The Miracle Mile neighborhood in Los Angeles appears, from the aerial photos, to be bounded by Wilshire, Olympic, Highland, and Fairfax. The Los Angeles County Museum of Art is on Wilshire, adjacent to the northwest corner of the neighborhood. There are large commercial properties lining the south side of Wilshire, abutting the neighborhood.
It sounds like LACMA is building new buildings on its existing site. Hard for me to see how the neighbors could be finding fault with that, but apparently they are.
At least one commentator is suggesting that the neighborhood opposition is a shakedown by the neighbors to get amenities for the neighborhood. Hard for me to see how that would work.
Will My Trust Shield My Assets From The Claims Of My Creditors? THE TIMELY TOPIC OF MY SEPTEMBER ESTATE PLANNING LAW REPORT
My September newsletter was mailed last week and is now posted at deconcinimcdonald.com. It’s about a question that comes up regularly: will a trust shield your assets from future liabilities?
In the newsletter I also discuss the perennial topic of what assets are exempt from the claims of your creditors under Arizona law. I said under Arizona law because the rules are different in other states.
On a related topic, here is a link to a newsletter I wrote a while back about Arizona law on how one particular type of property, your homestead, may be exempt from claims of creditors. I have heard that there’s no limit to the homestead exemption in some states, but that’s not the case in Arizona.
If you would like to receive my newsletter via snail mail, just send me an email via the link on my home page.
Antiplanner has an interesting new post about the cost of new housing that focuses on lovely Buckeye, Arizona. His thesis, of course, is that with lower regulation comes lower-cost new housing.
DR Horton, the builder whose project is discussed in Antiplanner’s post, does seem to have a formula for building fairly large houses on modest-sized (but not tiny) lots at very competitive prices. They just built a subdivision not far from my house, on an infill parcel, that fits that profile. Admittedly, it’s not in the most fashionable location, but the pricing looked to me to be pretty competitive with new houses in much less desirable, outlying, locations (like Buckeye).
THIS IS SLIGHTLY OFF TOPIC BUT SEEMS IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO SHARE: FLINT, MICHIGAN, WATER APPARENTLY ISN’T AS BAD AS PREVIOUSLY REPORTED
Environmental problems are related to real estate, so maybe it’s not too off topic, but anyway it seems like important news: the extensive reporting on the problems with the municipal water utility in Flint, Michigan, appears to have been unnecessarily alarmist. In other words, the presence of lead in that city’s water supply is not the public health disaster that it’s been made out to be.
I didn’t spend much time trying to absorb the details of this story so I can’t say for sure, but it sounds to me like people in Philadelphia have figured out how to game the system by which property owners receive notice of delinquent property tax foreclosures.
It also sounds like the scammers are selling the properties to which they have fraudulently obtained title to innocent buyers who are not getting title insurance. Don’t do that. I mean, don’t buy property without title insurance. That should be the simple way for buyers to avoid being victims of this scam. I’m not sure there’s an easy fix for the owner who lost the property in the property tax foreclosure, however.
REALLY, DON’T THREATEN YOUR CITIZENS WITH LEGAL ACTION BECAUSE THEY MADE NEGATIVE COMMENTS ABOUT YOUR TOWN
I have written a couple of posts recently about a smackdown administered to a town in Iowa that had its attorney threaten a citizen with legal action because the citizen wrote disparaging comments about the town. If you want to read the town’s abject surrender after it was sued by the ACLU on behalf of the citizen, Lowering the Bar has posted the injunction that was agreed to by the town, as well as the complaint.
MESSAGE TO MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS - DON’T THREATEN TO SUE YOUR CITIZENS FOR MAKING DISPARAGING COMMENTS ABOUT YOUR TOWN
Remember that town in Iowa whose attorney threatened a citizen with a slander of title claim for making disparaging comments about the town? The town got smacked down by a federal judge and agreed to apologize, pay damages to the citizen, and pay the citizen’s legal fees.
A welcome, but not too surprising, outcome.
A while back I wrote about a law adopted in Seattle that forces residential landlords to rent their properties to the first minimally qualified applicant, regardless of other factors. I pointed out that such a requirement would likely lead to a reduced supply and higher prices for rental housing.
Now comes word that a Washington Superior Court judge has invalidated that law, on the ground that it deprives property owners of the right to freely dispose of their property, which the court recognized as a fundamental attribute of property ownership.
Nobody is suggesting that a property owner should be free to refuse to sell or rent property based on the prospective buyer/tenant’s personal characteristics. The problem here is that in an effort to prevent any possible discrimination, lawmakers are taking away a basic liberty that should be enjoyed by everyone. If I choose to eat at one restaurant over another because the wait staff at the first restaurant treats me better than the wait staff at the other restaurant, shouldn’t I be free to make that choice?
Now, why isn’t the District of Columbia law that mandates a right of first refusal for residential tenants when the landlord wants to sell his or her property, invalid for the same reason that the Seattle law was found to be invalid?
I don’t get what’s going on with residential landlords and tenants in Washington DC. I don’t get much of anything that goes on there, but this is something that I thought I knew something about. There’s a law on the books there that requires a residential landlord to give a tenant a right of first refusal if the landlord decides to sell the property. The law seems to be predicated on the notion that the tenant’s right to remain in the property can be terminated by a change of ownership.
But that’s not how it works, at least in jurisdictions like Arizona where common law property rules still have some vitality. If I rent my property (whether it’s residential or commercial) to you under a lease for a term of months, you have the right to stay in the property for the length of that term whether I continue to own the property until the end of the term or not. I can transfer ownership of the property to someone else if I want to, but that ownership is subject to your lease until the lease expires. Once the lease expires, however, I can terminate your occupancy whether I want to move into the property myself, sell it to someone else who wants to occupy it, or lease it to someone else.
Nice try, attorney representing a town that tried to silence a critic. Unless the law in your state is vastly different from the law everywhere else that I have ever heard of on this topic, slander of title has a specific meaning: doing something that affects title to or an interest in a specific parcel. Negative comments that allegedly diminish the value of all property in a municipality do not constitute slander of title, unless the municipality owns or has a mortgage on all the property within its boundaries. The fact that the municipality taxes all property within its boundaries based on the value of each parcel doesn’t give the municipality an interest in the property.
That’s without even mentioning the obvious violation of the critic’s First Amendment rights.
The contents of this blog, this web site, and any writings by me that are linked here, are all my personal commentary. None of it is intended to be legal advice for your situation.