Reminder: Your massive property taxes are due

[bearishgurl]

[quote=UCGal]Bearishgurl…
None of us (to my knowledge) have ATM’d the house. My neighbors across the street have the same stated goal we do – pay it off before retirement. That’s hard to do if you’re pulling cash out rather than paying off the balance. I don’t see a lot of fancy upgrades in the garages indicating HELOC madness on our block.[/quote]

UCGal, my post above wasn’t directed to any one poster.

I think if you grew up in UC, the OLDEST properties up there might be circa 1968 or 1971. My block was built in 1949. Thus, the “heirs” on my block are probably a generation older than your one neighbor “heir” who cared for his mom. All of the “heirs” I am speaking of here are living on a small FIXED income. This type of income by itself cannot maintain a house and utilities, much less market property taxes. A person with this type of low income can only obtain a “sucker” equity loan or reverse mortgage, if old enough. These “heirs” are too old NOW to EVER pay off the loans they took out on their free and clear “bequest.” (The banks knew this, obviously, but that’s another story.)

Two of my neighbors as “heirs” even qualified for “lifeline” utility rates. One “heir” actually moved out of his van that he had lived in for seven years into Dad’s house, as soon as he died!

Re: maintainence, I’m not even talking about weeds after a rain. I’m talking about real eyesores such as long-unfinished room additions, never-running vehicles, etc. This was all started or parked after the heir moved in.

UC’s younger demographic is evident in that you and your neighbors purchased your childhood home while your parents were STILL ALIVE and you are still employed and have kids in school. My neighbor “heirs” are retired and/or long-disabled with grown children.

Acc. to your post, your neighbors don’t appear to be trying to run their entire households on $800 – $1500 (fixed income) per month.

[briansd1]

[quote=UCGal] had Dad’s prop-tax-rate transferred.
[/quote]

why not take advantage when it’s available? Very smart of you.

The UC area is nice and conveniently located close to everything in SD.

[quote=bearishgurl]
your neighbors don’t appear to be trying to run their entire households on $800 – $1500 (fixed income) per month.
[/quote]

That’s the argument for Prop 13. It allows people on fixed income to remain in their homes.

If they heloc’ed away then the next generation won’t be living there.

[briansd1]

[quote=UCGal] had Dad’s prop-tax-rate transferred.
[/quote]

why not take advantage when it’s available? Very smart of you.

The UC area is nice and conveniently located close to everything in SD.

[quote=bearishgurl]
your neighbors don’t appear to be trying to run their entire households on $800 – $1500 (fixed income) per month.
[/quote]

That’s the argument for Prop 13. It allows people on fixed income to remain in their homes.

If they heloc’ed away then the next generation won’t be living there.

[briansd1]

[quote=UCGal] had Dad’s prop-tax-rate transferred.
[/quote]

why not take advantage when it’s available? Very smart of you.

The UC area is nice and conveniently located close to everything in SD.

[quote=bearishgurl]
your neighbors don’t appear to be trying to run their entire households on $800 – $1500 (fixed income) per month.
[/quote]

That’s the argument for Prop 13. It allows people on fixed income to remain in their homes.

If they heloc’ed away then the next generation won’t be living there.

[briansd1]

[quote=UCGal] had Dad’s prop-tax-rate transferred.
[/quote]

why not take advantage when it’s available? Very smart of you.

The UC area is nice and conveniently located close to everything in SD.

[quote=bearishgurl]
your neighbors don’t appear to be trying to run their entire households on $800 – $1500 (fixed income) per month.
[/quote]

That’s the argument for Prop 13. It allows people on fixed income to remain in their homes.

If they heloc’ed away then the next generation won’t be living there.

[briansd1]

[quote=UCGal] had Dad’s prop-tax-rate transferred.
[/quote]

why not take advantage when it’s available? Very smart of you.

The UC area is nice and conveniently located close to everything in SD.

[quote=bearishgurl]
your neighbors don’t appear to be trying to run their entire households on $800 – $1500 (fixed income) per month.
[/quote]

That’s the argument for Prop 13. It allows people on fixed income to remain in their homes.

If they heloc’ed away then the next generation won’t be living there.

[UCGal]

[quote=bearishgurl]
I think if you grew up in UC, the OLDEST properties up there might be circa 1968 or 1971. My block was built in 1949. [/quote]

close – Parts of UC – including my block, were developed in 62-65. My house was built in 64.

(I get defensive about the age when people start talking about Miramar and how all residents “knew” of the active use at the time they bought – my parents and my neighbors knew there was an airbase… that wasn’t used much at the time – this was pre-Top Gun. It was 68 or 69 that top gun ramped up the usage. Disclaimer – I have no issue with the base, the jet noise, etc.. as long as pilots don’t fly injured planes and land really close to my kids elementary school. I have a good friend who lives 2 doors down from the house that was hit. The jet noise is part of life.)

I can see the generation difference though, between circa 1949 house and 1960’s houses.
We’re the odd ones in our “next gen” bunch on my block – same age as everyone else – but with young kids… What can I say – hubby and I were/are REALLY old to be having kids this young.

[UCGal]

[quote=bearishgurl]
I think if you grew up in UC, the OLDEST properties up there might be circa 1968 or 1971. My block was built in 1949. [/quote]

close – Parts of UC – including my block, were developed in 62-65. My house was built in 64.

(I get defensive about the age when people start talking about Miramar and how all residents “knew” of the active use at the time they bought – my parents and my neighbors knew there was an airbase… that wasn’t used much at the time – this was pre-Top Gun. It was 68 or 69 that top gun ramped up the usage. Disclaimer – I have no issue with the base, the jet noise, etc.. as long as pilots don’t fly injured planes and land really close to my kids elementary school. I have a good friend who lives 2 doors down from the house that was hit. The jet noise is part of life.)

I can see the generation difference though, between circa 1949 house and 1960’s houses.
We’re the odd ones in our “next gen” bunch on my block – same age as everyone else – but with young kids… What can I say – hubby and I were/are REALLY old to be having kids this young.

[UCGal]

[quote=bearishgurl]
I think if you grew up in UC, the OLDEST properties up there might be circa 1968 or 1971. My block was built in 1949. [/quote]

close – Parts of UC – including my block, were developed in 62-65. My house was built in 64.

(I get defensive about the age when people start talking about Miramar and how all residents “knew” of the active use at the time they bought – my parents and my neighbors knew there was an airbase… that wasn’t used much at the time – this was pre-Top Gun. It was 68 or 69 that top gun ramped up the usage. Disclaimer – I have no issue with the base, the jet noise, etc.. as long as pilots don’t fly injured planes and land really close to my kids elementary school. I have a good friend who lives 2 doors down from the house that was hit. The jet noise is part of life.)

I can see the generation difference though, between circa 1949 house and 1960’s houses.
We’re the odd ones in our “next gen” bunch on my block – same age as everyone else – but with young kids… What can I say – hubby and I were/are REALLY old to be having kids this young.

[UCGal]

[quote=bearishgurl]
I think if you grew up in UC, the OLDEST properties up there might be circa 1968 or 1971. My block was built in 1949. [/quote]

close – Parts of UC – including my block, were developed in 62-65. My house was built in 64.

(I get defensive about the age when people start talking about Miramar and how all residents “knew” of the active use at the time they bought – my parents and my neighbors knew there was an airbase… that wasn’t used much at the time – this was pre-Top Gun. It was 68 or 69 that top gun ramped up the usage. Disclaimer – I have no issue with the base, the jet noise, etc.. as long as pilots don’t fly injured planes and land really close to my kids elementary school. I have a good friend who lives 2 doors down from the house that was hit. The jet noise is part of life.)

I can see the generation difference though, between circa 1949 house and 1960’s houses.
We’re the odd ones in our “next gen” bunch on my block – same age as everyone else – but with young kids… What can I say – hubby and I were/are REALLY old to be having kids this young.

[UCGal]

[quote=bearishgurl]
I think if you grew up in UC, the OLDEST properties up there might be circa 1968 or 1971. My block was built in 1949. [/quote]

close – Parts of UC – including my block, were developed in 62-65. My house was built in 64.

(I get defensive about the age when people start talking about Miramar and how all residents “knew” of the active use at the time they bought – my parents and my neighbors knew there was an airbase… that wasn’t used much at the time – this was pre-Top Gun. It was 68 or 69 that top gun ramped up the usage. Disclaimer – I have no issue with the base, the jet noise, etc.. as long as pilots don’t fly injured planes and land really close to my kids elementary school. I have a good friend who lives 2 doors down from the house that was hit. The jet noise is part of life.)

I can see the generation difference though, between circa 1949 house and 1960’s houses.
We’re the odd ones in our “next gen” bunch on my block – same age as everyone else – but with young kids… What can I say – hubby and I were/are REALLY old to be having kids this young.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1]That’s the argument for Prop 13. It allows people on fixed income to remain in their homes.

If they heloc’ed away then the next generation won’t be living there.[/quote]

Briansd1, I agree with you that this was the intended purpose of Prop. 13. HOWEVER, the original “Greatest Generation” purchasers, in my ‘hood, could AFFORD gardeners, roofers and handymen on their fixed incomes. ON the OTHER hand, their CHILDREN (my fellow “baby boomers?) don’t appear to be able to maintain the property on a similar fixed income. What’s the difference?

Illustrated, plain and simple, the difference is in VALUES. Even though children of “savers,” the heirs I am observing here are NOT savers and, for the most part, have NO ASSETS. Several of them have (admittedly) never had a full-time job. Even given no mortgage and Prop 13 tax treatment, once obtaining deed to real property, they IMMEDIATELY SEE IT AS A MONEY MACHINE AND BLOW THE $$. Now they are trying to pay it back on a fixed income. Never having been homeowners, it never dawns on them (until it happens) that water heaters break, roofs leak, etc.

NOW, WITH ALL THE TD/HELOC $$ SPENT, they are trying to pay back the encumbrance(s) AND live on their (yes, same) fixed income.

Their parents never would have done this, just so they could leave behind this “legacy.” And for what? The parents would have been better off selling while they were still alive and going around the world and then settling in a Sr. complex or an assisted living facility. The whole thing is just sad and I feel that my block is a microcosm of many thousands in the state just like it, all due to Prop. 13, which allows heirs to live nearly FREE in their parent’s (unencumbered) property (+ utilities, of course).

As a market-rate owner and taxpayer, I don’t enjoy having all these “unmotivated overgrown-children” neighbors and am reluctant to make improvements to my own property because of this. Even though properties in newer neighborhoods wouldn’t be eligible for Prop. 13 tax treatment and having an HOA would do away with some of the problems I am mentioning here, I AM grateful I don’t have to pay MR and HOA dues and would NOT choose a property that had them, in any case.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1]That’s the argument for Prop 13. It allows people on fixed income to remain in their homes.

If they heloc’ed away then the next generation won’t be living there.[/quote]

Briansd1, I agree with you that this was the intended purpose of Prop. 13. HOWEVER, the original “Greatest Generation” purchasers, in my ‘hood, could AFFORD gardeners, roofers and handymen on their fixed incomes. ON the OTHER hand, their CHILDREN (my fellow “baby boomers?) don’t appear to be able to maintain the property on a similar fixed income. What’s the difference?

Illustrated, plain and simple, the difference is in VALUES. Even though children of “savers,” the heirs I am observing here are NOT savers and, for the most part, have NO ASSETS. Several of them have (admittedly) never had a full-time job. Even given no mortgage and Prop 13 tax treatment, once obtaining deed to real property, they IMMEDIATELY SEE IT AS A MONEY MACHINE AND BLOW THE $$. Now they are trying to pay it back on a fixed income. Never having been homeowners, it never dawns on them (until it happens) that water heaters break, roofs leak, etc.

NOW, WITH ALL THE TD/HELOC $$ SPENT, they are trying to pay back the encumbrance(s) AND live on their (yes, same) fixed income.

Their parents never would have done this, just so they could leave behind this “legacy.” And for what? The parents would have been better off selling while they were still alive and going around the world and then settling in a Sr. complex or an assisted living facility. The whole thing is just sad and I feel that my block is a microcosm of many thousands in the state just like it, all due to Prop. 13, which allows heirs to live nearly FREE in their parent’s (unencumbered) property (+ utilities, of course).

As a market-rate owner and taxpayer, I don’t enjoy having all these “unmotivated overgrown-children” neighbors and am reluctant to make improvements to my own property because of this. Even though properties in newer neighborhoods wouldn’t be eligible for Prop. 13 tax treatment and having an HOA would do away with some of the problems I am mentioning here, I AM grateful I don’t have to pay MR and HOA dues and would NOT choose a property that had them, in any case.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1]That’s the argument for Prop 13. It allows people on fixed income to remain in their homes.

If they heloc’ed away then the next generation won’t be living there.[/quote]

Briansd1, I agree with you that this was the intended purpose of Prop. 13. HOWEVER, the original “Greatest Generation” purchasers, in my ‘hood, could AFFORD gardeners, roofers and handymen on their fixed incomes. ON the OTHER hand, their CHILDREN (my fellow “baby boomers?) don’t appear to be able to maintain the property on a similar fixed income. What’s the difference?

Illustrated, plain and simple, the difference is in VALUES. Even though children of “savers,” the heirs I am observing here are NOT savers and, for the most part, have NO ASSETS. Several of them have (admittedly) never had a full-time job. Even given no mortgage and Prop 13 tax treatment, once obtaining deed to real property, they IMMEDIATELY SEE IT AS A MONEY MACHINE AND BLOW THE $$. Now they are trying to pay it back on a fixed income. Never having been homeowners, it never dawns on them (until it happens) that water heaters break, roofs leak, etc.

NOW, WITH ALL THE TD/HELOC $$ SPENT, they are trying to pay back the encumbrance(s) AND live on their (yes, same) fixed income.

Their parents never would have done this, just so they could leave behind this “legacy.” And for what? The parents would have been better off selling while they were still alive and going around the world and then settling in a Sr. complex or an assisted living facility. The whole thing is just sad and I feel that my block is a microcosm of many thousands in the state just like it, all due to Prop. 13, which allows heirs to live nearly FREE in their parent’s (unencumbered) property (+ utilities, of course).

As a market-rate owner and taxpayer, I don’t enjoy having all these “unmotivated overgrown-children” neighbors and am reluctant to make improvements to my own property because of this. Even though properties in newer neighborhoods wouldn’t be eligible for Prop. 13 tax treatment and having an HOA would do away with some of the problems I am mentioning here, I AM grateful I don’t have to pay MR and HOA dues and would NOT choose a property that had them, in any case.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1]That’s the argument for Prop 13. It allows people on fixed income to remain in their homes.

If they heloc’ed away then the next generation won’t be living there.[/quote]

Briansd1, I agree with you that this was the intended purpose of Prop. 13. HOWEVER, the original “Greatest Generation” purchasers, in my ‘hood, could AFFORD gardeners, roofers and handymen on their fixed incomes. ON the OTHER hand, their CHILDREN (my fellow “baby boomers?) don’t appear to be able to maintain the property on a similar fixed income. What’s the difference?

Illustrated, plain and simple, the difference is in VALUES. Even though children of “savers,” the heirs I am observing here are NOT savers and, for the most part, have NO ASSETS. Several of them have (admittedly) never had a full-time job. Even given no mortgage and Prop 13 tax treatment, once obtaining deed to real property, they IMMEDIATELY SEE IT AS A MONEY MACHINE AND BLOW THE $$. Now they are trying to pay it back on a fixed income. Never having been homeowners, it never dawns on them (until it happens) that water heaters break, roofs leak, etc.

NOW, WITH ALL THE TD/HELOC $$ SPENT, they are trying to pay back the encumbrance(s) AND live on their (yes, same) fixed income.

Their parents never would have done this, just so they could leave behind this “legacy.” And for what? The parents would have been better off selling while they were still alive and going around the world and then settling in a Sr. complex or an assisted living facility. The whole thing is just sad and I feel that my block is a microcosm of many thousands in the state just like it, all due to Prop. 13, which allows heirs to live nearly FREE in their parent’s (unencumbered) property (+ utilities, of course).

As a market-rate owner and taxpayer, I don’t enjoy having all these “unmotivated overgrown-children” neighbors and am reluctant to make improvements to my own property because of this. Even though properties in newer neighborhoods wouldn’t be eligible for Prop. 13 tax treatment and having an HOA would do away with some of the problems I am mentioning here, I AM grateful I don’t have to pay MR and HOA dues and would NOT choose a property that had them, in any case.

[Author]

Posts