I think that it’s safe to assume that when you hear hear the words “code violations” in the context of residential buildings, the typical reaction is of disgust. Your’e probably conjureing up some picture of a slumlord who allows his low income tenants to live in inhuman living conditions. However, if you would ask Ms. Margaret Augenest, an artist who has not paid her Brooklyn landlord rent since 2003, I would bet that you would get a different response.
In my previous blog post I explained how Extell Development was able to build its 90 story One57 in an area that isn’t zoned for buildings even close to that height. But there’s a catch. Although it’s marketed as a 90 story building (and the highest floor is numbered 90), the building really has only 75 stories.
In San Bernardino County, California, county officials believe they have figured out a way to solve their housing woes. The idea is simple and straight forward: to take people’s houses away. The mechanism these officials are utilizing is through a liberal understanding of an old legal concept called “eminent domain” which typically is used to acquire privately held properties to enhance the surrounding public at large. However, instead of seizing the actual property itself, the officials are seizing the mortgages.
For close to a half a century, New York City’s Landmark Law has greatly enhanced Manhattan by preserving and protecting its most notable historic buildings and neighborhoods. However, as the number of properties under the Landmarks Preservation Commission’s jurisdiction rapidly grows, there is growing concern in the Real Estate industry.
On May 29, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an important ruling that will allow lenders a sigh of relief. The issue involves a scenario unfortunately all too familiar these days: A property owner finds his property has dropped significantly in value. The owner cannot continue making mortgage payments, and faces foreclosure. The owner files for bankruptcy protection. The bankruptcy court approves his plan to auction the property and use proceeds from the sale to repay the lender.
Shouldn’t the presumptive republican nominee for president be talking about reducing tax liability, not raising it? Specifically after President Obama’s “Buffett Plan” has come under severe criticism (at least from me), you would think Romney would have taken note.
In 2009 our economy was crumbling, and the Dow Jones was establishing new lows daily. A major cause for the meltdown was a result of the wide spread failing of complex securities that were backed by real estate mortgages. These securities are known as MBS’s (mortgage backed securities-not too creative).
The IRS is apparently jealous that some banks have profited from the subprime mortgage meltdown, and have gotten into the action- Tax liens are for sale. If a property owning taxpayer fails to pay his taxes the government will secure a lien on their property. This lien allows local municipalities to secure payment when the property changes ownership, or if the taxes remain delinquent for a specified amount of time, the IRS can foreclose on the property and evict the property owner. (See, NYC’s Annual Tax Lien Sale)