Condemn?
Usually if a property owner of idle land won't accept the outrageous offer, condemnation begins so that they can take the land away. Be warned.
It seems that there is something that Google can't buy, beg or steal: a small piece of land right in the heart of its Silicon Valley campus. Like real-life versions of Up's Carl Fredricksen, the Martinelli family refuse to sell their one-acre lot even though the tech giant has offered $7m for it in order to expand its …
It doesn't usually matter though I'm more familiar with the Government doing that.
And if condemnation doesn't work, Google can always have the local government declare eminent domain and seize the property that way.
Personally, I'd hook up with some shady chemical company and dump a fuckload of dioxins, PCBs, and radioactive materials and other fun things on the property, then take Google's money and run. See how much they like having a worthless superfund site in their name.
Given the surroundings, the value of the property could be re-assessed to an amount which would make paying property taxes damn near impossible. Of course, thanks to Kelo we could just watch the news for the inevitable eminent domain claim.
(0-dark-thirty cannot sleep, post knee-jerk reaction, continue to read and find others with same thoughts, commence sleep-deprived paranoia.)
Yep, interesting how a combination of liberal and conservative governments over the years has resulted in laws that actually protect the little guy from the corporate behemoth. The liberals gave them laws protecting against Google claiming "if you don't condemn this property by eminent domain so you can sell it to us, we can't create more jobs and boost the local economy" and conservatives gave them Prop 13 to restrict the government's ability to raise property taxes except when there's a transfer of ownership. In most places they'd be screwed, and Google would get their way.
That is actually how politics should work. In fact, it is pretty much the evident intent of the authors of the constitution and the Bill of Rights, who were all major students of Locke, Voltaire, and Hume. The basic goals were 1) get religion out the governing business - all they do is fight, 2) protect the individual's right to live his life he sees fit, 3) protect property. That last came adrift in the late 19th C when the Supremes at the time were bribed to find corporations to have at least some of the same legal standing as actual human beings. Since then the SC has leaned on the precedent to support corporate entities right up to the point where they now have protection of free speech and can practically vote, which may be in the pipe line under Trump.
The property can only be re-assessed when the the ownership changes. So, as long as the owners remain alive and do not change the way the title reads, the property taxes stay what they are. Since the family has owned that land since the 1940s, the taxes are probably the very same as they were when Prop 13 passed. In fact, depending on details ownership, the taxes could remain the same for their heirs. We experienced that with 20 acres in Central California when my father passed away. The taxes did not change until one of my sisters had her name taken off the title. Even then there is a limit to how much the taxes can increase.
Oh, I'd buy 700 million penny chews, and die of hyperglycaemia shortly thereafter whilst indulging my inner 6-year-old.
Or for the lulz, donate it jointly to the KKK and the NAACP, with the stipulation that: they only get it if they unite in a spirit of harmony & brotherly love.
What a silly question. A better one would be, "what wouldn't I do with $7m".
Or for the lulz, donate it jointly to the KKK and the NAACP, with the stipulation that: they only get it if they unite in a spirit of harmony & brotherly love.
It's bad form to respond to my own comment, I know, but I am kicking myself for not adding:
"... to release a Christmas single, perhaps a cover version of 'Ebony and Ivory'"
What a lovely mental image that is!
"you're not going to get anywhere *close* to living the rest of your life off half a million dollars"
Oh, you're so funny. I not only could, but actually will, off a HALF of that. And I'm not that old - barely past the answer to everything. But most likely, I'll only actually get to spend HALF of HALF of that - I'm not expecting to make it anywhere near the octogenarian crowd.
Precisely. And I don't understand the down vote.
Everyone has price. A thing is (only) worth what someone else will pay for it. They know what they've got, and they know Google can afford to pay a lot more, thus making it worth a lot more than $7M. It it were mine, I'd hold out for a hell of a lot more than a measly $7M.
People like Trump do think "everyone has a price," but here in the US and apparently in Scotland and Mexico, sometimes the price is "go away and die," not a higher bid. All those big megacorps have made life incredibly difficult in the Bay Area for the majority of the people who live there. Among other processes they forced families to make a choice between lowered living standards and a long, literally life-endangering commute, and a concomiitent degradation of quality of life in the regions where the commuters relocated to: stupidly higher prices, urban thinking (it is commonplace to think of of city dwellers as regarding rural people as hicks), Walmarts and Home Depots.
Those same city folk ("slickers") are often surprised when they discover that country folk don't look up to them and will stand and watch them wade through poison oak after, they ignore a polite, but laconic warning about the plant. There's some satisfaction in telling a "slicker" who demands, "why didn't you warn me?" while heavily slathered in calomine, that you did, and were told to eff off.
Why the down vote?
I know a fair few people who could earn far more than they do, but they choose quality over life over money. I even know a couple that gave up a lot of money as they thought it ruined their life, they knew they could have almost anything, so nothing was worth doing.
Not everyone's aim in life is to buy shiny.
Just because you hold out for fair market value doesn't mean you're going to spend it all on shiny stuff. Médecins Sans Frontières, e.g., takes cash. As do plenty of other worthy causes.
But there's no reason to be stupid about it. Do you think Google will be equally stupid about it and donate to MsF in lieu of the bargain you want the Martinelli's to give them?
"Many stories are told of Zaphod Beeblebrox’s journey to the Frogstar. Ten percent of them are ninety-five percent true, fourteen percent of them are sixty-five percent true, thirty-five percent of them are only five percent true, and all the rest of them are… told by Zaphod Beeblebrox. Only one wholly accurate account exists - and that is locked in a trunk in the attic of Zaphod’s favourite mother, Mrs. Alice Beeblebrox, of 108 Astral Cresent, Zoofroozelchester, Betelgeuse Five. Though countless people have tried cajolery, bribery, or threats to get hold of it, she has carefully guarded it from all eyes for many years. Waiting for what she calls… the right price."
Despite what you think, some people really don't need the money and they find more value in things other than money.
Plus, if it's the same family Martinelli's that has the apple juice empire, then they really don't need the money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martinelli's
While I can think of a lot of things I would do with 7 million there are also some things that I wouldn't sell for anything.
Glad to hear there are others who don't value money above everything else.
Sadly those who do value money will do whatever it takes to get it from those who have it. I wouldn't be surprised if some new city regulation or ordinance gets passed that will either force the land to be sold, or simply seized, shortly after some "contributions" to the local city government.
Almost kind of like what the Air Force is doing to the people who own Groom Mine, which faces Area 51 with an unobstructed view, so much so that the schedule at the facility was determined by whether or not the family was there as they used it as a vacation property.
Tyler Rogoway has done a couple of stories on them, including a follow up a couple of days ago. You can check it out here
Once the land surrounding that lot is occupied by any construction whatsoever, the site loses all charm, becomes locked forever to a very different 'horizon' and view, and will be nowhere near as bucolic as it once was. Location and what's at that location are, obviously, seperable; Google can afford to move the entire lot, including the soil, using the most extravagant heavy lifter available, to some other nice location 'nearby'. Google--which is in a position to splash billions just to hear the sound it makes on contact--is being excessively tight-fisted. And thick.
"The Martinellis no longer live there but they did as kids when their father bought the land back in the 1940s..."
So the second generation of the family are either in their seventh decade or dead, and -given the size of families in that era and in the seventies- there are probably a few dozen owners/inheritors nowadays and therefore each of them will receive a pittance.
In my opinion, it makes sense for them to either keep the property or wait till Google rises the offer to, say 70 or 100 millions. The part about sticking it to Google is an added bonus! :-D
... you'll understand the Martinelli mindset.
Old Silly Con Valley family, good folks. More power to 'em. Makes me wish I hadn't sold out when I did.
By way of reference, the first house I bought was in Palo Alto's Johnson Park neighborhood (North of University Avenue, West of Middlefield Road and South of San Francisquito Creek). Purchased for an exorbitant $US140,000 in 1980. Sold for an astonishing $US1,500,000 in 1995. It sold about a year ago for 3 million (asking price was $2,750,000). It's on the market now for $3,850,000. (Seriously? A .25 lot, three bed, single bath, attached single car garage, bungalow? Really? WTF!)
"Like real-life versions of Up's Carl Fredricksen,... "
Or Batteries Not Included, Joe's Apartment, and probably another dozend. Nice to watch anyway.
@jake: some say it's just a market economy thing.
A quick check on streetview would suggest there are at least two different properties on that area of land. One outbuilding certainly looks like it would fall down of its own accord.
<Conspiracy> Oddly it's quite difficult to get a decent look at the houses themselves, are there appears to be a couple of busses on the road with the express purpose of preventing a good luck. Reminded me of The Truman Show in a way </Conspiracy>
Quakes? What are these "quakes" you mention that'll make the property disappear?
Try to remember, the first thing the gootards will do after purchase is send in the dozers ... which will cause a LOT more damage than any earthquake at the San Andreas/Hayward fault system is capable of producing.
But what is the going rate for 1 acre of prime real estate in California?
The land price figures quoted in the article I'm certain is not for prime real estate.
We happen to live in a house in the UK which has large (not massive) gardens of about 0.15 acres. A developer has offered us nearly $1M dollars which equates to $6.67M an acre. It is less than a 20% premium on the house value. So $7m sounds like little, if any premium over normal develop-able land value.
http://boppin.com/delmar.html
Guy made money in Vancouver, set up house as low income tenant hotel. Big utility compmay wants land. Guy says he wants to give back to community. Still going on, decades later.
Personally, it'd make more sense to sell and redo the same charity elsewhere, but I can see the principle behind his thinking.
Just up the road from my place in Sydney we had a 5 acre block sell for $45million (when the Aussie dollar was at about parity with the US dollar). My quarter acre block is valued at over $1million and my neighbour wants to buy it to add to his half acre. If I hold out I can probably get nearly $2million. Land prices in in Sydney are over the top. Basic residential blocks (about 1/10 acre) are over $600K.