Stan Kroenke tells hundreds of fixed income residents in Texas to get off his newly-bought land

[modem77]

http://www.dallasnews.com/business/commercial-real-estate/headlines/20160811-la-rams-owner-stan-kroenke-tells-longtime-waggoner-ranch-residents-to-get-off-his-trophy-land.ece


Los Angeles Rams owner and billionaire Stan Kroenke is making people move again.

This time, hundreds of Texas residents will have to leave their homes around Lake Diversion on the historic Waggoner Ranch near Wichita Falls.

Last week, residents received eviction letters that their current leases will not be renewed and they have until Jan. 31, 2017 to leave their homes. According to the Wichita Falls Times Record News, the letter stated that the new owner and management, including Kroenke, has decided to change the land use and return the lake to its natural landscape.

Lake Diversion sits on 535,000 acres of ranch land that Kroenke bought back in February. Terms of the sale were not disclosed but the property was listed for $725 million. Prior to his purchase, the Waggoner family had offered leases for property on the lake's northern end after establishing the ranch 164 years ago.

According to the Times Record News, Kroenke issued a statement that he was" deeply committed to continuing the proud legacy of W.T. "Tom" Waggoner, his family and his descendants" after he purchased the property.

Now, residents have to figure out where they will go. Most residents are either elderly or have fixed incomes. They can move buildings at their own expense, but those that are left behind will be moved and disposed.

[SusanCalvin]

1. Disgusting. nt

[Ilsa]

2. It's Texas. These people will get no help or relief.

Texas doesn't believe in helping the elderly. The nursing homes here are some of the worst in the nation.

Texas lets families squirm on their own in taking care of disabled children unless they are so poor, they can place the child on Medicaid.

See a pattern here?

[Paladin]

15. Oh, yeah. I see a very familiar pattern.

A hyper-wealthy guy from California is throwing a bunch of limited-income Texans out of their homes---and you're using those circumstances as an opportunity to trash Texas. Very familiar pattern, to those of us at DU who call Texas home......

[Ilsa]

17. Born, raised, worked, home, such as it is. NT

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

53. hahahaha

The irony will be lost on many of the Texas bashers.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

54. Yeah, those Californians are such good guys

He's an example for all of us Texans to follow!

[snooper2]

67. Damn, as Miley Cyrus would say- Sweet Burn

[Glamrock]

3. Why?

Now, please don't ask why; no one quite knows the reason. It could be, perhaps, that his shoes were too tight. Or it could be that his head wasn't screwed on just right. But I think that the most likely reason of all... may have been that his heart was two sizes too small.
-Dr. Suess

Because he's a fucking asshole.
-Glamrock

[underahedgerow]

59. Well, the bundy bunch wants to do the same thing; graze their herds and animals for free

on government land. So why should these people graze their animals for free on someone else's private land?

It's not about the PEOPLE on the land, it's about their destructive animals on this person's land. I do love how the media is already bending the intent of this guy's endeavor. He's returning HIS land to the natural state. Yet he's the bad guy for not allowing people to exploit and destroy his private property, because yanno, he's rich, and therefore, he should let them do that.

[Glamrock]

61. Listen man

in my books, if you buy property that is leased to elderly people and kick them out so you can have a better view of the lake than yes, you're a fucking asshole. I give a shit how much money you have or don't. Although, I may be a little too harsh. He did offer to pick up the cost of house disposal for those who can't afford to move them. What a guy.

[linuxman]

4. It's his land, like it or not.

You'd have to be an absolute moron of the highest order to build on leased land, then expect everything will remain fine from then on.

This isn't the middle ages where the land comes with the people living on it and it's a package deal. You buy the land, it's yours.

The folks living there should have explored the option to buy their parcel years ago, or failing that, should have at least looked elsewhere.

[kcr]

5. I know, right? It's so moronic to not be able to afford to own land.

Such stupidity. They can only blame themselves for this predicament. Stop being so poor, morons! If only everyone could be intelligent and rich.

[linuxman]

8. No, it's moronic to sink your life saving into building a house on land you don't own.

If you're putting a house on leased land, you'd be absolutely stupid to not make it one with attached wheels. When your living arrangements depend on the whims of other people this is the sort of thing you can expect to happen.

When building a sandcastle do you put it on the waterline while the tide is coming in, then complain about how unfair the moon is being?

[kcr]

10. Oh, are they just like kids crying because their sandcastle got washed away?

See, that's the problem with using dumb analogies that don't even make sense.

People living on land they don't own is about as common as dirt (See what I did there?) They aren't stupid. It's called needing a place to live. See, if I were rich and had a hankerin' for buying some land, seems to me it wouldn't be too hard to find some that didn't have people already living on it and I didn't need to go out of my way to find some that required displacing people. Edit: Especially if I didn't plan to do anything with it! Just finished reading the article. Seriously, what a piece of shit! It's probably not that hard to do. I realize that this is a scenario that happens all the time. It doesn't mean I'm not going to call out the assholes who do it. At the very least, I'm not going to call it stupid to need a place to live.

[linuxman]

11. I'm sorry you don't understand the analogy.

But it's essentially the same thing. Nature and the tides own the beach, and someone who isn't you owns that property in Texas. Assuming the forces that own the two will alter their behavior to suit you and your structure/hopes and dreams is the height of arrogance and stupidity.

Nobody is saying that people don't commonly live on land they don't own. I mean, no shit, right? The difference is, most people aren't so utterly dense that they build permanent structures on the land they live on solely by the permission of the owner, then assume that because they dumped all their money into a house which can't be moved that they're somehow immune from ever having their living situation change. My wife and I rent an apartment. If the developer decides to bulldoze to put in a shopping mall, I don't have a claim on the apartment just because I planted some rose bushes and repainted the spare bedroom. It was never mine, and I entered into the arrangement knowing that.

Nobody ever called needing a place to live stupid. It looks like you're the only person saying that, so you'll have a point to refute that nobody is even trying to make.

[kcr]

16. Living on land you don't own is the same as building a sand castle... Okay then.

This right here. The discussion between you and me explains so much. It's really eye opening about the attitudes toward those who can't afford to own. It's sad.

And holy crap reading other replies in this thread is why I will never become a landlord if this is what it does to your soul. Wow.

[linuxman]

23. That's why it's called an analogy.

http://literarydevices.net/analogy/

What makes you think I'm a landlord? I rent. I'm just not under some delusion that I can build a house behind my apartment and feel I have some special claim on the land.

[kcr]

27. I don't think these people felt they had any special claim on the land.

I don't think they were delusional, either. I just don't get what is so stupid about them. How is it any different from any other landlord/tenant situation? Are you stupid for believing that your landlord won't screw you over any chance they get? Didn't get your deposit back? You're a dummy for trusting your landlord! That's their building! Buy your own house, dipshit! I'm honestly not understanding the judgement of these people. They didn't do anything wrong.

[Straw Man]

41. They built houses on it.

How is it any different from any other landlord/tenant situation?

Because in most landlord/tenant situations, the tenant owns nothing and can merely walk away and look for other housing. These are people who built houses on land they didn't own. When the land leases weren't renewed, their houses became worthless. It's not a simple case of having to move; they have also lost a major financial asset.

I would place the blame on the development deal that created this situation in the first place. What was the term of these leases?

[kcr]

42. We're not talking about a game of plant the flag, here.

You do know what a landlord is, right? And these people were landlords on steroids. This was a huge tract of land this family owned. It spanned five counties. They basically owned their own little state.

[Straw Man]

45. What are you talking about?

We're not talking about a game of plant the flag, here.

You do know what a landlord is, right? And these people were landlords on steroids. This was a huge tract of land this family owned. It spanned five counties. They basically owned their own little state.

The size of the landlord's holdings is absolutely irrelevant to each lessee's status. Certainly you have to know whether or not you own the land your house is built on. If you don't, then you are in a very precarious position.

If there is any legal recourse, it would be in attacking the terms of these leases.

[philosslayer]

55. Would you put a new set of tires on a rental car?

[alphafemale]

14. I feel terrible for them but agree.

Building on leased land is a terrible idea.

Buying a parcel of land means you will own it.

Or at least you will eventually own it.

Leasing land and then investing your future in it.

I can imagine the crushing grief and dread those people are feeling though.

He is an asshole to do this when he could probably compensate them for their losses easily.

[kcr]

18. This was not a typical situation, though.

I don't agree that these people should be judged so harshly. It's not as if this was a hasty arrangement slapped together in recent years by total strangers. This would be akin to your parents giving you the family home, letting you move in all cozey-like, and then snatching it out from under you with 30 days warning and leaving you out on the streets. You wouldn't expect that, would you? And who would call you an idiot for moving in and expecting that to be your home? No one. Now, I'm NOT saying the two situations are identical. Just saying whether to judge them as idiots.

And this guy isn't even going to do anything with it. He's not developing it or building his own house or anything.

[alphafemale]

20. It was leased land. A lease has no real guarantee.

If you were "given" the home in some arrangement there would be legal papers drawn up that it was your property.

And that could be attested. But still you have a legal status.

I feel terrible for these people as they were not educated.

But you have zero security if you build a house on leased land.

[kcr]

21. I understand what a lease is. Really. I do.

Totally get it, I can assure you.

This ranch spans 5 counties. Was owned by the same family about as long as Texas has been a state. I think Rhode Island is barely larger than this place. So that's what I mean when I say this isn't the typical landlord/tenant situation. This is almost like, if some little country decided it didn't want to be a country somewhere, and told everyone on it to get off and go live somewhere else. So, not typical stoopid dumb dumb poor renters, okay?

[linuxman]

25. So screw the owner's property rights because it's a big parcel, I suppose.

How much land/stuff can I own before you step in to defend other people taking it for their selves while I pay the taxes on it? Where do you draw the line? If you can justify why someone with more than you has less right to their property, then you have no reasonable claim for why someone with less than you isn't entitled to your property as well.

They knew they were on leased land. They built anyway. They played a stupid game and won their stupid prize.

[kcr]

26. No

You can do with your property whatever you want to. It's not about you. You are not in danger of being called stupid. This is about people who lived on land owned by the same people for over a hundred years being called stupid for losing their homes.

[linuxman]

28. I'm not calling them stupid for losing their homes,

I'm calling their decision to put in fixed structures on land they didn't own stupid. Actually, scratch that. If they knew the risk (anyone who leases does) but built with the understanding that this might happen one day anyway and prepared for it, then it's not so much stupid as a bad use of resources, I suppose. The thing about building on property owned by someone else is that the guy who owns it may not be around forever, and the new owner might not be so sympathetic to your situation. That just happened.

[kcr]

29. So, they were supposed to assume it would happen one day

Even though this land had been owned by the same family for as long as Texas has been a state? See, I would call that a pretty damn safe bet! Safer than most we take these days. I'd call that pretty smart, actually.

[linuxman]

33. Precedent and history are fine factors in decision making.

That said, doing something like sinking your life savings into building a home on land that MIGHT (it eventually did) go away is foolish in the extreme. I've been alive my whole life. Every day I wake up, draw breath, go to bed, then do it all again the next day. I've never known any other outcome to my day-to-day life. I still have a will, though. Just because something has been a certain way for many years is no reason to bank on it being that way forever, especially if it remaining the same depends on the actions of other people (the owner's family keeping the land, or someone not hitting me with a car tomorrow afternoon)

[kcr]

34. So, are they factors in decision making, or aren't they?

By your logic then, it's foolish to by a home anywhere in the United States because of eminent domain. Yeppers, if the goverment wants to use your land for pretty much any reason, you are SOL and away you go, and they decide how much they pay you. So, quite a foolish decision by linuxman's standards.

[linuxman]

35. Eminent domain stipulates that you're compensated with fair market value for the land & structures

Tell me, how much are the people living in those houses being paid for their trouble?

[kcr]

36. That's fine if the market is at the same rate it was when you bought

But what if it isn't? There's a chance it won't be. What if you still owe more than it's worth? And that doesn't change the fact you're still losing your home. People attach value to that. Particularly if it's a home they raised their kids in, or it's a home they grew up in. It's a shitty thing to have your home taken away from you.

I think the notion that these people made a risky choice in those living arrangements beyond laughable and shows a particular bias that's unfortunately all too common.

[linuxman]

37. What if I had wheels? I'd be a wagon.

There is a risk in everything we do in life. We hedge our bets and make smart choices to counter the uncertainties. Building a house on leased land is pretty much the opposite of that, and they're reaping the cost.

Like it or not, what they did was risky. This story is irrefutable evidence of that.

[Travis_0004]

51. If there is eminant domain, they pay me the fair value of my house

So I have a few hundred grand in my pocket, and go somwhere else. Ideally I should would be faily compensated. Now perhaps they could give me less than what I perceive is fair. I can appleal, but may not always win.

Either way, I'm walking away with at least a few hundred grand. Nobody is going to just make me give up my hosue and walk away, since I own it.

[LanternWaste]

64. the more popular sentiment being rationalized is simply screw the idiots who built on the land

Or, the more popular sentiment being rationalized is simply screw the idiots who built on the land.

As long as someone's getting screwed, we get to point fingers and pretend how much more clever we are than they, and we get to call people stupid. Quite the win-win for a vulgar mind.

[linuxman]

22. Agreed.

Don't get me wrong, it was beyond dumb to build there, but nobody is perfect. God knows I've done (an continue to do) my share of dumb crap. That said, I do feel bad for the people being displaced.

[Warpy]

52. Most of them are very likely mobile homes

and old enough that they're mobile only in theory and the others at great cost.

As for sandcastles, the wealthy do that all the time to the tune of millions of dollars each. When a storm rolls in and washes them away, the taxpayers pick up the tab in the form of Federal flood insurance. Then they rebuild.

Massachusetts put an end to that. AFAIK, no other state has bothered to.

[annabanana]

6. yeah... screw 'em. . . . . .

and since there seems to be some confusion as to the term, yes, that was

[linuxman]

9. No need. Sounds like they screwed their selves.

[underahedgerow]

62. Yup. Why would you build a home on land with a short term lease?

That isn't good financial planning. A free ride can't last forever. The homes there started out as housing for ranch hands. The original owners didn't care much when squatters moved in as the ranch hands moved on or died or whatever. The original owners also didn't provide long term leases for these tenants either, so they didn't care much for them either. One family has 2 houses up there!

The new owner isn't obligated to provide housing and a lifestyle for anyone. What interest does he have? What's in it for him? One grandma, maybe, but supporting free ranching and grazing for entire families, generations even?

This is business, it's his private property: the former owners made no provision for the tenants, as they well could have, so, it's a done deal. The tenants should have had a back up plan.

[Odin2005]

39. Capitalist pigs like Kroenke can go fuck themselves, and fuck their "property".

Absentee Landlordism is evil.

[linuxman]

40. LOL, right.

How dare people own things and be able to do with them as they please.

Is the stuff you own "property" or property?

[Kingofalldems]

50. Yeah it's terrible to expect people to have common decency.

[FLPanhandle]

12. Hard to feel any outrage

They stay as long as their leases are valid.

At the end of any lease either party can choose not to renew.

The owner is choosing not to renew the leases.

This isn't publicly owned land, it's private property.

[DrDan]

19. it is a sad situation, but you are absolutely correct

it comes down to the terms of the lease.

Hopefully someone can step in and help out . . . but the owner has the prerogative to not renew.

[Nevernose]

13. I don't understand why this is even a news story

Owners decide not to renew leases all the time. I've not renewed leases with renters (either because they sucked or I was selling the property), and apartment complexes have not renewed my lease (going condo).

From what I can tell, the only story is Kroenke's generosity: he gave them a year and a half's notice.

[7wo7rees]

31. 6 months notice.

The ranch and family that owned it was something from the past. As noted up thread spanned 5 counties and in existence as long as "Texas".
The people with homes on this leased land deserved more respect. I am quite sure this is nothing the families that sold would have ever wanted to see happen. It is something that should have been taken care of in the sale.

The ranch and the family that owned has a fascinating history.
http://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/showdown-at-waggoner-ranch/

[NickB79]

24. He says he's returning the land to it's natural state

Which is a good thing. God knows we need more of that these days, when it seems like everywhere you look another forest is being clearcut for a mall, or some stupid shit.

[Angel Martin]

43. Earth First, poor people last...

Yeah I understand that he has the legal right to do this.

But if the 0.0001% continue to throw their financial weight around like this...

If they were smart they would show some discretion about how they use their money to railroad the "little people", but the nouveau riche never do.

[modem77]

47. He will probably develop it into hotels and strip malls or some way for him to make money.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

56. Somewhere, there's an environmentalist

who is very happy about this decision.

I suppose if we knew that these people were republicans more people would be on the side of the environment.

[Xithras]

69. If he was really doing it to restore the environment, I'd applaud the move.

Unfortunate as the short term displacement is, the greater good is served by reverting the land to nature.

Of course, since he's made his billions through real estate land development, I don't believe for a moment that he's actually trying to "restore" anything. I fully expect to see luxury homes and a deluxe golf course along that lake within a few years. Cleaning out the "riff raff" was just step one.

Ergo, he's an asshole.

[Moostache]

30. The man's name is Enos, NOT "Stan"...and he is human refuse in living form.

NOTHING this shit-heel does would surprise me.

I plan to pop champagne the day he dies and WILL piss on his grave (even if I have to just make a mock-up of it and do it in my yard symbolically).

I have no empathy for that man or his descendents. Fuck Enos Stanley Kroenke with a diseased dick.

[Eleanors38]

49. A better way would have been for Krinkle-Krisp to purchase development rights...

and to allow the folks living in those areas t live out their stay at reasonable rent levels with the property reverting to Krinkle; no heirs, no transfer, no other persons, no development expansion -- like an old quit-claim.

[Igel]

32. If it went the other way w'd be upset.

If there were 500,000 acres of natural land being developed for the first time.

[Humanist_Activist]

38. Worthless piece of shit screwing over people, you don't say, BTW, I'm a St. Louisan, fuck this...

asshole with a cactus.

[Angel Martin]

44. this guy has form, I'll give him that

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-fishermen-challenge-billionaire-ranchers-for-lake-access-1.1250903

He makes new friends everywhere he buys.

[X_Digger]

46. Who builds a house on land they don't own??

Sad, but poor planning.

[Eleanors38]

48. Lessees may have a shot under the legal "theory of laches..."

...wherein an action by one party is denied if an unreasonable time has elapsed to take that action. Put another way, if Party A asserts a right to eviction of Party B, the claim may be denied if there has been a long time elapsed wherein no other action was taken. Party B may claim Party A has "slept on his rights." Kind of exotic, but it is a long shot.

[WillowTree]

57. Don't see how that would apply since Kroenke just bought the property in February.

[Moostache]

58. My new favorite Enos Kroenke anecdote:

If I was in a room with Hitler, Stalin and Kroenke and handed a gun with two shots only, I would kick Kroenke in the nuts, piss on his face and shoot him twice.

The depths of my hatred for that man know no bounds. I simply cannot wait to celebrate his death like New Year's Eve and the 4th of July combined. I will be lighting fireworks, popping champagne and dancing in the streets like it was V-J Day as well.

[Matrosov]

60. But he's just a good Texan, a good conservative, a good Christian n/t

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

63. No, he's not.

He's a Californian.

He doesn't even live here.

Or was that sarcasm?

[Revanchist]

66. Actually he was born and lives in Missouri,

at least his primary residence is there

http://www.forbes.com/sites/morganbrennan/2013/11/27/billionaire-sports-mogul-stan-kroenkes-many-spreads/#7375d4837c35

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

68. Well, he's not a Texan!

And anyone who has more than one residence, would not list California as their primary residence for tax purposes!

[dembotoz]

65. if i understand correctly homeowners in hawaii also lease their land

guess they must be all idiots too

[WillowTree]

70. So if I'm undersranding the consensus here.......

.......property owners should be required to allow tenants to remain in perpetuity if the tenant so chooses and, thus, dictate how the property will be used or risk being labeled Asshole. Actual ownership of the property is immaterial.

Do I have that right?