[Info-vax] Completely OT: Frank Lloyd Wright

[AEF]

On Oct 24, 4:40 pm, David Froble <da... at tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
> Bob Koehler wrote:
> > In article <k691f5$c2... at dont-email.me>, David Froble <da... at tsoft-inc.com> writes:
> >> I don't disagree with you in general, but, maybe investment was a poor
> >> choice of words above.  What I meant was say, perhaps, I bought a
> >> property because of the view, or perhaps (knowing myself) a tract of
> >> land suitable for airport operations.
>
> >    I thought through that one a long time ago.  Some friends of mine
> >    bought a property with (they knew) a temporarily great view.   They
> >    knew they would loose their view when other properties on the hill
> >    were built on.
>
> >    My first reaction was, if I wanted a property with a great view, I'd
> >    have to buy the whole hill, and the other side of the valley.  Then
> >    I remembered the state taking some property from my grandfather to
> >    have an electric line built, and realized that owning the property
> >    did not guarrantee protecting the view.
>
> Yeah, shit happens.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> For someone else to decide that they want the property, and use
> >> political help to acquire it, is definitely theft.  However, if a
> >> highway needs the property, that is a different matter.  A highway will
> >> benefit the community, and cannot be built in pieces, it needs to be whole.
>
> >> I remember some city deciding they wanted a particular business, or
> >> whatever, and used eminent domain to take the land off the current
> >> owners.  That in my opinion was improper use of eminent domain.  That
> >> was theft.
>
> >    I recall two similar cases.  A city took a commercial property
> >    running a popular establishment and exchanged it for a nearby
> >    commercial location.  The justification was that the factory being
> >    built on the original property benefitted the community and needed
> >    what were at that time several adjacent small properties to make up
> >    the space they needed.  The decision was upheld by the courts.
>
> And perhaps the factory people were making larger campaign
> contributions.  Yeah, that happens.
>
> >    In another case, a city took low value homes so that a developer could
> >    put in high price housing.  Again the argument was that it benefitted
> >    the community.  That one went to the US Supreme Court.  It was
> >    specifically allowed by the state constitution and SCOTUS ruled that
> >    the federal government had nothing in place to prevent it.
>
> Translated, the "right side of the tracks" people wanted rid of the
> "wrong side of the tracks" people.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >    Were these abuses?  Is thier less abuse if the property is
> >    commercial, than if it is a home, or is a $400,000 worth of real
> >    estate just $400,000 worth of real estate?
>
> >> There is the chance of misuse of eminent domain, which is why some
> >> people are very suspicious of it.
>
> >> Another thing that is tough is "fair market value".  Say for example I
> >> have a 3000 ft turf runway.  The land is perfectly flat and smooth, and
> >> the grass is well developed.  To me there is significant value to this
> >> land over and above just acreage.  However, someone else might just look
> >> at it as acreage, and value it as such.  Would it be fair to me for all
> >> my investment into grading, planting, and such to be ignored?
>
> >    What if the community needed a highway right there?  Can you actually
> >    find a buyer for the property as runway willing to pay the extra
> >    value?   Just because you value it more doesn't prove it has value to
> >    the rest of the world.
>
> I think I've already stated that highways are important, and eminent
> domain, with fair compensation, is applicable.
>
> As for improvements I've made, they should be part of the fair
> compensation.  I'm going to have to go elsewhere, and do the grading and
> planting and such all over again.  Should that burden fall only on me?
> I think not.  If the improvement was a building, most would feel that it
> should be part of the compensation.  But then, that's why the attorneys
> make the big bucks.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >    We could compare the value of real estate to the value of art.  This
> >    really meets the fan in the Wright case.  What some people value
> >    as expenisve art, I wouldn't give a red penny for.  In other cases
> >    I wouldn't risk the generally held value of the piece on the
> >    chance I could flip it.
>
> >> True story.  My daughter and her husband were looking at refinancing
> >> their house.  The bank sent out an assessor to set a value on the
> >> property.  Now, the house is maybe 800 ft from the road.  Some people
> >> value their privacy.  This particular assessor set a lower value because
> >> of the distance to the road.  To this day I have not found one other
> >> person, including other assessors, to agree with that logic.  So, things
> >> that can be subjective can be very unfair.  (When it was challenged,
> >> even the bank disagreed with the assessor.)
>
> >    I'd set a lower value, too.  More expense to maintain the driveway,
> >    perhaps including removing snow.  Easier for a break in to go
> >    undetected.  Definitely something that would reduce my bid if I
> >    was interested in buying it.
>
> >    And yes, I like my privacy.  That's why I close my drapes at night.
> >    If I could be successfull at a lower bid, I might not mind plowing that
> >    snow, but I would make sure I could remove any sight barrier between
> >    the road and the house.  And I would bid lower because of the cost.
>
> That all just shows that you're a "city boy" and don't appreciate
> country living.  Find me any estates built by well to do people with the
> house right up against the road.  The public road, not the private drive
> they build.  And yes, there is a nice 800 ft driveway.  And a tractor
> for grass cutting and snow removal, and a snowblower, and a Mastiff that
> can look burglars in the eye, and more ....
>
> Statistics around here show that remote places are less prone to
> burglary than houses along the roads ..

It seems to me that "fair market value" is whatever the owner can get
for the place. It doesn't matter that the owner thinks it's worth more
than that.

Consider this: If you thought a place was worth x, and the market
value was much less than x, which would you pay?

One man's garbage may be another's gem, but fair market value is what
the owner can get. If someone offers x, and no one else will offer
more, the fair market value is x, regardless.

AEF