Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by vkou 3060 days ago
What's really shocking is that the tax bill for a private street in one of the hottest property markets in the world is $14/year.
3 comments

It might be that being a private street, the residents are responsible for maintaining it. Like paving the road, sidewalks, sewer repair. Those things can be a substantial expense for an individual.
When I own a private house, I'm responsible for maintaining it. The government's not going to fix my roof when it leaks.

My tax bill, however, is still a bit higher then $14/year, for acres of land in the middle of a land-strapped metro area.

I'm sure the situation is the same for these people.
My house doesn't scarf up acres of land in the middle of a city, for $14/year.

This is a colossal subsidy.

I believe the $14/year property tax is for the private street, not the individual lots which go at a different rate.
Proposition 13 does indeed suck.
What's really shocking is that a "private street" is a thing.
I mean, if you own land, and a street is on it. It's private, yes?
A private street is not necessarily something glamorous. I live in a small townhouse community and our HOA owns a small street.

Why I say it's not glamorous is because we have to come up with ~$100,000 in the next 10-15 years to do major pavement replacement (not resurfacing or sealcoating), because this street is not maintained by the county. For a small townhouse community that has not been properly saving for major capital expenses like this, this is not fun.

Yes. I'm not objecting to the concept of putting asphalt on land you own.

What I find weird is the concept of "the only access to your own home is someone else's private street".

I think it was owned by something similar to a HOA. Because the HOA didn't pay a minuscule property tax bill, the private street went up for auction, and a private citizen purchased it. That private citizen now has the ability to charge the residents for use of the street, including the right to park in front of houses.
No. In most places I have lived in the USA, streets are not only public property but they regulate what can be placed within so many feet of the side of the road. So basically, they restrict your land use next to a road, even if you own the property. This is so they can add a sidewalk or expand the road at some point in the future.
Yes, most streets are public and maintained by local government. But anyone who owns sufficient land can build a private street on it. A piece of land doesn't magically become public just because you lay down some asphalt and start driving on it.
OP seemed to be asserting that owning a house implied owning the road in front of it.
So what you're saying is that most places where you lived had privately owned sidewalks.

What's so surprising about private roads, then?

Nothing. My only point was most roads are public.

I was referring to public side walks on the right of way not private ones.

If people have to live space on their private land for sidewalks, then when the city does build the sidewalks they are building privately-owned sidewalks.
Is it that shocking that people may own real estate sold by the state?