Posted on 01/06/2012 6:25:36 AM PST by Wolfie
Edited on 01/06/2012 6:30:09 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
People that could afford to “rent” in this location would not pay to share the area with others.
Take a closer look at the picture dummy, that’s OCEAN FRONT PROPERTY.
Her property, her money, none of my business...
I thought she bought a place in the UK and had moved there a few years ago. Can’t say she has much in the brain department.
That’s a good one!!
I think I saw that the house was built in the 1930s...so, having been there myself i.e. remodeling an old house - I’d have to say you’re right about it being cheaper to tear down and start over.
But that doesn’t take into consideration the beauty of the old house and probably many of it’s parts. We had lots of wood beams that we were told would be impossible to get now....etc.
“hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”. . .enuf said.
Houses houses, houses!!!! You guys are sick! Where’s the picture of God’s greatest design! ELIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Good for her.
May she have many happy years in her new home.
Exactly. She paid $12M for the PROPERTY and tore down the house. This happens all the time with waterfront property, people want the property but they also want the house they want and that's not necessarily the existing house.
As you noted, a major renovation would have taken longer and probably cost more than to rebuild.
Are you really that stupid, or is it just too early for you?
If she built herself a new place, somewhere else, she would likely have had to tear down an old home in that "somewhere else" and you would be bitching about that as well.
Did it ever occur to you that this was "somewhere else"?
Did it occur to you that she may have seen the poor condition of the house, but loved the property and thought "Hmmm, I bet I can buy this property for a nice price, tear down the existing house, and rebuild a house exactly like I want?"
No, I guess that never occurred to you.
I’m not a guy...so have a vastly different opinion on who is actually “God’s greatest design”.
LOL
She bought this property after the divorce. I wish Freepers would actually read the story before commenting.
The 17,000-square-foot house, built in 1932, was two stories, with eight bathrooms, an in-ground pool and an elevator.
It was located in a 77 acre very exclusive development. The orginal plan was to renovate but after beginning it was decided to raze the structure and rebuild. Nothing unusual about that, imo when money is no objective.
Oh how true that is. I have a waterfront property in Florida that is worth more with the house gone than standing as it is.
>>>Must be nice to have that kind of money to waste. Sell the house, give the money to charity and build yourself a new place, somewhere else. With this kind of attitude, I am not surprised Tiger was fooling around.<<<
Why would she buy a property, with a house, then sell it 10 months later and give the proceeds to charity, and then go and buy another property and build another house? If she wanted to make a donation, wouldn’t it make more sense to make a cash donation without all the real estate transactions?
Obviously, she found a location she liked a lot, buy wasn’t crazy about the house on it, so she tore it down and is building a new one. People do this all the time. I don’t see the issue with her spending HER money however she sees fit.
>>>Must be nice to have that kind of money to waste. Sell the house, give the money to charity and build yourself a new place, somewhere else. With this kind of attitude, I am not surprised Tiger was fooling around.<<<
Why would she buy a property, with a house, then sell it 10 months later and give the proceeds to charity, and then go and buy another property and build another house? If she wanted to make a donation, wouldn’t it make more sense to make a cash donation without all the real estate transactions?
Obviously, she found a location she liked a lot, buy wasn’t crazy about the house on it, so she tore it down and is building a new one. People do this all the time. I don’t see the issue with her spending HER money however she sees fit.
I was a contractor for thirty years. I can't tell you the number of times homeowners, after watching This Old House started a renovation project when tearing down and starting over would have been less costly. But that's not what we are talking about here. This house, while older, still looks like it had some value, some tread on the tire. She discarded that value to start anew. Now, this location may be special. It may be unique. I am sure that the new place will be wonderful, but if she could have found a piece of property with no existing structure, she could have still allocated some of her wealth to creating a new home without eliminating an existing home that still had value. This lost value comes out of her pocket. To me, it's like the 'broken window fallacy'.
As to the Pinto/Mercedes analogy, sure the Mercedes has more value, but if you had the Pinto and wanted a Mercedes, would you sell or trade in the Pinto to get whatever value you could for it, or would you scrap it and then just buy the Mercedes.(probably a bad example because the scrap value just might be higher than the resale value of a '74 Pinto)
McDonald's does this. The speed they can demolish/rebuild a location is impressive.
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.