City government condemning structures.

A condemned building has no value - in fact, there could be is a liability having the structure there, plus there will be costs to clearing and disposing the building.

Are you suspecting that the government deliberatly and unlawfully condemed a building, in order to put the proprty on the market?

Would it be a conflict of interest for a city government to condemn the structure and then buy the property for the value of the land alone?

I'm uncomfortable with the concept. Is the structure clearly worthy of condemnation?

There was a house across the street that apparently was infested with termites. My neighbor told me that the city condemned it then bought the property and uses it for landfill.

It just doesn't seem proper, if just for appearance sake, that a city would condemn a property and then buy it.
It seems that they could open themselves up to all kinds of legal ramifications, especially lawsuits.

It would be hard to consider the city to be an uninterested party.

You never heard of eminent domain? It's legal if it's done via the appropriate channels.

Not if they're keeping the property from private developers because of some kind of remaining hazard(s) that would endanger future occupiers of said new structure/building.

Some skeezy building management might find it simple to leave off the land lot's sketchy history and still charge market rate for profit's sake if they can buy the available land and construct unimpeded on it as well.

Not sure where you pulling this legalese nonsense out of... unless you have some kind of insider information that may hint or directly expose those members of the city admin who are doing this for personal profit.

There was no eminent domain involved. It is now simply an empty lot in a residential neighborhood. The city uses it to store dirt, fill material, which shouldn't be in a residential neighborhood anyway because of the dust problems during a drought.

There was no remaining hazard. It was simply a case of termite infestation, something not rare in Texas. I haven't been in the house, but it looked structurally sound from the outside. Last year a new roof was put on. The old lady who owned it was in a rest home, and her children took control of it, and apparently just wanted to get shed of it anyway.

But the point is it looks kind of sleazy for a city to be doing this, and possibly marginally illegal.

Same principal. If they have the right to seize by eminent domain (used when the property owner refuses to sell)? They also have the right to buy land ... especially if the seller is willing to sell. Time and time again, municipal/city/state governments can buy land and property to do what they see fit. The Supreme Court has validated these practices several times.


You're pulling this nonsense out your ass. CITE YOUR SOURCES already.

I'm not saying the city doesn't have the right to buy land, it does. I'm saying that it just doesn't look good to condemn a property, which drastically reduces the value, and then buy it.

And I'm asking questions, not making statements. There's no reason for you to get defensive.

Doesn't look good isn't the same as being an illegal act. As expected, I believe you're reading TOO much into my posts. I am not a fan of eminent domain (and municipal govs, etc... taking/buying property usually at lower rates than the landowner deserves... because the city has leverage). I'm just saying ... they can do legally it (regardless of the moral or ethical implications).

If an act isn't legal than that party doesn't have a right to act it out. Acts they shouldn't do isn't the same as acts they aren't legally allowed to do. That's not semantics. That's just legal everyday life.

And I'm sure there is no such thing as marginally illegal. Either its legal or illegal. Not sure if there is some kind of judicial middle ground.

I think marginally unethical might be a better term.

Then we are definitely in agreement. Your city gov. is filled with crusty, chewy, nougaty bastards.