Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!
I get that. And maybe I'm wrong. But they were paying "property tax" on their "property". While property rights are not ensured in the charter, I believe they should be. When the city expropriates land, they don't want or need the houses that are sitting on the land. Real estate has two valuations. The actual land...and the improvements on the land. The city pays people for both. Some houses are just as mobile as mobile homes. The others? Oh well. 10k would cover putting a two story house in a dumpster just as easy as a double wide mobile home. Obviously people think this is a stupid argument but ultimately the result for the actual people is exactly the same...stress, and trauma and an unfair position in life.
It wouldn't be a legally binding decision. There would be no precedent or tort at all. In fact the city has already mandated compensation from developers for redeveloping an occupied trailer park. Obviously no precedent resulted from that. And honestly, a lot of people in that park got fair market value for their homes. 10k is the going rate around town for a junker. But yeah, the city would have to write a lot of checks to make people whole. And that would have been the deal of the century for the city had they done it 12 years ago.
|
I have to agree that they should not have had to pay property tax as they don't own property and they could have just hid this tax in the lot fees. The landlord pays the taxes and chooses to recover them if they see fit.
Maybe they could recover past property tax but I assume someone with more knowledge on this then my none can explain why that isn't possible.