San Diego Housing Market News and Analysis

I'm not that privy to the going rate for the caliber of representation he has anything, but do you think he spent more than the 109k on his attorney's fees so save the 109k along the way? Not that funny, but kinda.

I seriously doubt it. It isn't the kind of problem that an attorney would have to work more than a few hours on. Just write up the application and send it in. Maybe make a few phone calls to the right clerk to make sure everything is in order.

At $250/hr, which is a pretty high rate, a lawyer would have to spend 10 full-time weeks on it.

Meh?
I'm no fan of Romney, but none of this strikes me as that outrageous. Property values fell from 2009 to 2010. As noted, a lot of people had their property taxes reassessed. This isn't like having $21m in your IRA... having their property taxes reassessed is both within the spirit and letter of the law.

Yeah, but we're in one of the nastiest election cycles in years and everything is now grist for the mill, especially if it smacks of elitism or classism.

To the average Joe/Jane, who does not own real estate in La Jolla, this can be spun to make it appear that the Romneys are "getting away with something" or "pulling a fast one". It may be well within both the spirit and the letter of the law, but it's now all about the spin that can be put on it.

I thought we were suppose to vote for him because he's got good money sense. But here he is buying at peak pricing...and fully admitting he bought something that lost value by 50% after a year...

This election is quite nasty alright. The UT editorial board's is in full nasty right wing propaganda mode, it is essentially FOX News in print these days.

I fail to see where Romney did anything wrong.
He bought near the peak of the market (OK, his timing was certainly wrong), and then when his property value went down he went through the established process to lower his assessment to a more correct amount. It appears he did it more than once as the market kept falling.
Is that ethically wrong? Is that economically irrational? Of course not. If he had not corrected his assessment in line with a falling market, he would be stupid. I don't want a stupid guy as president.

He has so much money he doesn't care.

So then why spend the lawyer fee to fight the county assessor for $100k when he doesn't care about a $6 million dollar loss? That's 240 years of extra property tax.

Why would a man care about $25k in property tax saving yearly when he doesn't care about $6 million.

Am I just not thinking like a rich person?

That's what I'm saying. His astute economic sense is suppose to be his strength. This is suppose to be the reason in picking him. And he just bought something that lost 50% value within a year. Not very astute IMHO.

We are supposed to vote for him because he's not Obama.

The OP doesn't include a link, but it appears the cite is from this LA times article:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/...

The article doesn't really hint at any ethical issues, the point is just to illustrate that even Romney got caught in the housing bust.

Now I seem to recall some stories about Obama's condo back in 2008. But those were from sources that practice "legitimate" journalism.

My daughter bought some school clothes that look sorta 1980s. Apparently "elitist" is now back in fashion as well.

2008 wasn't the peak. It is impossible that his home's value dropped 45% in 7 months. He probably both overpaid and tried to get a lower assessment than justified. It doesn't hurt to ask.

$250 is a low attorney rate. I find it extremely unlikely that Romney pays any attorney less than $600/hr to do anything.

Scaredy: Yup. You know he's got some senior partner at Skadden, or Jones Day or some white shoe Big Law firm billing out at $750+/hr.

He who dies with the most representation wins.

OCR: Yeah, the UT has dropped any pretense of objectivity, haven't they? I remember when the OC Register read like "Mein Kampf". Now, it's the UT.

They're actually making Fox News look fair and balanced by comparison.

Ha ha, right. According to the UT, the election is already over with Romney by a landslide. Not quite sure why both sides are still wasting millions on attack ads, how silly!

OCR: I read that Op/Ed piece about the Romney landslide in the UT. Wow. I'm surprised that Obama is struggling with a candidate as weak as Mittens, but I doubt very much it's gonna be a landslide. It should prove to be a very tight race, right to the finish. I think Obama is pursuing a very canny strategy in trying to deliver a knockout blow early, but I'd also be very nervous (if I were him) at this point. He's expended gobs of cash and still hasn't achieved any meaningful separation in the polls.

Given that polls tend to oversample Dems, he hasn't been looking at a lot of good news lately, especially when you look at Romney's developing edge in the fundraising race.

Gonna be interesting.

The general public is typically very simple minded when it comes to the economy. The president gets the credit or the blame on the economy regardless of whether he was a factor. Given how bad the economy is, it really does show how weak Romney is for him to still be trailing Obama.

It will be interesting. But I think it's really more interesting that Obama is struggling so little, given the state of the economy. Romney is just not a very popular guy.

I do think the popular vote will be close, maybe very close. But the EC isn't looking so close now. Based on where the candidates are spending their money, it's now down to just 8 states. Virginia, Ohio, NC, NH, Nevada, Iowa, Florida and Colorado. Current polls show Obama leading in each of those states except for North Carolina. And leading pretty decisively in each of those states except for Virginia and Florida. If any promising numbers come out of Arizona for the Obama campaign, they may add that to the list, but the latest published numbers haven't done it, nor has any internal polling lead either candidate to spend any money in AZ.

The Romney campaign, at least for the moment, has abandoned PA, as well as every other supposed swing state not listed above.

Pollsters will pretty much all switch over to polling likely voters rather than registered voters over the next 30 days, we'll find out if that changes anything. Rasmussen is the only pollster than has consistently been polling likely voters.

A lot of things could change in the next 90 days. At this point, that change will have to be pretty dramatic. The only chance of a Romney landslide is a catastrophic event. Based on current polling, an Obama landslide is much more likely.

SK: He makes Al Gore look positively vivacious. IMHO, it doesn't matter who wins. I don't think Obama has much of plan and I'm sure that Romney doesn't. Both sides have now taken to simply talking past the problems, or vilifying the other guy/side for the situation. Neither is a recipe for success.

If Obama gets re-elected, the GOP will go into all-out trench warfare mode and guarantee he's a lame duck from the jump. If Romney wins... well, I'm pretty sure we know how that's gonna turn out - great if you're a member of the oligarchy, not so great otherwise.

Long-term, what will be interesting is whether or not the average American figures out that our political class has failed us and failed us because they've been pandering to the average American for the last two generations. Also interesting will be the reaction of the younger generation, which is seeing a massive wealth transfer from their pockets to the boomers/elderly. There's a backlash in there somewhere...

OCR: I think you can amplify your comment to read that the average American is very simple minded when it comes to pretty much everything as of late.

Maybe a nice war with Iran will perk everybody up. We're Americans, we like war. Plus, it's good for the economy. I think you'd actually see Krugman and the GOP agree on that one!

What do you guys think about a third option?

Dr. Ron Paul

Ron Paul for 2012.... no wait 2016...2020?....Maybe 2024?
!!!!!!

Maybe Romney can pick Ron Paul as VP... Yeah, yeah...I can see it now....

I'm not sure why you think polls oversample Dems, unless you mean polls that look at registered voters instead of likely voters? Republicans do tend to win the turnout battle, so registered voter polls aren't good at reflecting elections. Polling science is complex, the best method really seems to be to average a bunch of polls together over time.

Allan, I don't know if you're a boomer, but you must be aware of the "massive wealth transfer" (incl a cost-of-living raise almost every year) that the boomers and Gen X transferred to the "Greatest Gen" and the "WWII Gen" from 1964 forward. What is different about the current "wealth transfer" in the form of OASDI and Medicare to boomers, the WWII gen (shrinking) and the surviving Greatest Gen (shrinking fast) is that the vast majority of the current crop of boomers (male AND female) who are retired, retiring or soon to retire PAID their required 40 quarters (and often MUCH more than that) of FICA into the "system."

50% of the older generations were women who either never worked or worked sporadically and/or part-time and did not contribute any FICA or less than $5K of FICA in their lifetimes on their own behalves. However, these past and current OASDI recipients were and are allowed to collect OASDI from age 65 until they die based upon calculations from their current spouse's, a deceased spouse's or former spouse's work records EVEN if that current or former spouse is currently collecting OASDI themselves based upon their own work record!

Then there is the exorbitant SS (abt $850 - $2400) paid to each minor survivor, even if their parent died young and contributed little or no FICA in their lifetimes!

Then there is the SSI paid to many thousands of immigrants over the age of 65 who contributed zero FICA in their lifetimes and actually immigrated to the US AFTER they "retired" in their home country

In addition, the current crop of eligible retirees over the age of 65 now all pay a Medicare Supplement premium for Medicare Part B and D and a very large portion of the Greatest Gen did not.

The "reform" that actually needs to happen is SS reform in ALL its programs. Otherwise many of us boomers will likely not be able to even recover our own lifetime contributions to the "system" after turning 66+ years old and becoming eligible. And forget their being any OASDI for Gen X and beyond ...

SK will probably argue this :) but I predict I may be able to collect OASDI for less than 3 years before the fund becomes insolvent, that is, if it is not insolvent before I become eligible.

I have little sympathy for the current crop of younger workers. They have so many more freedoms "on the clock" than the boomers and generations beyond ever dreamed of and also enjoy a whole passel of more recent "employee-friendly" laws that their forebears did not.

Every worker coming up thru the ranks has always had the same problems. The current crop of workers just seems to want to whine about them more.

As to RP running again, I wouldn't bet on that. He's not exactly a spring chicken. I could see RP's son running in the future, though.

As to Romney picking RP as his running mate ... uhh ... stranger things have happened. If he gets too far behind Obama in the polls in the coming weeks, he could very well consider it as this is a sure ticket to picking up the votes which would have gone to RP :=]

The County is giving away money.

It could easily be argued that trophy properties never lost value as evidenced by top prices paid by the mega-rich around the world.

This reassessment is not the usual kind where a County clerk or supervisor made the decision. It rises to the level of top management and the County Assessor himself.

There was a huge corruption scandal in Los Angeles where building owners got assessment reduced in exchange for kickbacks.

I'm not implying that's the case in San Diego with Romney's house, but the Assessor could have stood firm and litigate this matter if necessary.

The value of Romney's house is in the trophy oceanfront location. Romey also got the Coastal Commission to recommend approval of his new mansion which improves the value of the land.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2011/aug/...

How can it not matter?

On the one hand, you have a president who is attempting to do right by the people while facing trench warfare from the Republicans.

Who knows? Obama could break the obstruction.

On the other hand you have a candidate who will turn America into a Russian type oligarchy for billionaires.

Brian: Stop taking my comments out of context. I opined that it didn't matter and then explained why. If you're going to try and bait me, at least do a better job.

Obama is NOT doing right by the people, he's playing cheap partisan politics and the class card. If we're being brutally honest, we're looking at two members of the 1% playing stalking horse for their respective machines (Rove/Armey versus Axelrod/Chicago Machine). Thus, my challenge to you on reform, any reform, but especially tax reform and entitlement reform.

Neither party wants to bell that particular cat and one has to wonder why. If we don't engage in some serious and meaningful reform, entitlement spending will literally crowd everything else out (with the exception of debt service) by 2035.

Want to discuss that? Or no? You need to quit with this binary/Boolean thinking, where if it is not A, it must be B. It's shoddy thinking, it lacks any sort of criticality and it's dishonest.

While this is critically important, I still don't buy the argument that the two parties are the same.

There are plenty of quality of life issues that matter to people.

Let me give you an analogy. Let's say that the husband is the family breadwinner. He's unemployed and the family will eventually run out of money.

Of course, finding a job is critically important. But it's still important to educate the kids, prepare healthy meals for them, clean the house and keep it tidy, socialize with friends, spend quality time with his wife, etc...

All of those quality of life issues matter to a family and it's important to allocate money to strenghten the family for the future. So when the husband finds a good job again, the whole family is even stronger

Well said.

The only "evidence" that Allan presents for the "both parties are the same" argument seems to be based on the idea that neither candidate is adequately addressing the national debt, and therefore nothing else matters.

It's ridiculous. Although doom-and-gloomers like to claim the national debt will somehow destroy our country completely, there's no solid argument, economic, historical, or otherwise to support this outcome.

The debt can, and probably will, cause the strength of US economy to decline relative to other nations. Although it's not an ideal outcome, it's hardly the end of the world. The fact is that we are already far from #1 on many measures of economic "success" already. The US population is not going to die en-masse if our GDP drops below China's.

Oh, sorry. Am I being creepy?