Posted on 01/31/2006 10:58:52 AM PST by JZelle
The D.C. government knocked down an apartment building in Southeast in 2002, and now it wants the building's owner to pay about $98,000 for it, with interest. But, owner Erika Brown objects because, her attorney says, city officials never told her that they were going to demolish the building she purchased from the city weeks before. Gary M. Sidell, an attorney for Miss Brown, calls the District's move to recoup demolition costs "theft by government." He also said that by charging an 18 percent annual interest on a demolition lien, D.C. officials are treating Miss Brown as "a profit center."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
We the gubmit. We here to hep you.
You know, the truly troubling thing about this item is that there is nothing unusual about it. The DC Government doesn't know what day of the week it is, and, what's more, it doesn't care.
I'd estimate that the collective IQ of the District Government is probably around that of a tuna salad sandwich. But then, that might be giving tuna salad a really bad name.
Can't she sue the title company for not finding out about the lien?
Back to court!
How else is DC going to build that new baseball stadium if they can't extort every nickel and dime from the poor saps doing business there that they possibly can?
It appears, however, that she settled with D.C. last week and got $180,000 for their failure to tell her that it was on the demolition list when she purchased it.
I am surprised that the demolition lien wasn't addressed in last week's settlement one way or the other.
Hey-the tuna salad I'm having for lunch is HIGHLY offended that it would be compared to the government of D.C.
Which is pretty much the way they've treated US for, oh.... about 100 years now.
The tuna probably SMELLS better too :)
We be the gubmint, we be here to hep you.
Even if she pays, she gets a clean lot w/utilities free and clear where a condemned building once stood. There is probably more to this story than is being reported here.
It probably was.
This sounds like an omnibus settlement.
The City apparently concealed - or just plain didn't know about - it's own demolition order. Fault to the city.
The City is entitled to be paid for demolition of delapidated buildings.
So, they probably set the settlement amount at a level that would pay her her damages, and pay her enough to pay for the demolition, while still requiring her to pay for that demolition. Probably the City cannot easily waive demolition costs without political action that might not be forthcoming.
If both sides weren't satisfied, one side would not have settled. As it stands, they did. She's getting in her digs, but she essentially got the property for free.
PBS had a show on last night re: the Nuremberg Trials... after kristallnacht the nazis charged the jews the amount of money that was destroyed in their own stores
The demolition (and thus the lien) occurred after purchase, so no.
There should be a condemnation order, however, which presumably would be filed, and would have been a slip-up.
Or if said by Yoda:
Gubmit we be. Hep you we do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.