can’t beat them join them?

[nocommonsense]

I appreciate everyone’s comment. I’m one who likes to hear both sides of the argument. Alsol like I said I actually don’t disagree with you guys. It’s just that our life situation at this point in time coupled to the uniquely favorable conditions of this particular house make this purchase sensible. Well, you guys are helping me evaluate the situation right?

Also, I searched for recently closed houses in the area and actually found that a handful houses closed several months ago for maybe 10% cheaper in terms of per sq ft than this house we’re looking at. But the locations and lots were much much less desirable. I’m sure if we wait we likely will be able to buy a house like that (cheaper but less desirablelot and location) this winter. But honestly even if we had the luxury to choose between those houses and this “perfect” and more expensive one, I don’t know which we would’ve gone with.

[joestool]

[quote=svelte]
Read this thread from 2007…note my comment on Nov 25th:

http://piggington.com/san_elijo_hills_analysis

There are indeed districts where you can pay off the M-R early, and it has been done.[/quote]

There might be a pre-pay option on the original 30-40yr bond debt plus associated “administrative fees” for that initial period. But remember, M-R allows for ongoing “maintenance costs” on the “infrastructure improvements” the original debt was supposedly used to pay for. Since I don’t think there’s been any cases yet of the initial M-R bond finance period ending for which someone has “prepaid”. I don’t think you can claim any cases where a M-R assessment has been successfully paid off. Don’t be surprised when the maintenance mode kicks in after the 40yr/bond maturity period and a supposedly “pre-paid” M-R property starts getting hit with fees again.

Why do I put “infrastructure improvements”, “administrative fees”, and “maintenance costs” in quotes and use the word “supposedly” when I refer to what the M-R assessments pay for?

Well, you know how M-R money is supposed to go for police, fire, water lines, roads, etc…but do you have any means to audit the use of the bond money you’re paying back? Do you hold any recourse if the other party doesn’t perform on any specific infrastructure improvements promised? Was there even a contract promising any specific performance in return for the M-R assessemnts? Who is accountable and auditable for any ongoing M-R fees collected after the initial bond maturity period? Well?????

[joestool]

[quote=svelte]
Read this thread from 2007…note my comment on Nov 25th:

http://piggington.com/san_elijo_hills_analysis

There are indeed districts where you can pay off the M-R early, and it has been done.[/quote]

There might be a pre-pay option on the original 30-40yr bond debt plus associated “administrative fees” for that initial period. But remember, M-R allows for ongoing “maintenance costs” on the “infrastructure improvements” the original debt was supposedly used to pay for. Since I don’t think there’s been any cases yet of the initial M-R bond finance period ending for which someone has “prepaid”. I don’t think you can claim any cases where a M-R assessment has been successfully paid off. Don’t be surprised when the maintenance mode kicks in after the 40yr/bond maturity period and a supposedly “pre-paid” M-R property starts getting hit with fees again.

Why do I put “infrastructure improvements”, “administrative fees”, and “maintenance costs” in quotes and use the word “supposedly” when I refer to what the M-R assessments pay for?

Well, you know how M-R money is supposed to go for police, fire, water lines, roads, etc…but do you have any means to audit the use of the bond money you’re paying back? Do you hold any recourse if the other party doesn’t perform on any specific infrastructure improvements promised? Was there even a contract promising any specific performance in return for the M-R assessemnts? Who is accountable and auditable for any ongoing M-R fees collected after the initial bond maturity period? Well?????

[joestool]

[quote=svelte]
Read this thread from 2007…note my comment on Nov 25th:

http://piggington.com/san_elijo_hills_analysis

There are indeed districts where you can pay off the M-R early, and it has been done.[/quote]

There might be a pre-pay option on the original 30-40yr bond debt plus associated “administrative fees” for that initial period. But remember, M-R allows for ongoing “maintenance costs” on the “infrastructure improvements” the original debt was supposedly used to pay for. Since I don’t think there’s been any cases yet of the initial M-R bond finance period ending for which someone has “prepaid”. I don’t think you can claim any cases where a M-R assessment has been successfully paid off. Don’t be surprised when the maintenance mode kicks in after the 40yr/bond maturity period and a supposedly “pre-paid” M-R property starts getting hit with fees again.

Why do I put “infrastructure improvements”, “administrative fees”, and “maintenance costs” in quotes and use the word “supposedly” when I refer to what the M-R assessments pay for?

Well, you know how M-R money is supposed to go for police, fire, water lines, roads, etc…but do you have any means to audit the use of the bond money you’re paying back? Do you hold any recourse if the other party doesn’t perform on any specific infrastructure improvements promised? Was there even a contract promising any specific performance in return for the M-R assessemnts? Who is accountable and auditable for any ongoing M-R fees collected after the initial bond maturity period? Well?????

[joestool]

[quote=svelte]
Read this thread from 2007…note my comment on Nov 25th:

http://piggington.com/san_elijo_hills_analysis

There are indeed districts where you can pay off the M-R early, and it has been done.[/quote]

There might be a pre-pay option on the original 30-40yr bond debt plus associated “administrative fees” for that initial period. But remember, M-R allows for ongoing “maintenance costs” on the “infrastructure improvements” the original debt was supposedly used to pay for. Since I don’t think there’s been any cases yet of the initial M-R bond finance period ending for which someone has “prepaid”. I don’t think you can claim any cases where a M-R assessment has been successfully paid off. Don’t be surprised when the maintenance mode kicks in after the 40yr/bond maturity period and a supposedly “pre-paid” M-R property starts getting hit with fees again.

Why do I put “infrastructure improvements”, “administrative fees”, and “maintenance costs” in quotes and use the word “supposedly” when I refer to what the M-R assessments pay for?

Well, you know how M-R money is supposed to go for police, fire, water lines, roads, etc…but do you have any means to audit the use of the bond money you’re paying back? Do you hold any recourse if the other party doesn’t perform on any specific infrastructure improvements promised? Was there even a contract promising any specific performance in return for the M-R assessemnts? Who is accountable and auditable for any ongoing M-R fees collected after the initial bond maturity period? Well?????

[joestool]

[quote=svelte]
Read this thread from 2007…note my comment on Nov 25th:

http://piggington.com/san_elijo_hills_analysis

There are indeed districts where you can pay off the M-R early, and it has been done.[/quote]

There might be a pre-pay option on the original 30-40yr bond debt plus associated “administrative fees” for that initial period. But remember, M-R allows for ongoing “maintenance costs” on the “infrastructure improvements” the original debt was supposedly used to pay for. Since I don’t think there’s been any cases yet of the initial M-R bond finance period ending for which someone has “prepaid”. I don’t think you can claim any cases where a M-R assessment has been successfully paid off. Don’t be surprised when the maintenance mode kicks in after the 40yr/bond maturity period and a supposedly “pre-paid” M-R property starts getting hit with fees again.

Why do I put “infrastructure improvements”, “administrative fees”, and “maintenance costs” in quotes and use the word “supposedly” when I refer to what the M-R assessments pay for?

Well, you know how M-R money is supposed to go for police, fire, water lines, roads, etc…but do you have any means to audit the use of the bond money you’re paying back? Do you hold any recourse if the other party doesn’t perform on any specific infrastructure improvements promised? Was there even a contract promising any specific performance in return for the M-R assessemnts? Who is accountable and auditable for any ongoing M-R fees collected after the initial bond maturity period? Well?????

[smshorttimer]

[quote=smshorttimer]
I dig nocommonsense for being a good sport and for not possessing a thick skin …[/quote]

Oops, strike the “not” from that sentence.

[smshorttimer]

[quote=smshorttimer]
I dig nocommonsense for being a good sport and for not possessing a thick skin …[/quote]

Oops, strike the “not” from that sentence.

[smshorttimer]

[quote=smshorttimer]
I dig nocommonsense for being a good sport and for not possessing a thick skin …[/quote]

Oops, strike the “not” from that sentence.

[smshorttimer]

[quote=smshorttimer]
I dig nocommonsense for being a good sport and for not possessing a thick skin …[/quote]

Oops, strike the “not” from that sentence.

[smshorttimer]

[quote=smshorttimer]
I dig nocommonsense for being a good sport and for not possessing a thick skin …[/quote]

Oops, strike the “not” from that sentence.

[sdrealtor]

The right house is the right house not necessarily the cheapest house. Make sure you buy one you really like, whenever you do buy.

[sdrealtor]

The right house is the right house not necessarily the cheapest house. Make sure you buy one you really like, whenever you do buy.

[sdrealtor]

The right house is the right house not necessarily the cheapest house. Make sure you buy one you really like, whenever you do buy.

[sdrealtor]

The right house is the right house not necessarily the cheapest house. Make sure you buy one you really like, whenever you do buy.

[Author]

Posts