Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They need to fix the problem on their side of the property line or buy his house.
"Their side" of the property line is Maynard Road - are you suggesting that they just tear up the street and put everything back the way it was? Or should they buy all the houses that were affected by the street construction?
They need to fix the problem on their side of the property line or buy his house.
Why is buying his house the proper remedy (assuming there is liability) as opposed to paying him the diminished value of his property? That's like saying that in an automobile accident, the at-fault party has to buy the other party's car.
Wouldn't buying his house (paying him 100% of its value) give him a windfall? Clearly it has some value remaining (see Mike's post earlier), even if you accept his view of events.
Why is buying his house the proper remedy (assuming there is liability) as opposed to paying him the diminished value of his property? That's like saying that in an automobile accident, the at-fault party has to buy the other party's car.
Wouldn't buying his house (paying him 100% of its value) give him a windfall? Clearly it has some value remaining (see Mike's post earlier), even if you accept his view of events.
Depending on the severity of the accident often times insurance companies do end up buying the car if its totaled.
Also, you're saying there is no amount of compensation needed over and above the home value? I would think there should be. If it were me, I'd want full home value, moving expenses, and a premium on top of that. Certainly doesn't sound unreasonable.
Anyway, it seems the suit is more about free speech, which I think any American should support as well.
I guess he's going to stop paying his mortgage as well? That makes no sense.. but is about par for the course when it comes to this story.
If I was 150k in the hole on my mortgage, I'd probably foreclose as well. If he sold it he'd be on the hook for the difference in price between what it sold for and his mortgage and/or what he could've gotten before this fiasco. I honestly can't believe people are OK with this. You can say it was "his fault" for buying a house there till you are blue in the face but the fact is the CITY was the one who took his property. How can we be the land of the free if we don't protect property rights? That is one of the pillars of capitalism.
Depending on the severity of the accident often times insurance companies do end up buying the car if its totaled.
Also, you're saying there is no amount of compensation needed over and above the home value? I would think there should be. If it were me, I'd want full home value, moving expenses, and a premium on top of that. Certainly doesn't sound unreasonable.
As a Town of Cary taxpayer, I do think it's unreasonable to give this guy a payout without the town at least being allowed to implement a fix. It's not like this $250K is going to come out of thin air (and how did he arrive at the $80K number anyhow?). Frankly, I think this is more an issue for the courts rather than just it being some drama being played out in the media.
If I was 150k in the hole on my mortgage, I'd probably foreclose as well. If he sold it he'd be on the hook for the difference in price between what it sold for and his mortgage and/or what he could've gotten before this fiasco.
He bought the house in 1991 for $88K. I'm pretty sure he could get $88K for that house now, even with the current paint job! I don't see how refusing to pay his mortgage has anything to do with this - other than he just wants "out" no matter what.
As a Town of Cary taxpayer, I do think it's unreasonable to give this guy a payout without the town at least being allowed to implement a fix. It's not like this $250K is going to come out of thin air (and how did he arrive at the $80K number anyhow?). Frankly, I think this is more an issue for the courts rather than just it being some drama being played out in the media.
While money doesn't come out of thin air, I think it's important to properly compensate home owners or else the city will continue to screw additional home owners because there is no incentive NOT to.
The good thing about the media is it is able to draw peoples attention to the issue. Suddenly 10,000 or more people realize THEIR homes could end in the same fate, and it mobilizes them on behalf of this guy.
Exactly, only the Lawyers will benefit from this fiasco. Also, I am amazed that the Town of Cary is prepared to test their sign ordinance before the courts which they are doing by pulling the trigger and imposing the fines. Look's like McDonalds and all the fast food companies will be supporting ACLU as well so that they get the signs they want
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory breaker
Great. So some lawyers will get rich and famous, this guy will get money for nothing, and the rest of us will be the ones to foot the bill.
Any more good news?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
