DEBT, debt & More debt !

[scaredyclassic]

Yes. Up to 4.

[phaster]

[quote=The-Shoveler]I don’t worry about the Fed Debt, I worry about local municipalities and state debt (they can’t print their way out).

No one is going to pay this back (well at least not in today’s dollars).

Deflation will not be a long lasting thing, the local municipalities can’t afford it.[/quote]

you’re spot on with that observation, I calculated the hit per parcel in san diego (using web based figures), and its an eyeopening figure:

http://patrick.net/forum/?p=1247288&c=1118128#comment-1118128

[bearishgurl]

[quote=phaster][quote=The-Shoveler]I don’t worry about the Fed Debt, I worry about local municipalities and state debt (they can’t print their way out).

No one is going to pay this back (well at least not in today’s dollars).

Deflation will not be a long lasting thing, the local municipalities can’t afford it.[/quote]

you’re spot on with that observation, I calculated the hit per parcel in san diego (using web based figures), and its an eyeopening figure:

http://patrick.net/forum/?p=1247288&c=1118128#comment-1118128
[/quote]

phaster, I just saw your comments on the patrick.net forum re: the Mills Act in CA and they are misleading at best:

…the battle over some rich dude w/ a fancy beach house not wanting the “poor” masses to camp out in front of the aforementioned “fancy beach house” is/and always will be a point of contention between the haves and have nots…

put yourself in the rich guys shoes, you’ve got money and ya don’t want the trailer trash partying and leaving their garbage in front of your designer beach pad (so ya try and cut off the “general public” from having access to the “public” beach)

http://articles.latimes.com/2000/dec/11/news/mn-64093

looking at the issue form trailer trash point of view, one could understand why after working at some hard labor job at an “inland” location five days a week, all joe six pack want to do is enjoy a day at the beach (which is public land), and let off some steam w/ friends and family.

the rich guys home might have historic status, but thats not the issue here (access to the beach which is public land, is the issue at hand)

the tax scam scenario I outlined, is more along the lines of some entitled jerk decides to build a fancy “old looking” house on the beach, and figures out a way to classify his beach house as “historic.”

If the house is classified “historic” the entitled jerk can lower his property taxes by 70% (for example), and is also able to take a million dollar tax write off (for example) by saying he promises not to change the exterior of his “old looking” house. Here an easement (is given a value of a million dollars) and is donated to some “Historical Preservation Society” (like the one in portrayed in caddyshack 2). so get the idea? here, the entitled jerk is gaming the system in order to have “tax payers” subsidize the costs of ownership of a fancy “old looking” house on the beach

http://patrick.net/forum/?p=1247288&c=1116619#comment-1116619

For starters, “entitled jerks” are not allowed to build a house and then label it “historic” for purposes of property tax abatement pursuant to the Mills Act. Quite the reverse is true. “Entitled jerks” (or anybody else, for that matter) are not allowed to change the facade of the existing structure or change it in any way which detracts with the period it was built. In addition, the dwelling or comm’l bldg needs to be at least 75 years old to qualify for Mills Act status AND proven to have a story behind it (ex: designed by renowned architect of the period it was built or belonged to a former government official who was instrumental in the development of the locality or region or a philanthropist whose contributions greatly benefited the locality or region).

see: http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21412

The Mills Act has been CA’s wisest effort in encouraging preservation of the state’s historic treasures, IMO. Without it, many of these homes would be razed with newish mcmansions with cheap facades built in their place (or multifamily units if local zoning allows for it). If you don’t believe me, feel free to go visit Chevy Chase, MD (just north of DC) and you will see for yourself what all the longtime property owners there are spitting bullets about. On a drive-by tour, you may notice newish “Tuscan” mcmansions with stryofoam-looking mouldings which were somehow able to sprout up next door to a gracious, authentic Victorian (circa 1850-1910) in recent years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/01/AR2005100101470.html#

McMansions and community character in Montgomery County (Updated)

In return for a 10-year Mills Act contract (and its renewal at 10-year intervals), the CA property owner of an historic property is giving up their fundamental right to alter the building in any way, shape or form which would detract from the period it was built and its original style of architecture. If YOU want one of these properties, you are free to purchase one yourself. In recent years, I have found that listed homes in San Diego County with Mills Act contracts in place have a price premium built into them due to their contract’s renewability resulting in future tax savings for the new owner. This asking-price premium runs from $70K to about $120K, depending on location of the property.

There is no free lunch here.

In order for an owner of a property qualifying for the Mills Act to recoup a “million dollar tax write off (sic),” as you posted on patrick.net, they would have had to own a typical Mills Act property in CA (worth $850-$900K in today’s dollars) for 100 years! In addition, there is no “easement” given (to the gubment?) for the privilege of a Mills Act property tax abatement . . . that is, unless it is a tree or utility easement in which the entire neighborhood it is situated and is subject to (in a neighborhood of both Mills Act and non-Mills Act properties).

In the future, phaster, you might want to peruse all the fine print before posting about a gubment program on the internet.

[phaster]

Just because a law is on the books does not mean a city official(s) or a city bureaucrat will be mindful of the rules or use common sense

all ya have to do is ask all the women who I’m sure don’t think too highly of bob filner’s actions…

sadly kind of sexual conduct was reported in the news by SDPD officers (guess they following the example of the old mayor, or is that vice versa)

then there are news reports of bribes by foreign nations to SD politicians

the billion dollar bond issue in poway, the south bay school district (pay to play scandal)

so is it too shocking, to expect there isn’t some funny business in RE

WRT the the mills act, perhaps you should start at the beginning of that thread, where I first posted a response to another post

http://patrick.net/forum/?p=1247288&c=1114955#comment-1114955

Keep in mind that the city auditor issued a report that stated, software the city uses in the building dept, allows “fraud”

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2012/jul/03/citys-development-system-major-fraud-risk-says-aud/

and a quote from Jim Mills, a former state senator

“I have to admit what I had in mind was significant buildings and houses, and I now see houses being covered by the Mills Act that were not what I had in mind,”

http://www.utsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080127/news_1n27mills.html

One thing I learned, the negative stereotype about politicians, lawyers, etc., exists because its based on something larger than a kernel of truth AND when there is money involved not everyone was engrained with the expression from my dad who basically said:

“I’d rather earn a dollar honestly, than a million dollars dishonestly”

Turns out in my naive belief the system was based on honesty, was sadly misplaced

[Author]

Posts