Homeowners fined millions after buying properties used to grow illegal weed | Hacker News Reader

Homeowners fined millions after buying properties used to grow illegal weed

dailymail.co.uk

>The Thomases were told that if they didn't demolish the building within ten days, they would face fines of $12,000 per day. But they didn't have the $180,000 they were told it would cost to destroy the barn - and are now facing $1,080,000 in fines.

In what universe does it make sense to cost $180,000 to destroy a barn (it's not even that big, there's a picture of it in TFA). Actually, in what universe does it make sense for it to cost more than something like $5K.

So, someone buys property in good faith, and is then after that purchase, fined and ordered to destroy the property, and fined every day they don't, and your main worry is how much it may or may not cost to demolish it? Interesting perspective.

So, someone writes a comment on a particular aspect - about a price that strikes them as bizarrely high -, and your main takeway is to deduce that they're OK with other aspects of the story they didn't comment on? Interesting perspective.

Regarding the huge fine, I wasn't surprised by that, as I'm aware of such stupid laws and overbearing fines in the US and the hysteria over the "war on drugs" there. Same way I'm not surpsised by sob stories about men driven bankrupt over US divorce payouts or health costs.

But having to pay $180K to destroy a barn, that I didn't expect. And that's presumably a "free market" price for the demolition, not some (stupidly high, but familiarly so) fine.

I don't see how the demolition price has any relevance at all in determining the insanity of what's going on in this case, even if it was free, they're still without a building they purchased, and thus the situation is still insane.. Even if they were offered $2k on top of it being free, it's _STILL_ insane, because it's property they bought in good faith and any circumstance where they have paid for something and then being ordered to demolish it, is insane.

And frankly, putting the focus on the price they quote makes your comment read more like "Oh, it's not actually that insane, they can get out of it cheaper". No.. It's still insane.

>because it's property they bought in good faith and any circumstance where they have paid for something and then being ordered to demolish it, is insane.

That part is actually very reasonable: the buyer having "good faith" means nothing if what you bought was illegally acquired from the seller, or had illegal constructs, or was built without a license, and in many other cases...

You can very easily buy something, and then be ordered to demolish it or part of it, or pay extra to the state to get proper licenses you didn't know it lacked, and many other things besides. It can even be taken away from you in its entirety.

So, yes, you can trivially buy something in good faith, and still have it confiscated / be orderer to pay to repair it / or whatever.

Not that different to buying a bridge in Brookly "in good faith". Despite your good faith purchase, it wont really be yours, and you'll have to get your money back from the seller, and that's if they catch him or even find him. And if he spent them and has no personal wealth, you wont get anything back, even if the court orders him to pay you.

Buyers beware, as they say.

It's relevant because they claim that's the reason they didn't do it.

Surely there's a more credible source you can find for this

maybe this is better: https://casetext.com/case/thomas-v-cnty-of-humboldt

Reply on news.ycombinator.com