some belong to one individual as a means of access to landlocked property. Others are private roads within a subdivision that are maintained by a homeowner's association. In both cases, the easement holder maintains the right-of-way and is responsible for its upkeep.

http://homeguides.sfgate.com/rightofway-easements-private-use-76881.html The new owner has acquired a profitless white,

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

I laughed at the irony of the text below

Elephant; court entanglement, and must now maintain the trees, landscape, roadway, and front ten feet of each parcel incl sidewalks: in a condition preventing 'impediment to the pathway'. Water is not cheap in CA. He may not block, impede, nor cause disturbance to the homeowners. I imagine the county assessor will be contacting the office that held the auction over $420.00 in lost taxes vs the reassessed property rebates looming on these multi-million dollar homes...My guess is the city will rescind the sale. Judges generally favor the 'greatest good' to the most people in easement practical considerations-in this case: the homeowners and the assessors office.

[vienna]

It may not necessarily be a "white elephant"; the new owners did pay US$90,000, but do stand to make a profit and , quite possibly, a sizable one, indeed; neither party, the new owners nor the Residents Association, really have much of an incentive to engage in costly and lengthy legal proceedings, and the City and County most likely have no appetite to become a party to the issue(s). I foresee a negotiated settlement where the Association opts to buy out the new owners, for a premium, obviating what could be an even more expensive set of legal bills. The City and County would, no doubt, be more than willing to sign off on any negotiated settlement in lieu of also running up expensive legal bills of their own. Think of it: would you rather pay say, $US180,000, to buy out the street owners (giving them a tidy 100% on their investment), possibly expend many more times that amount in legal fees and court costs? I'm using the 100% return as a low-ball figure; it is quite possible the new owners could get a much better settlement...

This situation reminded me of another case back in the mid-70s where an activist group, The People's Lobby (TPL) failed to file a renewal of their corporate name and a Sacramento bar owner happened to see a listing showing the name as up for grabs, so, as a lark, he paid the required fee and bought the name; he actually was joking that he was going to open another bar nearer to the State Capitol Buildings and name the bar "The People's Lobby". This is sort of analogous to buying a domain name on the Web. TPL protested to the state and were unsuccessful in getting back the name so they, in turn, filed to acquire a bunch of other names that had lapsed, among them the famed cosmetics company, Helena Rubinstein. The Rubinstein company was not amused and sought legal recourse against TPL to regain their name and TPL fought back on the principle the administration of the law regarding corporate name registration was flawed. Two years and a lot of legal back and forth later, the matter was settled as described in this Los Angele Times article:

PEOPLE'S LOBBY GETS ITS OLD NAME BACK

BY CLAUDIA LUTHER
Times Stall Writer

Nov 18, 1977

Helena Rubinstein International can have its name back.

The People's Lobby, which used the famous cosmetic firm's corporate name while it fought a legal battle to retrieve its own from a Sacramento bartender, Thursday won its old name back. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Norman R. Dowds successfully negotiated a pretrial settlement conference involving People's Lobby and Gilbert Rosales, the man who snatched up the People's Lobby name two years ago when the citizen-activist group was "temporarily" suspended by the state Franchise Tax Board for failure to file an annual information form. Rosales, who paid a $6 fee for the name, has since used it to sponsor golf tournaments to benefit handicapped persons. The settlement reached with attorneys Roger Jon Diamond for People's Lobby and Alfred D. Freis for Rosales will allow Rosales to continue to use the name People's Lobby for his tournaments as long as he says he is not connected with any group. But the official name "People's Lobby. Inc." will revert back to the citizens organization. "We never felt any different," said People's Lobby executive director Joyce Koupal. "But I guess Helena Rubinstein will be happy."

I suspect the same result of a negotiated settlement will occur, and I doubt the matter will even make to actual court proceedings...





<O>

[Mr Quatro]

This took place two (2) years ago, but the home owners the street is on just found out. The new owners are even thinking about putting in parking meters ...

the lowest price home in this neighborhood sold for 17 million dollars



https://sf.curbed.com/2017/8/7/16107...uction-lawsuit

[vienna]

The latest I've heard of this matter is a report on the radio of the possibility of the new street owners leasing the street to the homeowners association...





<O>