501
submitted 6 months ago by Brkdncr@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Pika@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I'm not purchasing victim blame I'm stating that they've acknowledged they fucked up they've tried to fix it she has not stated she wants it bulldozed nor has she accepted any of the Alternatives that they did.

Being as she was informed of this mistake last year, she has had ample time to either propose a solution on her end or accept a solution on their end she has done neither. Which is why I led to my conclusion that she's trying to get a $500,000 house for no cost

They have sued her because she's not being cooperative in any form, and then when she remained being non-cooperative they sued everyone else involved to make it so the legal system decides if she's being unreasonable or not

[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago

Being as she was informed of this mistake last year, she has had ample time to either propose a solution on her end or accept a solution on their end she has done neither.

You do understand that she has no obligation to do so, right?

Could you literally respond to that question in a yes or no manner.

[-] Pika@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago
[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Being as she was informed of this mistake last year, she has had ample time to either propose a solution on her end or accept a solution on their end she has done neither.

You do understand that she has no obligation to do so, right?

Could you literally respond to that question in a yes or no manner.

yes.

Thank you for responding, specifically and concisely.

Your 'purchase victim blaming' because you keep putting (per your comments to various people in this thread) the onus on her to resolve the situation, when she has no obligation to do so, and when it's the seller/developer that has the onus.

The effort should be on them, and it should be whole and complete, and not substandard/lesser.

[-] Pika@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Sorry, I know I'm not amazing at explaining things.

I'll try rephrasing as a question. What should the company at this point of time do?

The company incorrectly built a house on the wrong property plot, they realize their mistake far too late in the process due to someone's negilance along the process whether it's the development company or the construction company maybe even both.

They have reached out to the person whose life they fucked up basically because they now have more in taxes and also now have to deal with squatters and vandalism on the house that they have stated they don't want.

The landowner has refused to talk it out with the company at all regarding any type of suggestions it's just been a straight no to any proposal(which as stated multiple times already they were not obligated to do I understand this) while also not bringing anything new to the table including anything to do with restoration or bulldozing(again not obligated)

Aside from bringing into the legal system what can that company do?

I said before I think the right thing to do is completely bulldoze the lot to allow for the landowner to build what they want on it, but I find it very very weird that this is not been proposed by the party that would be most likely beneficial from this transaction

[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Sorry, I know I’m not amazing at explaining things.

Honestly, to me you're crystal clear, its just people, including myself, are pushing back for the reasons I've stated before, and again below.

but I find it very very weird that this is not been proposed by the party that would be most likely beneficial from this transaction

You just did it again. You are purchase victim blaming.

Its not her job to propose anything, its the company/developers. She doesn't have to propose/negotiate ANYTHING, they have to offer a recompense that she is satisified with and makes her whole. The onus is on the company.

[-] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 4 points 6 months ago

They have reached out to the person whose life they fucked up basically because they now have more in taxes and also now have to deal with squatters and vandalism on the house that they have stated they don’t want.

They in fact did not reach out at all. The property owner found out from the realtor who sold the house and not even in a we fucked up way. From the article above:

She was unaware of the construction until she got a call last year from a real estate broker who had learned of the mistake.

“He told me, ‘I just sold the house, and it happens to be on your property. So, we need to resolve this,’”

[-] Pika@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I am under the understanding that they were not even aware of the issue until that point, but I could be wrong there.

[-] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 4 points 6 months ago

That would be negligence if true then. The point still stands that the developer was not the one to make contact, it was the realtor (who would be working for their and the developer's benefit) who reached out and tried to put the onus on her from the get go.

[-] Apollo42@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

You are fine atgetting across your view, the issue people are having is that your views are really fucking stupid.

[-] bitchkat@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

I’ll try rephrasing as a question. What should the company at this point of time do?

If she wants the house removed and her land restored, then that is what the company should do.

[-] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 10 points 6 months ago

she remained being non-cooperative

No shit, and she has zero obligation or responsibility to. Keep in mind one of the "alternatives" was that she bought the house they illegally built on her land for a discount....

[-] ysjet@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago

Yeah, this is just straight up a scam, she has no obligation to buy their fucking illegal scam house. House belongs to her, in my opinion, if she wants it, and if she doesn't, it's on company dime to bulldoze the entire thing, clean the lot, reseed it, and pay back the tax burden they forced.

[-] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 5 points 6 months ago

Don't forget the possibility of treble damages. I am honestly shocked that anyone can look at this and side with the developer.

[-] Pika@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago

So then if they are being unreasonable her suggestion should be that they pay for the bulldoze correct? unless I missed it somewhere I have not seen it posted she suggested this at all.

[-] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 9 points 6 months ago

Once again, she is under no obligation to suggest anything. The developers here did not make an oopsie this is full blown criminal and they are lucky that the law does not treat companies the same as individuals. If you or I did anything like this (trespassing, conversion, destruction of property, extortion, fraud etc.) we would not be free to carry on.

[-] Pika@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

like stated prior, while she is under no obligation to suggest anything, the fact that she did not at all indicates her intention

[-] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 5 points 6 months ago

And her intention has nothing to do with anything in this case, no ones intentions here do. This is sadly not a criminal matter (it should have been) so other then modifying damages intent has no real bearing here.

[-] SRo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 6 months ago

What I don't get is what's with you suggesting that her wanting the house for herself is a somewhat morally wrong thing. It's her house. Idiots build it on her land; tough luck shitheads, it's hers now.

this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2024
501 points (100.0% liked)

News

23190 readers
2559 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS