The most well-known real estate holdout today is probably Edith Macefield, an woman in her 80's who refused to sell her modest home in Seattle's Ballard neighborhood to a real estate developer (turning down an offer of $1 million), so they just built the development around her:

 

 

 

However I recently came across the story of Vera Coking refusing to sell her house, which is even more bizarre. When Penthouse wanted to build a casino in Atlantic City in the 1970s, they tried to buy up a whole block, but Vera refused to sell (she was offered $1 million at the time, which is about $3.5 million in today's dollars). They decided to build the casino around her. After construction began in 1978, the project ran in to financial difficulties and was never finished. In the early 1990s, the site was acquired by the neighboring Trump Plaza casino and the rusting steel structure was finally demolished. Vera continued to live in the house until 2010 when she moved into a retirement home and the house was finally listed for sale. It was sold to billionaire Carl Icahn for $583,000 and demolished in 2014.

 

Google Street View never captured the front of the house, but you can see the back and side from adjacent streets.

 

The only remaining holdout in Cincinnati near the FC Cincinnati stadium is the owner of this irregularly-shaped corner lot:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.112738,-84.5225442,3a,75y,240.34h,97.99t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sFdPqUUnidIJFxgoRG8USuw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DFdPqUUnidIJFxgoRG8USuw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D110.731766%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

 

I have a bit of an anecdote surrounding this guy.  In early 2017 I sent letters to the owners of about 10 vacant lots in this area.  Never heard from the guy.  FFWD to December 2018 and I was closing on the sale of two nearby lots to some guys with money who were trying to do what I did but after the stadium had been announced.  I told them that I sent letters to everyone in the area years before and they asked me if I had contacted Mr. Tate.  I said yeah but didn't hear back from him.  The one guy then said out loud "we'll find him".  Well 14 months have now passed an Mr. Tate still hasn't sold. 

 

So what's interesting is that most holdouts are owner-occupants, but this guy simply owns an unremarkable vacant lot.  The current drawings for development on the block ignore his property.  So if they are built as currently planned and he eventually does sell...a single family house will likely be built there. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The biggest example in Greater Cincinnati is probably the homeowners that refused to sell for Rookwood Exchange, and Norwood attempting to take those properties via eminent domain. This battle was actually being discussed on page 1 of the Norwood: Development and News thread. Street View captured a few of the homes that were still standing around 2007, years after rest rest of the site was demolished. Construction of Rookwood Exchange finally began around 2012, giving us the glorious suburban development that is there today.

Here's a peculiar one in Chicago. Not sure what the story is for this one.

12 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

I did a research paper on this case for grad school and it set a precedent for eminent domain in Ohio. Turns out you cannot ED property for economic development! 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Norwood_v._Horney

This holdout just sold for $400,000:

 

This corner lot is the last holdout near the new FC Cincinnati stadium.  Large multi-purpose construction is planned to completely surround it:

 

^The above building was torn down this past weekend.

 

A very large apartment complex was just build around the Thirsty Beaver in Charlotte, NC.

 

 

Well this holdout just lost $100k+.  Should have sold at any time in the last 12 months, as the economy is now in free-fall.  It's unlikely that the structures planned for this site will break ground any time soon. 

 

On 3/22/2020 at 4:47 PM, jmecklenborg said:

Well this holdout just lost $100k+.  Should have sold at any time in the last 12 months, as the economy is now in free-fall.  It's unlikely that the structures planned for this site will break ground any time soon. 

 

Well that is what greed has gotten them, apparently.  And some of these "build around" pics are astonishing really.

Edited March 24, 20205 yr by Toddguy

36 minutes ago, Toddguy said:

Well that is what greed has gotten them, apparently.  And some of these "build around" pics are astonishing really.

 

It's an eccentric guy who has owned the lot for decades.  I talked to someone who knows him but I didn't get an explanation for why he is holding out.   Believe it or not but there used to be a very small gas station on this lot, similar to the tiny disused on McMicken near Mohawk Corner.   

Here is an update...the dude is still holding out:

 

Nearby, the owners of this cell phone tower also refused to sell:

 

 

Man, the building for the cell phone tower looks like it's from the '70s.

16 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

Man, the building for the cell phone tower looks like it's from the '70s.

 

Can't be that old? I saw one on the back of a truck being shipped out about 10 years ago.

A single-family home (now converted to apartments) surrounded by larger development in Champaign, IL.

After 40 years, Lloyd Tate sold his tiny corner lot this past February:

 

 

😂👍

 

 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cxkt8dnu3OM/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

 

 

On 1/5/2020 at 2:16 PM, taestell said:

The most well-known real estate holdout today is probably Edith Macefield, an woman in her 80's who refused to sell her modest home in Seattle's Ballard neighborhood to a real estate developer (turning down an offer of $1 million), so they just built the development around her:

 

 

 

 

 

Great thread!  I just looked at this house using google street view--1438 NW 46th St., Seattle.  The overall product with this little house in the middle looks pretty bad. No attempt to incorporate the little house in the design--maybe the plan is to knock it down and fill in the space with like materials once the owner passes (which she since has). But it doesn't look good. I respect private property rights and for one not to lose their house to rich developers (who, in this case, offered her $1M), and I guess in this case, it didn't stop or derail the project (though probably lost some sq footage to build around her), it did create an ugly result. Just curious---if this situation was in Cleveland--what would have happened to the home owner?  Would the house be taken by eminent domain and be handed to the developer? Or would the homeowner prevail and the project would either proceed like it did in Seattle or the developer would just walk away? I guess I'm asking, how much power does an individual homeowner have here in a case like this?

Edited September 27, 20231 yr by DinaB

3 hours ago, mrnyc said:

 

😂👍

 

 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cxkt8dnu3OM/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

 

 

 

 

just remembered i took a pic of this holdout bldg mess the other day when i was up there 200 east 75th st —  👍

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, DinaB said:

 

 

i dont think so because afaik eminent domain is supposed to be sought by the local gov only for public use. the seattle situation is a private development, as is the 200 e75st project i just posted about, so you get these odd holdout buildarounds sometimes. now if the mta wanted a new subway station or whatever then they could invoke it.

28 minutes ago, mrnyc said:

 

i dont think so because afaik eminent domain is supposed to be sought by the local gov only for public use. the seattle situation is a private development, as is the 200 e75st project i just posted about, so you get these odd holdout buildarounds sometimes. now if the mta wanted a new subway station or whatever then they could invoke it.

 

Kelo (USSC 2005) makes it legal in some case to use eminent domain to transfer property from one private entity to another.   However the current Court would likely overturn it so no one wants to challenge it.

@E RoccYeah, that was the situation I was thinking of---when gov't DID take property and hand it over to a private developer--not for government or utilities use. Just didn't remember the details. So I take it that approach hasn't been used since.

 

@mrnyc that example in NY is really crazy. Though it still doesn't look as bad as the thing in Seattle even if the NYC example is much much taller. Is there an issue with "air rights" in the NYC case? The owner of that building previously had the ability (and right) to go on his/her roof and enjoy the sky and the sun, etc. And it looks like he can still get onto the roof--but can no longer see or enjoy the sky. Did the owner sell some air rights?  If he didn't, then does that automatically prevent construction like this around and OVER his building? The Seattle example above did not take away the space above the property like this example does.  @YABO713 and @LlamaLawyer, as attorneys, feel free to weigh in here!

^ either the owner sold the air rights directly, or they were sold off and trading around long before and then this development bought them. 

 

1 hour ago, E Rocc said:

 

Kelo (USSC 2005) makes it legal in some case to use eminent domain to transfer property from one private entity to another.   However the current Court would likely overturn it so no one wants to challenge it.

 

meh. so the gist of kelo stated the city could take non blighted property for a development because that would allow greater public use. most states immediately addressed this and also congress made a rule to withhold money if its used, so its basically doa to try to use it.

 

although i agree kelo should be more directly resolved by congress.

 

turns out there are a guesstimated 50 eminent domain cases per million property parcels. note thats an undercount of actions though because you have to be given fair compensation, so most settle. i dk that there are any other attempts via outlier kelo post ruling. maybe, but i couldnt find any.

 

it doesnt matter though because the gov can still take your property via traditional eminent domain for private business regardless if they want to.

 

for example, here in nyc they did it to willets point queens iron triangle auto shops by declaring criminality and pollution. both are true lol, but still its not for the public good its for a development. what makes that better than the auto shops?

 

nys wants to do similar around penn station for a few non directly involved penn station redevelopment properties nearby by declaring blight. thats even more sketchy if they actually try to do it because nothing is truly blighted around there by any stretch.

 

the point being they always could do this when they want to with or without kelo. i would guess the bigger issue with it in the cle is via the city designating good bones decrepit historic properties as blights too quickly.

Another fascinating real estate holdout is the Villa De Flores apartment building in "Las Vegas" -- well, actually in unincorporated Clark County just south of Las Vegas, like the rest of the Las Vegas Strip.

 

In 1980, this building was part of a neighborhood of similarly-sized apartment buildings surrounded by undeveloped desert. A few small motels and resorts lined Las Vegas Blvd. to the east:

 

 

The lot to the south became the site of a $630 million mega-resort that started a wave of investment and new mega-resort construction. The Mirage opened in the fall of 1989:

 

 

By 1990, all of the surrounding apartment buildings had been demolished and turned into parking lots:

 

 

But the owners of The Mirage decided to build a new family-friendly, pirate-themed resort along the Strip replacing some of the surface lots. (Other surface lots were replaced by new parking garages for guest parking.) In the fall of 1993, Treasure Island opened:

 

 

By 1998, another new garage for Mirage & TI employees replaced the last remaining surface lot of the west on the apartment building (while another new mega-resort, The Venetian, was under construction on the other side of the Strip):

 

 

Villa de Flores is still operating as an apartment building today with some of the units apparently being rented out as AirBNBs.