Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

AVoiceOfReason · 06-29-2005, 07:57 PM

This section of the story caught my attention:

"Robert Magnus, whose house is on the condemnation list, said he was unaware of the City Council's vote next week, but he's not surprised. He had hoped that the Supreme Court would help him with its Kelo v. New London case.

Mr. Magnus would not say how much the city has offered him for the house he's owned for two years, but he said it wasn't enough to pay off his mortgage."

I don't know it for a fact, but I think there is a distinct possibility he's lying on one of two points (and maybe both).

If he bought the house within the past two years, fair market value was established--a willing buyer and a willing seller set the price, and that figure would have been used by the appraiser as a sale. Now, if he bought knowing the land was in the area that is being considered for the new stadium and thought he could squeeze the city in the condemnation, he may have paid more than it was worth. If that's the case, he's not lying, but a bad businessman.

Also, his mortgage would not have been more than the worth of the house UNLESS he went with an owner financing deal. Again, I'm of the mind that what he paid for the house two years ago is the starting point for FMV--and unless the neighborhood has gone downhill in a hurry, it shouldn't be less than that. But if he went with a mortgage company, he didn't borrow more than the house is worth, and having made two years of payments on the mortgage, he's not going to be upside down in the house.

I say all this not to try to justify the actions of the city--I see the benefits to a city of having a stadium for the citizens to enjoy, not as the playground for millionaires (what the salaries of the athletes have to do with this is beyond me), but at the same time, I don't like the idea of cities bribing teams with cushy stadium deals--and I don't rule out the possibility that the appraiser that did the work for the city was either sloppy or giving his employer what they asked for, but on the surface, it looks a bit fishy to me.

06-29-2005, 07:57 PM	#39 (permalink)
AVoiceOfReason Psycho Location: Greenwood, Arkansas	This section of the story caught my attention: "Robert Magnus, whose house is on the condemnation list, said he was unaware of the City Council's vote next week, but he's not surprised. He had hoped that the Supreme Court would help him with its Kelo v. New London case. Mr. Magnus would not say how much the city has offered him for the house he's owned for two years, but he said it wasn't enough to pay off his mortgage." I don't know it for a fact, but I think there is a distinct possibility he's lying on one of two points (and maybe both). If he bought the house within the past two years, fair market value was established--a willing buyer and a willing seller set the price, and that figure would have been used by the appraiser as a sale. Now, if he bought knowing the land was in the area that is being considered for the new stadium and thought he could squeeze the city in the condemnation, he may have paid more than it was worth. If that's the case, he's not lying, but a bad businessman. Also, his mortgage would not have been more than the worth of the house UNLESS he went with an owner financing deal. Again, I'm of the mind that what he paid for the house two years ago is the starting point for FMV--and unless the neighborhood has gone downhill in a hurry, it shouldn't be less than that. But if he went with a mortgage company, he didn't borrow more than the house is worth, and having made two years of payments on the mortgage, he's not going to be upside down in the house. I say all this not to try to justify the actions of the city--I see the benefits to a city of having a stadium for the citizens to enjoy, not as the playground for millionaires (what the salaries of the athletes have to do with this is beyond me), but at the same time, I don't like the idea of cities bribing teams with cushy stadium deals--and I don't rule out the possibility that the appraiser that did the work for the city was either sloppy or giving his employer what they asked for, but on the surface, it looks a bit fishy to me. __________________ AVOR A Voice Of Reason, not necessarily the ONLY one.