Land Use

We Had to Destroy the House in Order to Save Her


A California city forces an old woman out of her home, knocks it down, and then demands that she pay $20,000 to cover the cost of demolishing the house, storing her belongings, and putting her up in a hotel. "They are responsible for everything they did," she says, "and now they want to me to pay for it?" Did I mention that the house was dilapidated, with a roof that city officials said was threatening to fall in on the woman (but not on anyone else, unless they happened to be visiting her)? Does it matter? Discuss.

[Thanks to Dan Waylonis for the tip.]

NEXT: Climate Progressive Joe Romm Ducks Debate

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Poor old lady, what right does the city have to take her house away, California is much needed funds but this is just not right

  2. Obama Names 6 to Chair Death Panel…..eath-panel

  3. Of course she should have to pay for the costs of demolition!

    She should also have to pay for city employee’s healthcare, pension benefits and pay raises too!…..lobID=5065

    She should have to pay for everything everybody else in that city wants too! …now or in the future! What do you think people are for anyway?*

    *The correct answer is “To pay for city services.”

  4. Parasite!
    Not the old lady, the pols who own her.

  5. Three words.

    Adult Protective Services

    Because, when you’re an adult, you need protection.

    1. When you’re old you need special protection. Those doddering old fools can’t be trusted to take care of themselves.

      Let the old woman’s house disintegrate around her. None of the neighbors were complaining.

      1. Extreme Home Makeover ran out of money before the rebuild

    2. I watched that show Hoarders the other day and, they kept threatening to call adult protective services on the people. I thought it was a fakeout, guess not.

  6. Old people are going to die soon anyway. Who cares if the house falls down on her?

    But seriously, the right to live in as shitty and poorly kept a house as you want to should be fundamental. Fuck property values.

  7. Sex, Violence and Hate: the Top 10 Most Disgusting Attacks on Conservative Women
    As Women’s History Month begins, a look at how the media treated conservative women in 2009.…..80134.aspx

    1. Please, women no longer need or want Sir Galahad. You don’t even have to leave the Reason site to see attacks on women. Malkin, Coulter and the rest of them can dish out as good as they get.

    2. Kieth Olbermann is about as douchy as you can get, but when a dicktoucher says something funny I must give him credit. “Compares Michelle Malkin to an ‘mashed up bag of meat with lipstick on it'” is fucking funny.

      Also good to see that the cons are on the retard train to vicitmhoodville…woowoo. Waaah, they made meanies at me, shut the fuck up …next.

      1. “‘Compares Michelle Malkin to an ‘mashed up bag of meat with lipstick on it’ is fucking funny.”
        No, that is idiotic. Must be your upbringing…it’s sooo sad 🙁

        1. Aw, dang ol’ girl, you still smartin’ this morning? I’m so swowry.

          Now go get your fuckin’ search box.

          1. capitol l , “Now go get your fuckin’ search box.: Fun and games:-)

      2. No, it is not funny. Neither is making fun of Michelle Obama’s tail.

        1. Michelle Malkin has a tail?

          Is it forked? That would explain a lot of her scribbling.

          1. Do you see the irony in your remark?

    3. I find the first one pretty hillarious:

      “Cimbalo listed the physical attributes of each woman along with short explanations of why a self-respecting liberal male shouldn’t be attracted to them. A ‘hate-f— rating,’ presumably to tell others just how good the sex would be, accompanied each listing as well.”

      As if the average liberal beta-male would be able to dole out such a hate fucking.

    4. Who gives a shit?

  8. At one point [the old woman] asked to live in a trailer on the property, but city ordinances won’t allow for it

    Alrighty then.

  9. “Why didn’t they just leave me alone and let me deal with it?”

    Good question.

    I don’t suppose these city officials have ever heard of Habitat for Humanity.

  10. I’d hate to have to actually RTFA, but, normally, don’t they just lien the property on something like that?

    Still, it’s an ugly society we live in that treats people this way. It’s one of the most embarrassing aspects of American society–that the government spends so much money on our elderly, and yet the elderly are treated worse here in the United States than elsewhere despite that. …maybe because of that?

    I’m not saying the following is what happened in this case, but I don’t think this sort of thing happened as much back when people took care of their own parents and there weren’t any government programs to help pay to keep grandma in a warehouse somewhere.

    There’s an illusion there, somewhere, and it creates something of a moral hazard. I suspect if we were able to keep more of our earnings, rather than ship them off to SSA, etc., we’d do better making sure of our own retirements and taking care of our own parents. Really.

    In the meantime, how can anybody let a city council off the hook for treating an old lady this way? Every city council session in a city that size I’ve ever seen had a public comment period–people of Mountain View, go tell you city council what you think of what the city did. The city manager (if they have one), at the very least, should have to answer for this in public.

  11. You wouldn’t want a Bay Area chapter of Habitat for Humanity getting involved. Most are long on political correctness and short on getting things built. I’m really surprised that no local contractor stepped up to donate labor. The fatal defects in the woman’s house could have been cured for around $30K. Seems like a doable amount for neighbors concerned about her welfare. But why bother? Let governement deal with it.

  12. I can think a a few reasons why bulldozing someones house could be acceptable. Such as loads of trash and organic matter that are bringing in animals, insects, into the neoghborhood that ARE posing health and safety risks to neighbors/community.
    Assuming that isn’t the case, there is no reason to bulldoze her house…or make her pay for it.

  13. This happened in California? California? Really? They do shit like this in California?

    Didn’t see that one coming.

  14. My feeling is that the more intrusive the nanny state becomes the less likely people are to pitch in for things like this because of the… “Isn’t there some government program (that I’m already paying for with my taxes) for people like that?” attitude that develops this happens across the board with both statists and anti-statists

    jus sayin’

    1. Well, and there’s the fact that you often can not act on your own, natural, altruistic impulses without the government intervening and interfering. And example would be those people (somewhere) who took it upon themselves to cook meals and give them out to the homeless who were forced to stop because their kitchens were not licensed and inspected by government health inspectors.

  15. Even a small house (or the lot under it) in Mountain View, CA is likely worth more than a million dollars. If the woman can’t or won’t come up with the money to fix or maintain the place, it seems likely there are mental health issues.

    1. I’m not sure the city should be able to demo people’s houses just because they don’t want to go in debt against their home.

      How’s she gonna pay that loan back, anyway–is she supposed to get a job? Take in boarders?

      What if she doesn’t want to do either of those things?

      This weird idea that people with assets aren’t entitled to freedom or justice is really getting tiresome.

      1. @KenS – My point is that she has the resources, but may not be able make the decisions necessary to take care of herself. I have known people that this has happened to. It’s frequently part of the aging process.

        I’m not a big fan of government intervention, but there has to be some level at which someone has to step in. Ideally family or friends, but not everybody has that kind of support. We don’t know what was going on, but I draw some conclusions from the fact that the city was not able to reach any agreement with her after working with her for six months, and the level of problems seemed to be well past the point that someone would choose to live that way. (I’m also assuming bulldozing the house was an act of last resort because the house was beyond repair.)

        There’s also no statement from the woman saying she wants to live like this. That could well be lazy reporting. Certainly that would change my view of the situation.

        (I was also responding to some extent to the various suggestions that charities should come to her aid, in which case her having assets probably should count against her.)

    2. Where is this place where you “come up with” money? I notice there is small subclass of people who are always able to “come up with” money for whatever their needs and wants might be. I’m curious where the location of this place might be.

  16. If the woman can’t or won’t come up with the money to fix or maintain the place, it seems likely there are mental health issues.

    I’m gonna just go ahead and say it:

    Shut the fuck up, asshole.

  17. “Luxury”

    A house in that condition can remain habitable for some time. I’ve slept in a house in worse conditions two years now. Well, it was a few days at a time over the past two years and during deer season. Obviously we were drunk and high on illegal drugs while shooting our guns at each other, so maybe the house only seemed worse than that one. It definitely had no heat, electric, or water.

  18. Ken Shultz: yes, they say in the article it’s a lien on the property, which they are forcing to be put up for sale.

    1. yes, they say in the article it’s a lien on the property, which they are forcing to be put up for sale.

      Well, that’s alright then. As long as they forcing the sale of her property after demolishing her home, its all good.

  19. Obligatory Four Yorkshire Men youtube link:

  20. And who pays when the roof falls on her and she needs serious medical care? That’s right, the taxpayer.

    1. Teh Children!

    2. Well she would probably die, but it she did somehow survive, the taxpayers wouldn’t need to foot the medical bill. The article says she has a fixed income.


  21. Oh, what sad times are these when passing ruffians can say Ni at will to old ladies. There is a pestilence upon this land, nothing is sacred. Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress in this period in history.

  22. Libertarian councilman John Inks voted no on this.

  23. So building codes are also part of the Evil Big Government matrix? Tell it to the citizens of Port-au-Prince . . .

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.