Major update on Mohamed Hadid's failed $77m ‘Starship Enterprise' megamansion
The remaining slabs of Mohamed Hadid's controversial $US50 million ($A77 million) Los Angeles megamansion have been put up for auction — years after the developer faced legal woes over the property.
According to The Real Deal reported, the no-reserve sale has a starting bid of $US7.9 million ($A12.2 million) and lasts until July 16.
The former residence earned the nickname 'Starship Enterprise' from alarmed neighbours, who feared the pad's colossal size and uncertain foundations would lead to a cliffside disaster for the entire neighbourhood, the New York Post reports.
Compass's Tracy Tutor and Premiere Estates Auction Company's Todd Wohl hold the listing.
The unfortunate eyesore currently belongs to Paul Ventura's Sahara Construction, which purchased the property at auction for $US5 million in 2021.
MORE: Kelce secret hide-out to bulk without Taylor
Dad blocks son's $177m amid public spat
Entire town of 6000 live on SAME street
Attempts to sell the Bel-Air property since then have failed to bear fruit.
Sahara Construction has carefully demolished the partially built structure down to its concrete foundations, the Real Deal reported, citing a court-ordered engineering report that declared the site now safe for a home.
Hadid previously tried to build a home twice that size, and was taken to court over his efforts.
'If this house came down the hill it would take a portion of the neighbourhood with it,' said Los Angeles Judge Craig Karlan in his 2019 ruling for Hadid to demolish the illegally built hillside home.
Hadid, father to Bella and Gigi Hadid, began construction on the planned mansion in 2014.
The real estate tycoon fought the city of Los Angeles for several years to build the estate.
Hadid's company 901 Strada LLC filed for bankruptcy when he was ordered to tear down the structure.
Things went from bad to worse for Hadid when he was ordered to pay a lump sum of $US2.6 million ($A4.02 million) toward his neighbours' legal costs in 2023, Realtor reports.
At the time, Joe Horacek, 81, who was one of the neighbours who led the suit, told the Daily Mail of the ruling: 'I feel vindicated. Now I just want Hadid to pay up and go away.'
Meanwhile, Hadid lamented, 'This is a joke — it's crazy.'
He then revealed he had plans to countersue for 'two or three hundred million dollars.'
Sahara Construction listed the property for sale in the fall of 2023 for $US18 million ($A27 million), The Real Deal reported, but the listing was removed last year.
'The demolition took a tremendous amount of money,' Premiere Estates Auction Company's Todd Wohl told the outlet.
'From the court's standpoint, the legal issues and development issues are cured. There's a flat pad now. This would survive a major earthquake.'
Parts of this story first appeared in the New York Post and Realtor and were republished with permission.
Sign up to the Herald Sun Weekly Real Estate Update. Click here to get the latest Victorian property market news delivered direct to your inbox.
MORE: Emma Stone ditches dream in huge $41m call
Sad Meghan: I was a 'hustler' living 'little'
'Disrespectful' Charles slammed as Diana's home left to rot
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
Tariffs a sideshow to greater US problem: economist
Samantha Donovan: Well up until the last couple of weeks, the financial markets have swung wildly after Donald Trump's every utterance on tariffs. Recent reaction to the President's trade policy shifts has been more muted though. Australian Justin Wolfers is a Professor of Economics and Public Policy at the University of Michigan. He told our business correspondent David Taylor, tariffs are now a sideshow to a much greater concern for the international community. Justin Wolfers: The Constitution gives the power over tariffs to Congress, not the White House. Now over the years, Congress has given some of that power, handed it off to the White House, but only in a very limited and constrained way. So a simple reading of the rules would say the President can't do this. So in order to have across the board tariffs or what he calls reciprocal tariffs on every country in the world, he's had to call it a national emergency and invoke the Emergency Powers Act, which is interesting, first of all, because that act says nothing about tariffs. And secondly, there's no emergency. The so-called emergencies, the US has trade deficits with many countries. Bilateral trade deficits are not themselves a problem. So it's been in the works that this was going to get knocked down and it finally hit court last night. The court said this is quite clearly unconstitutional. It was a three judge panel, an Obama judge, a Reagan judge, and a Trump judge. So it seems like a pretty clear decision. So that all seemed pretty clear until the US federal government, the Trump administration, filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals unsurprisingly agreed to hear the case. And while it's waiting to get its work done, so while they're reading the documents and so on, it decided to stay, that is to say reinstate the Trump tariffs. All of this is going to be on a pretty expedited schedule. So within a couple of weeks, they're going to come back with their decision. If, as I expect, they find this to be unconstitutional, then the tariffs will be back off again. Then we'll be off to the Supreme Court. We'll see the same drama play out one more time. And then what happens after that is what's really interesting. Because this is saying you can't have across the board tariffs, but recall Congress delegates certain tariff powers to the White House. And it turns out there's a lot of other statutory authorities that they could use. They're a little narrower. And so for instance, that's why the tariffs on steel and aluminium and cars are going to persist because they did not come through this overreach. And it would be easy to get further tariffs on semiconductors and pharmaceuticals and so on. So my guess is the White House lawyers are just going to find other ways of creating international trade havoc. David Taylor: That kind of goes to my next question though, Justin Wolfers, based on your understanding of recent history and Donald Trump, what is, and I know this is a very complicated and difficult question to answer, but where is Donald, where would you think that Donald Trump's mind is at? What do you think his next move is likely to be? Justin Wolfers: His lawyers will be telling him as of this afternoon, Mr. President, the statutory authority we were using will come under question. But if you want to push ahead with tariffs, I've got lots of other ways that you can do it. My guess based on past history is he'll say that's terrific. Let's keep going. David Taylor: Given that, and given how much you know that financial markets can't stand uncertainty, the market reaction, the financial markets reaction over the past 24 hours, I would describe as being quite muted compared to... Justin Wolfers: I agree. David Taylor: Yeah, why? Why? Justin Wolfers: Yeah, I've given this a lot of thought. So the S&P 500 rose one and a half percent when this was announced. That's quite muted given that the day that Trump... So, and this announced all of these tariffs are illegal and they're off. Compare that to seven days after Liberation Day when Trump announced a 90-day pause on the tariffs that led US stocks to rise by about 9%, like six times more for a pause as opposed to it's unconstitutional and you can't do it. So a few thoughts here. One is perhaps this is markets betting that this is going to be overturned at a later point. Another possibility is markets, even if markets don't think it's going to be overturned, and I don't think it's going to be overturned, I think the use of the Emergency Powers Act will be ruled unconstitutional. But even so, Trump has other ways of imposing tariffs. So I suspect that this is markets understanding someone's getting in the way of Trump creating tariffs the way he wants to, but he's probably just going to come back and do it a different way. If you're really interested in this, I'm going to give you one more interpretation. So the markets were incredibly volatile in early April when he announced Liberation Day tariffs, they tanked. When he paused, they soared. They acted like this was a huge thing. Now there's two interpretations of that. One, markets believe that tariffs are so fundamentally important to the profitability of American businesses they have no choice but to rise and fall dramatically every time something happens. If that were true, then you would have thought that the Supreme Court making it unconstitutional should have caused markets to absolutely soar today, and they merely rose a little. So the other possibility is that the original policy announcement was so incoherent, so poorly thought through, so dramatic, so unconstitutional on its face, so absurd, so much overreach in both the economic, political, and legal domains that it signalled an administration that's out of control, and that could do a lot of damage. And so maybe that's what markets were learning in early April. They reacted a little bit to tariffs and a huge amount to learning that this is an economically unhelpful administration. And if that's the case, then all that we learned today, when the courts say Trump wasn't allowed to do tariffs in a particular way, you're only going to see a small reaction because it's still true that the White House is full of lunatics, and that still weighs on people's minds. Samantha Donovan: Professor Justin Wolfers from the University of Michigan. He was speaking with our business correspondent, David Taylor.
ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
Trump tariffs win legal reprieve
Samantha Donovan: Donald Trump's tariff regime has been given a reprieve after a US federal court ruled the import taxes will remain in place while it considers an appeal by the White House. A US trade court had blocked the tariffs by deciding the President had exceeded his authority in imposing them. Mr Trump has continued to rail against that decision, declaring it was a threat to the country and would quote, completely destroy presidential power. Luke Radford reports. Luke Radford: A lot can happen in a day, including yet another twist in the battle over Donald Trump's tariffs. A Manhattan court struck them down yesterday, arguing the power to levy tariffs in this case belongs to Congress, not the President. But after the Trump administration launched an appeal, the federal court has temporarily reinstated them. Something White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt was quick to celebrate. Karoline Leavitt: The courts should have no role here. There is a troubling and dangerous trend of unelected judges inserting themselves into the presidential decision-making process. America cannot function if President Trump, or any other president for that matter, has their sensitive diplomatic or trade negotiations railroaded by activist judges. Luke Radford: It's important to note that the administration hasn't actually won its appeal. The courts just decided the tariffs can stay while that's being figured out. And despite what the White House says, experts say the court does have a role here. Nick Ackerman is a former assistant US attorney and was a member of the Watergate prosecution team. Nick Ackerman: I think ultimately, if you read the opinion, it's pretty well written, it's well reasoned. I think it's going to be affirmed by the Federal Circuit Court and most likely to be confirmed by the Supreme Court. I mean, I've been saying for a long time that this act just doesn't give him the power to impose the kinds of tariffs that he was imposing and doing it the way he did. Luke Radford: In the meantime, the US is continuing its negotiations with other countries. US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent told Fox News while discussions with China have stalled, yesterday's decision has had no notable impact. Scott Bessent: They are coming to us in good faith and trying to complete the deals before the 90-day pause ends. So we've seen no change in their attitude in the past 48 hours. As a matter of fact, I have a very large Japanese delegation coming to my office first thing tomorrow morning. Luke Radford: It's a small victory in what has been a tough week for the president. On Wednesday local time, he reacted angrily after he was asked about a new acronym coined on Wall Street. TACO. Short for Trump Always Chickens Out. Donald Trump: And in many ways, I think we really helped China tremendously because, you know, they were having great difficulty because we were basically going cold turkey with China. We were doing no business because of the tariff, because it was so high. But don't ever say what you said. That's a nasty question. Luke Radford: While this case is going to appeal, it's unlikely to be the end of the legal challenges. Another case lodged by 13 US states is still underway. Dan Rayfield is attorney general of Oregon. Dan Rayfield: When you have a president who thinks that you're above the law and above following the laws and is trying to corral power in this way, that is one of the most undemocratic things you can do. The Constitution of the United States gives the power to set tariffs solely to our Congress. Congress then delegates some of that power to the president. So it's not even his role. If we are going to have a healthy democracy long term, you have to have a president that is willing to follow your constitution. He takes an oath. You got to follow it. You got to take it seriously. Luke Radford: The White House says it has other ways of levying tariffs, even if this case goes against them. Samantha Donovan: Luke Radford reporting.
News.com.au
4 hours ago
- News.com.au
Sean ‘Diddy' Combs accused of raping former aid
The 55-year-old music mogul is facing a federal trial in New York, accused of sex trafficking, racketeering and transportation to engage in prostitution - which he has pleaded not guilty to. On Thursday, a witness under the alias of "Mia" took the stand to testify against Combs, having previously served as a personal assistant to him. The witness told the court she had been raped "More than once," by the mogul - and went on to list a string of alleged violent events that she suffered at the hands of the star.
