whats the difference between buying a house and buying land?

[Lillionaire]

i've been thinking its one and the same, but apparently in Baltimore it's specifically different... what? So if I buy a house, I don't necessarily own the land? Isn't that shitty and stupid? Or can I buy land but not have control of the buildings built on it? What?

Should i be specifically looking for land, then? Or land with houses/commercial buildings on it that I also want, too?

This adds a whole layer of confusion for me.

[Melonie]

^^^ there are a few US areas where the municipality decided long ago to retain title to the actual land ... and to create de-facto long term lease agreements with individuals and companies that wish to use / develop that land. This is also 'standard practice' throughout Mexico ( which was a major reason that I didn't choose to move there ).

In the final analysis, after the recent Supreme Court decision granting eminent domain powers to local gov'ts for economic reasons ( as opposed to the past limitation of eminent domain powers only for 'necessary' reasons like constructing roads, schools etc. ), I'm not sure that it really matters anymore whether one actually owns ( i.e. holds title to ) the land, or leases the land from a local gov't entity. Either way, if the local gov't decides that the land you are occupying is worth more to the local gov't if you are booted off it in order to allow some other person or business to make alternate use of that land ( creating higher local tax revenue and/orlocal economic activity in the process ), from a legal standpoint 'you're outa there' with no recourse other than accepting the check in whatever amount they decide is 'fair' to pay you !

[Lillionaire]

Wow, does that mean buying ANYTHING in Baltimore is a bad idea? because I have virtually no control over my fate if the government decides to make some big decision?

[Melonie]

^^^ well, since the Kelo decision ...

(snip)Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)[1] was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development. The case arose from the condemnation by New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property so that it could be used as part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan which promised 3,169 new jobs and $1.2 million a year in tax revenues. The Court held in a 5–4 decision that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.(snip)

... the fact that a person holds title to a property no longer protects them from getting the 'boot' if 'the gov't decides to make some big decision.' Thus 'leasing' land in the Baltimore area is no riskier in this regard than 'owning' land in another city.

[Lillionaire]

maybe that's why Baltimore is as abandoned as it is right now! But i was really starting to set my heart on buying something around here and counting on real estate coming back up in five-ten years or so... It's going to be heavy if I want to change my plans. Or else I suppose its a risk I'll have to take, and I'll just need to count on somehow being able to sell it off again sooner than later, just in case.

[eagle2]

I suggest you talk to a real-estate lawyer in Baltimore.

[Lillionaire]

ok. thanks