[quote=AN]I’m not trying to say this place is ideal for Scarlett, I was just trying to counter BG’s point that Scarlett would be a perpetual fence-sitter due to her criteria. Yes, I would much rather pay $350k for a $500k house if it’s a major fixer (assuming I have the cash to cover the fixing and be able to get a loan). However, it doesn’t seem like Scarlett have the money or time or desire to do such thing. Also, this place doesn’t seem to be a major fixer, so I doubt you can get it for $350k. It’s dated but not a major fixer. It just doesn’t meet Scarlett’s wants and needs. Which is why she say it’s like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.[/quote]
You have it right there. It doesn’t meet her wants/needs.
AN, thank you for taking the time to look at the photos on the Ramsay/Haworth corner (92122) and noticing that this property is NOT a “heavy fixer.” Along with the tremendous and well-landscaped BY, you may also have noticed that the garage can be moved to face the other street (at a cost of $40-$50K) and the existing garage be properly remodeled into the house.
Do any Piggs know that if a buyer remodels an existing attached garage into the house (ex. adding to the kitchen and creating an MBR) and DOES NOT CHANGE the footprint of the dwelling, if the property would be reassessed? I’m thinking not. A detached 22 x 22 ft garage facing the other street would require a permit and encroachment deposit but I believe would only raise the annual property tax <=$500.
[quote=AN]I also find it interesting that BG is a big supporter of repeal prop 13 and a big proponent of buying major fix at a deep discount for the tax advantage. If she gets her way w/ the repealing of prop 13, then the big tax advantage would also disappear as soon as you finish the rehab, since every house will be reassessed every year, unless she don’t plan to do it w/ permits.[/quote]
AN, obviously you have not been reading my posts correctly on the other current infamous Prop 13 thread. I stated on it NUMEROUS TIMES that I am not against the method of assessment that Prop 13 provides for (1% base valuation + city/co svcs, increasing by no more than 2% per year). I am against Prop 13 protected properties being “protected” from reassessment into perpetuity (forever) which the later Props 58 and 193 have provided for in their generous “pass-thru” language. These two later-passed laws (“progeny” of Prop 13) are and will keep millions of valuable CA properties from EVER being reassessed AS LONG AS THEY REMAIN TITLED WITH A FAMILY MEMBER. This is unjust enrichment to all those descendants/heirs of the senior citizens back in the ’70’s that Prop 13 was originally enacted to protect.
Scarlett has stated earlier on this thread that her price ceiling is $500K. On perusing current 92122 listings this morning, there is only one with asking prices =<$500K, which has Scarlett's min req size of 1600 sf, the Ramsay/Haworth property. 4744 Ramsay (smaller w 1-car gar) that Pem just brought up again, was formerly discussed and rejected by Scarlett earlier in this thread. I also stated earlier in this thread that Scarlett must accept the aged inventory as it is in UC, if she wants UC . . . or do her home shopping elsewhere. She has stated she doesn’t have the resources or budget for a complete remodel in UC (unless she can avail herself of the FHA 203K program).
I’ve never tried to “shove” anything down a buyer’s throat. Unless Scarlett has found a “pocket listing” in UC that she now wants to make an offer on (seriously doubt this if it is an REO) there appear to be currently one residential SFR in UC with an asking price <=$500K and that is Ramsay/Haworth.
Heirs are typically VERY motivated sellers. Especially out-of-town heirs. For this reason and the fact that there is plenty of equity in Ramsay/Haworth (acc to sdr), it is a GREAT property for a young buyer looking to get into UC (get their foot in the door), barring any structural defects.
