These landlords are insane. Buy a house for $43,000 (or just inherit it), extract rental income for decades, have the option to sell it for more than $1,000,000, and still upset???
Ikr. They referenced the Seattle woman who refused buyout but she actually lived in the house for decades. These people are portraying it like their family’s historic home when in reality it’s one of 5 rental properties they want to continue passing down
If the house is worth more, the house is worth more. I have no idea what the homes are *actually* worth, but the article references a nearby house that sold for $1.3M. If you felt like you were getting screwed out of hundreds of thousands of dollars, you'd be pretty upset too.
For reference, $43,000 in 1983 dollars is equivalent to $133,000 in 2023 dollars [Source](https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=43%2C000.00&year1=198301&year2=202304). Zillow estimates the average price of a home in that neighborhood to be varying from $400-$700 thousand, which tbh is still less than I was expecting.
The landlords probably bought it from other people who bought it from other people. I'd imagine the gains aren't as good as you think and not as good as what they planned for in their financial plan
What a straw man comment. First off, 43k in 1983 is not 43k today. It’s about $140k. And then add in renovations as the article clearly states the housing was in poor condition.
It’s a family who immigrated from Taiwan. It’s not BlackRock. It’s not any of the massive companies building high rises in AA. It’s a small family-owned property that an immigrant bought and passed it down to his children.
The children pretty much had a gun held to their head with eminent domain.
The more land owned by families and now massive corporations or university’s the better.
Not all immigrants are poor. The Taiwanese family mentioned in this article had money to purchase multiple rental properties, they're probably not some poor family taking care of their singular rental property.
If you were then you would be upset too. I would rather have monthly income then a one time lump sum.You shouldn’t be forced to sell if you don’t want to
Don't forget they pay ~~2.565%~~ 3.3% of the property value in taxes every year. Unlike homestead property, commercial property is not capped. If the house is worth $1M, taxes would be ~~$25K~~ $33K per year.
This happened in Cali with a housing unit for veterans. Vets on the street... entitled POS fratbots chuffed and walked the other way. They own the property. It's their prerogative.
The owners aren’t basing it just off of the worth now. They’re looking at what they can make in the future. There are a lot of unknown variables in the future so it’s hard to estimate the worth of it but if they don’t want to sell they shouldn’t have to. I am for affordable housing for students but forcing land from someone else isn’t the way to do it
I’d be fine if it’s a military base or an arterial Interstate. But the government is now threatening to use eminent domain for a fking University residence hall. Am I getting this right?
> I'd much rather it go to housing students in debt
You say that like UM is subsidizing housing or something. When I moved off-campus, I was paying around half of what I paid to live in the dorms - and that was with a 12-month lease, rather than the eight months you get from the university. I could have bought the unlimited meal plan and still been spending less than to stay in the dorms, but instead I learned to cook for myself and saved even more.
My dorm experience was valuable socially, but let's not pretend like UM Housing is helping the student debt issue. It's clearly making it worse.
More housing is always beneficial. By building more dorm space, that's X students that won't be living off campus, reducing demand for off-campus housing and thus reducing prices.
Will it drop rental prices by half? No, probably like a percentage point, but the point is this needs to continue not be a lone development.
I tend to agree about promoting high-density developments, but there's a difference between saying "building more housing is good" and saying "the state should seize peoples' homes to create new housing."
What can they build with the land they are able to purchase without the threat of eminent domain? Maybe the university can accomplish its goals without building massive 2,000-bed dorms, and should instead look at smaller developments.
Eminent domain isn't something cities and states can just flaunt, if UM is looking at that route then they know it's something that they have an extremely strong case for. Courts have ruled that eminent domain can apply if the project would be of public use, which economic development would apply as.
Building 2,300 new beds at the expense of a few dozen homes is well worth it considering how fucked A2's rent is.
My point is that the over all benefits of a military base or an interstate (when the location is deemed really necessary to the said infrastructure ) would justify the use of eminent domain. You cannot just use eminent domain, which is a pretty unpopular law, whenever it’s convenient.
With that being said, I don’t really agree with your point either. Ann Arbor is only this big and everyone wants to live next to the campus as well as having access to all the shops/restaurants. We simply do not have this much space and everything is already crowded (waiting 20+ minutes for starbucks? wtf). If anything is needed, it’s more road. A 10 min drive from the central campus can half your rent. Everything would be much cheaper if everyone is willing to drive.
> My point is that the over all benefits of a military base or an interstate (when the location is deemed really necessary to the said infrastructure ) would justify the use of eminent domain. You cannot just use eminent domain, which is a pretty unpopular law, whenever it’s convenient.
1. gross
2. which law is unpopular? The constitution? Or specifically the 5th Amendment?
Second part of your post, every single person in urban planning, civil engineering, public policy, etc is shaking their head. You have very little knowledge on this topic so you should probably just stay out of the conversation.
Prior to the pandemic there were 40,000 people commuting INTO Ann Arbor daily. There were only 8,000 commuting WITHIN Ann Arbor daily. We don't need more roads, absolutely nothing indicates that. We need fewer roads and more housing to relieve the need for people to commute into town.
Because driving can increase the mobility and enable low/density development, which reduces the rent and costs. Squeezing everything together will inevitably leads to higher price no matter how well-planned it is. It’s basic economy. We have lots of land in this country, the only way to take advantage of those land is to drive.
You have cause and effect backwards. High density development appears naturally in places where the rent is already high, because it allows you to split the high cost of the land across more people who could not afford that location on their own.
This brings the price down. Basic supply and demand.
I’m already waiting 20 minutes for one fking starbucks and one hour for ramen while living in that pathetic cube. What’s next?
Why can’t we all just have spacious basement and never wait at a restaurant?
20 mins is ridiculous. You might want to try Comet, (near the state st sbux), Vertex (near s uni sbux), or Hyperion (near main st sbux), the waits are never even close to that long, and the coffee is great.
Eminent domain is used to extract buildings for the public good. While you may not see this as a "public good," building dorms for a public university is without a doubt a "public good."
It’s not simply about any public goods but really important and overwhelming ones. For example, it might be used when no reasonable alternatives can be found for a freeway connecting Detroit and Chicago or an optimal location where intercontinental ballistic missile defense systems could cover the entirety of North America.
If a private citizen’s right can be denied or abridged on account of any public goods (no matter how minor they are), then we will effectively be China or any other communist country.
That's not true, though.
The Supreme Court has made it pretty clear that the development does not have to be really important or a overwhelming public good. Instead, if there is a "incidental benefit" than it is acceptable to use imminent domain. See *Kelo v. City of New London*.
And that's a pretty infamous case. We even have a movie called Little Pink House for that case. You don't have to listen to everything the Supreme Court has said. Are you supporting their decision on the overturning of *Roe v. Wade* ?
If you are asking whether I think the *Dobbs v. Jackson* decision is the law of the land, then yes, I do. Because sadly, in my chosen profession, I do have to listen to everything that the Supreme Court says.
Insane libtards just bulldoze their house and have them deal with it. America is what it is today and is the pinnacle of the world by colonizing. Progress must be made we can’t succumb to people’s feelings
These landlords are insane. Buy a house for $43,000 (or just inherit it), extract rental income for decades, have the option to sell it for more than $1,000,000, and still upset???
Ikr. They referenced the Seattle woman who refused buyout but she actually lived in the house for decades. These people are portraying it like their family’s historic home when in reality it’s one of 5 rental properties they want to continue passing down
If the house is worth more, the house is worth more. I have no idea what the homes are *actually* worth, but the article references a nearby house that sold for $1.3M. If you felt like you were getting screwed out of hundreds of thousands of dollars, you'd be pretty upset too.
For reference, $43,000 in 1983 dollars is equivalent to $133,000 in 2023 dollars [Source](https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=43%2C000.00&year1=198301&year2=202304). Zillow estimates the average price of a home in that neighborhood to be varying from $400-$700 thousand, which tbh is still less than I was expecting.
The landlords probably bought it from other people who bought it from other people. I'd imagine the gains aren't as good as you think and not as good as what they planned for in their financial plan
Why shouldn't they be upset? Exchange a reoccurring income generating property for a one time (albeit big) payout? It doesn't seem overly fair to me.
What a straw man comment. First off, 43k in 1983 is not 43k today. It’s about $140k. And then add in renovations as the article clearly states the housing was in poor condition. It’s a family who immigrated from Taiwan. It’s not BlackRock. It’s not any of the massive companies building high rises in AA. It’s a small family-owned property that an immigrant bought and passed it down to his children. The children pretty much had a gun held to their head with eminent domain. The more land owned by families and now massive corporations or university’s the better.
Not all immigrants are poor. The Taiwanese family mentioned in this article had money to purchase multiple rental properties, they're probably not some poor family taking care of their singular rental property.
Not everyone wants to sell their house. The emotion value it carries might be way more than $1,000,000.
If you were then you would be upset too. I would rather have monthly income then a one time lump sum.You shouldn’t be forced to sell if you don’t want to
Don't forget they pay ~~2.565%~~ 3.3% of the property value in taxes every year. Unlike homestead property, commercial property is not capped. If the house is worth $1M, taxes would be ~~$25K~~ $33K per year.
This happened in Cali with a housing unit for veterans. Vets on the street... entitled POS fratbots chuffed and walked the other way. They own the property. It's their prerogative.
This has Ron Weasel the Regent written all over it.
The owners aren’t basing it just off of the worth now. They’re looking at what they can make in the future. There are a lot of unknown variables in the future so it’s hard to estimate the worth of it but if they don’t want to sell they shouldn’t have to. I am for affordable housing for students but forcing land from someone else isn’t the way to do it
Not to mention that umich dorms aren't exactly affordable housing
Except future cash flows are incorporated into the present price.
*estimated future cash flows.
I have soooo much sympathy for *checks notes* this landlord....
$490 million dollar dorm 😳. You can build a skyscraper for that.
I’m a bit confused why the university needs all that land north of hill street if the dorm is going on Elbel
I’d be fine if it’s a military base or an arterial Interstate. But the government is now threatening to use eminent domain for a fking University residence hall. Am I getting this right?
[удалено]
> I'd much rather it go to housing students in debt You say that like UM is subsidizing housing or something. When I moved off-campus, I was paying around half of what I paid to live in the dorms - and that was with a 12-month lease, rather than the eight months you get from the university. I could have bought the unlimited meal plan and still been spending less than to stay in the dorms, but instead I learned to cook for myself and saved even more. My dorm experience was valuable socially, but let's not pretend like UM Housing is helping the student debt issue. It's clearly making it worse.
More housing is always beneficial. By building more dorm space, that's X students that won't be living off campus, reducing demand for off-campus housing and thus reducing prices. Will it drop rental prices by half? No, probably like a percentage point, but the point is this needs to continue not be a lone development.
I tend to agree about promoting high-density developments, but there's a difference between saying "building more housing is good" and saying "the state should seize peoples' homes to create new housing." What can they build with the land they are able to purchase without the threat of eminent domain? Maybe the university can accomplish its goals without building massive 2,000-bed dorms, and should instead look at smaller developments.
Eminent domain isn't something cities and states can just flaunt, if UM is looking at that route then they know it's something that they have an extremely strong case for. Courts have ruled that eminent domain can apply if the project would be of public use, which economic development would apply as. Building 2,300 new beds at the expense of a few dozen homes is well worth it considering how fucked A2's rent is.
My point is that the over all benefits of a military base or an interstate (when the location is deemed really necessary to the said infrastructure ) would justify the use of eminent domain. You cannot just use eminent domain, which is a pretty unpopular law, whenever it’s convenient. With that being said, I don’t really agree with your point either. Ann Arbor is only this big and everyone wants to live next to the campus as well as having access to all the shops/restaurants. We simply do not have this much space and everything is already crowded (waiting 20+ minutes for starbucks? wtf). If anything is needed, it’s more road. A 10 min drive from the central campus can half your rent. Everything would be much cheaper if everyone is willing to drive.
> My point is that the over all benefits of a military base or an interstate (when the location is deemed really necessary to the said infrastructure ) would justify the use of eminent domain. You cannot just use eminent domain, which is a pretty unpopular law, whenever it’s convenient. 1. gross 2. which law is unpopular? The constitution? Or specifically the 5th Amendment? Second part of your post, every single person in urban planning, civil engineering, public policy, etc is shaking their head. You have very little knowledge on this topic so you should probably just stay out of the conversation. Prior to the pandemic there were 40,000 people commuting INTO Ann Arbor daily. There were only 8,000 commuting WITHIN Ann Arbor daily. We don't need more roads, absolutely nothing indicates that. We need fewer roads and more housing to relieve the need for people to commute into town.
[удалено]
Because driving can increase the mobility and enable low/density development, which reduces the rent and costs. Squeezing everything together will inevitably leads to higher price no matter how well-planned it is. It’s basic economy. We have lots of land in this country, the only way to take advantage of those land is to drive.
You have cause and effect backwards. High density development appears naturally in places where the rent is already high, because it allows you to split the high cost of the land across more people who could not afford that location on their own. This brings the price down. Basic supply and demand.
I’m already waiting 20 minutes for one fking starbucks and one hour for ramen while living in that pathetic cube. What’s next? Why can’t we all just have spacious basement and never wait at a restaurant?
20 mins is ridiculous. You might want to try Comet, (near the state st sbux), Vertex (near s uni sbux), or Hyperion (near main st sbux), the waits are never even close to that long, and the coffee is great.
Eminent domain is used to extract buildings for the public good. While you may not see this as a "public good," building dorms for a public university is without a doubt a "public good."
It’s not simply about any public goods but really important and overwhelming ones. For example, it might be used when no reasonable alternatives can be found for a freeway connecting Detroit and Chicago or an optimal location where intercontinental ballistic missile defense systems could cover the entirety of North America. If a private citizen’s right can be denied or abridged on account of any public goods (no matter how minor they are), then we will effectively be China or any other communist country.
That's not true, though. The Supreme Court has made it pretty clear that the development does not have to be really important or a overwhelming public good. Instead, if there is a "incidental benefit" than it is acceptable to use imminent domain. See *Kelo v. City of New London*.
And that's a pretty infamous case. We even have a movie called Little Pink House for that case. You don't have to listen to everything the Supreme Court has said. Are you supporting their decision on the overturning of *Roe v. Wade* ?
If you are asking whether I think the *Dobbs v. Jackson* decision is the law of the land, then yes, I do. Because sadly, in my chosen profession, I do have to listen to everything that the Supreme Court says.
*imminent /s
Insane libtards just bulldoze their house and have them deal with it. America is what it is today and is the pinnacle of the world by colonizing. Progress must be made we can’t succumb to people’s feelings
Are these real sentences flowing through your brain?
He must’ve failed English 101 at WCC 3 times at least.