Thank you! That's exactly it. They're lying. They knew they knew exactly what they did and they're local. It's not like they don't live here

@@Lemonbonker589 They are called superfund sites. Somebody was holding back this info from them

They only know if they actually bother to look. The way that agent sounded I bet she didn’t look so she could claim ignorance if sued.

Especially LOCAL realtors.!!

Should but won't. Efforts to make companies more responsible for cleaning up their mess are being blocked.

Usually these mines aren’t American owned

That's how mines get out of doing the rehabilitation. They go out of business and claim bankruptcy. No money left for rehab. Need to advocate for stronger rules before a mine starts. Once it's there, nothing you can do. Now that being said. We cannot have our society without mining. We need mining to survive

@@Userhfdryjjgddf That shipped sailed with the most recent Scotus decision on the Chevron rule. It's a free for all now unless congress specifically writes the rule.

@@fueymanchoo1291 Not true. The opinion overturned a long-standing legal doctrine called Chevron deference, which required judges to defer to an agency's interpretation when it comes to regulations about laws that are ambiguous. You can now question the regulation. No regulation was over turned.

It is not the agents responsibility! It is the sellers responsibility. The agent may have absolutely no knowledge of the contamination.

false they will and did claim not to have had any knowledge and the amount they could sue the llc for was not enough to be worth it, They went over this in the video did you even watch it?

chatGpt info does not equate to real life

Correct. While the seller's agent might not be directly responsible, they have to be listed in the suit as at least having involvement, contributory or vicarious. That will prevent the fault-blame game from falling off the list of parties accounted for in the filings.

@@marknicolich5789 As an agent I can tell you the sellers claimed they bought it on a foreclosure so couldn't provide a disclosure of issues, but the agents should have known. You're suggesting THEY didn't know about a superfund site in their territory? They should have their licenses revoked.

I thought the same, but, since it's a foreclosure the 'buyer beware' and do your own due diligence before you submit a bid might apply. It would REALLY STINK for this family, but I betcha that's how the shady RE lady gets away with it. smh

Actually, disclosure laws vary by state, and off-site hazards - even when nearby - may not be required to be disclosed. I live in Arizona. When I was purchasing my home, my real estate agent informed me of one factor that he thought would be important to me; but for everything else, it was my job to exercise due diligence for off-site issues. That included identifying a nearby superfund site (former military property - undergoing cleanup by the Feds - not considered a significant health hazard at the moment). Real estate agents in a mining town should know about local mines; but they may or may not be aware of the mines' health hazards, and they may not always know the location of each mine. (This one was larger, and thus, fairly obvious, so she probably should have said something.) Here in Arizona, a number of more rural communities are mining communities. Even when they're not, sometimes there might be some mining contamination in local waterways from upstream (albeit probably a bit diluted). If you ever see a large pile of dirt in roughly horizontal levels, definitely find out what that is. In Arizona, we have MASSIVE copper mines (and silver and gold mines). Mining and refining metals leads to some pretty serious contamination - possible dust issues; heavy metals in the aquifer / water and the soil. Unless you work for the mine, it's not the best place to live - certainly not to raise a family, imho. Also, on disclosures in general, sellers are typically only required to disclose problems that they are aware of. If a company bought the property and was unaware of nearby hazards, they may not be liable. This is why it is important to exercise very careful due diligence when considering a home for sale by a company, such as a foreclosure or similar situation.

Houses are fuckin' expensive man

You build your own oasis that's why. Far away from people

My thoughts exactly. What was this a blind purchase. That's on them and no one else for being a dummy with a dollar.

I think it’s called caviar emperor.

She said she thought it was an "old mine".

@@sar4x474 well I hate to tell you this, but you would be wrong with a person has it right

@@sar4x474 caveat emptor

Ahh don't forget Tucson up till mid 60s you could drink well water ..well America's finest and britest..air force dug a pit two hundred feet wide quarter mile long dumped old fuel..coolant..cleaning agents oil....it was just a dirt pit..all went into ground water...toxic..tc3...cancer...hyper ageing

I would move n take it as a loss

Exactly....it is right there!!! Whenever you buy a home you have to get radon testing and properly inspected. Land buyers should be doing the same thing. Test the soil before you buy it, if it is known there is a suprafund site nearby.

@@josephlalock8378 don't show your backside. It ain't cool.

What was wrong with the property?

​@@mikeward7290, lol ! , it's like they totally left that out ! probably skinwalkers,,,

@@mikeward7290probably the neighbor had a fondness for children, if you know what I mean.

Exactly. If you live near a mine-operational or not-it was or is a Superfund site. It’s easy to search Superfund sites, so while it should have been disclosed, the buyer could have easily found this information. If the house is cheap, there’s usually a reason.

Thank you, that is exactly right

the sellers knew that's why it was a llc used so they could hide their identities & just file bankruptcy if ever sued plus it would cost too much to sue them anyways. seller knew and used loopholes to run a game

She said she knew there was a mine there and just thought it was OK so it's on her

Everything in a real estate deal is the agents (both) duty to find out and disclose. They make up the paperwork, not the seller. They are by law the property experts, not laymen. Either you are a realtor or are brainwashed.

Yup she had 30 days to test it

Yeah. Agents are USELESS.

Hogwash, the realtor is by law the property expert, not an owner. I did mortgages, you are either another lying realtor or you have bought the brainwashing of the association.

Except that the seller was a business from out of state. They may or may not have even been to the property or even the community. This is why it's important to exercise due diligence when purchasing a foreclosure or property otherwise owned by a company.

Around Humboldt were the Iron King Mine and Humboldt Smelter. Operations ran from around the 1890s-1960s. There were also smaller mine operations from ~1900-1934. So, most of the businesses responsible are probably long-defunct. Per the EPA Superfund report, there was a tailing collapse in 1964 that sent contamination downstream. That likely put the last mining / smelter operation out of business, if one was still operating then. In other words, I'm not sure if a business owns the site. The site may have been turned over to the state (AZ) or Feds quite some time ago.

Bisbee has a couple of large mines - larger than the one at a Dewey-Humboldt, but not as large as the Globe-Miami mines (Globe / Claypool / Miami, AZ). Copper Queen Mine in Bisbee goes back to around the 1880s. I'm told that there is more ore in the area - around the "Lavender Pit" Mine - so they may mine more around Bisbee in the future. Mining and refining metals leads to environmental contamination that may be hazardous to human health, so I would not recommend living there - especially if you don't work for the mine.