Reminder: Your massive property taxes are due

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl]I would like to comment that in South County, the voting population that was at least 50% responsible for passing the school construction bonds in recent years, were. . . you guessed it, RENTERS! Of course, as renters, they want improvements in their own children’s schools but this tax doesn’t come off their backs. Only owners pay it in their property taxes.

And no, I don’t buy the argument that rent is usually enough to cover the owner’s mortgage(s), HOA dues (if applic.) and property taxes. In my experience, it’s usually negative.

Neither do I buy that apartment rents are necessarily a positive cash flow for owners, unless they own a very large complex and/or purchased a long time ago and didn’t bleed the property.[/quote]

In every case that I’m aware of, prior to the housing bubble, rents absolutely cover property taxes.

The whole “I’m a landlord with negative cash flow ‘investor'” comes with bubble territory. My parents were RE brokers, landlords, and investors for decades. They would NEVER have purchased a property where rents didn’t cover all expenses and provide a profit on top of that. They never had a negative cash flow in any of their properties, and I know many other long-time landlords who are in the same boat (my current landlords, included).

The negative cash flow “investors” are hoping for capital gains. Those aren’t real RE investors.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter]The whole “I’m a landlord with negative cash flow ‘investor'” comes with bubble territory. My parents were RE brokers, landlords, and investors for decades. They would NEVER have purchased a property where rents didn’t cover all expenses and provide a profit on top of that. They never had a negative cash flow in any of their properties, and I know many other long-time landlords who are in the same boat (my current landlords, included).[/quote]

CA Renter, did your parents purchase the bulk of their rental portfolio prior to the passage of Prop. 13 (April 1978)? Until about 1983 or 1984, it was difficult to get a loan of more than 60% LTV on rental properties. In addition, the interest rates were high during that time period. Did your parents get low LTV purchase-money loans or pay cash for some of their properties? If so AND they didn’t bleed the properties, obviously some of them would be paid off by now and generating very good profits.

Could they also have purchased properties with more amenities with other equity partners? These properties tend to attract a higher-quality tenant.

I say “kudos” to your parents for hanging around long enough managing, for doing the repairs themselves and for their patience with flaky tenants and their (hidden) pets, etc. in good times and bad. My “negative” cash flow scenario presumes a 25% vacancy rate. This is in line with more a transient (low income and military) tenant population, which I am most familiar with.

My 12-year “landlord-stint” had nothing to do with bubbles. I myself have been a licensee since 1984. I’ve owned two rental properties, one duplex, sold ’90 (small loss) and one triplex, sold ’94 (break-even). In both cases, I HATED dealing with tenants and their lame excuses for late rent payment, when I am observing standing in their doorway that they have more cable channels and a much newer vehicle than I do. Never had to evict but hung several “3-day notices” and wrote letters to commanding officers. And I HATED spending my weekends cleaning, repairing and painting the units between the frequent vacancies.

I believe we will soon enter a very favorable period in which to purchase working-class SFR’s for rentals, but I no longer possess the “DIY” patience or personality for the landlord thing.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter]The whole “I’m a landlord with negative cash flow ‘investor'” comes with bubble territory. My parents were RE brokers, landlords, and investors for decades. They would NEVER have purchased a property where rents didn’t cover all expenses and provide a profit on top of that. They never had a negative cash flow in any of their properties, and I know many other long-time landlords who are in the same boat (my current landlords, included).[/quote]

CA Renter, did your parents purchase the bulk of their rental portfolio prior to the passage of Prop. 13 (April 1978)? Until about 1983 or 1984, it was difficult to get a loan of more than 60% LTV on rental properties. In addition, the interest rates were high during that time period. Did your parents get low LTV purchase-money loans or pay cash for some of their properties? If so AND they didn’t bleed the properties, obviously some of them would be paid off by now and generating very good profits.

Could they also have purchased properties with more amenities with other equity partners? These properties tend to attract a higher-quality tenant.

I say “kudos” to your parents for hanging around long enough managing, for doing the repairs themselves and for their patience with flaky tenants and their (hidden) pets, etc. in good times and bad. My “negative” cash flow scenario presumes a 25% vacancy rate. This is in line with more a transient (low income and military) tenant population, which I am most familiar with.

My 12-year “landlord-stint” had nothing to do with bubbles. I myself have been a licensee since 1984. I’ve owned two rental properties, one duplex, sold ’90 (small loss) and one triplex, sold ’94 (break-even). In both cases, I HATED dealing with tenants and their lame excuses for late rent payment, when I am observing standing in their doorway that they have more cable channels and a much newer vehicle than I do. Never had to evict but hung several “3-day notices” and wrote letters to commanding officers. And I HATED spending my weekends cleaning, repairing and painting the units between the frequent vacancies.

I believe we will soon enter a very favorable period in which to purchase working-class SFR’s for rentals, but I no longer possess the “DIY” patience or personality for the landlord thing.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter]The whole “I’m a landlord with negative cash flow ‘investor'” comes with bubble territory. My parents were RE brokers, landlords, and investors for decades. They would NEVER have purchased a property where rents didn’t cover all expenses and provide a profit on top of that. They never had a negative cash flow in any of their properties, and I know many other long-time landlords who are in the same boat (my current landlords, included).[/quote]

CA Renter, did your parents purchase the bulk of their rental portfolio prior to the passage of Prop. 13 (April 1978)? Until about 1983 or 1984, it was difficult to get a loan of more than 60% LTV on rental properties. In addition, the interest rates were high during that time period. Did your parents get low LTV purchase-money loans or pay cash for some of their properties? If so AND they didn’t bleed the properties, obviously some of them would be paid off by now and generating very good profits.

Could they also have purchased properties with more amenities with other equity partners? These properties tend to attract a higher-quality tenant.

I say “kudos” to your parents for hanging around long enough managing, for doing the repairs themselves and for their patience with flaky tenants and their (hidden) pets, etc. in good times and bad. My “negative” cash flow scenario presumes a 25% vacancy rate. This is in line with more a transient (low income and military) tenant population, which I am most familiar with.

My 12-year “landlord-stint” had nothing to do with bubbles. I myself have been a licensee since 1984. I’ve owned two rental properties, one duplex, sold ’90 (small loss) and one triplex, sold ’94 (break-even). In both cases, I HATED dealing with tenants and their lame excuses for late rent payment, when I am observing standing in their doorway that they have more cable channels and a much newer vehicle than I do. Never had to evict but hung several “3-day notices” and wrote letters to commanding officers. And I HATED spending my weekends cleaning, repairing and painting the units between the frequent vacancies.

I believe we will soon enter a very favorable period in which to purchase working-class SFR’s for rentals, but I no longer possess the “DIY” patience or personality for the landlord thing.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter]The whole “I’m a landlord with negative cash flow ‘investor'” comes with bubble territory. My parents were RE brokers, landlords, and investors for decades. They would NEVER have purchased a property where rents didn’t cover all expenses and provide a profit on top of that. They never had a negative cash flow in any of their properties, and I know many other long-time landlords who are in the same boat (my current landlords, included).[/quote]

CA Renter, did your parents purchase the bulk of their rental portfolio prior to the passage of Prop. 13 (April 1978)? Until about 1983 or 1984, it was difficult to get a loan of more than 60% LTV on rental properties. In addition, the interest rates were high during that time period. Did your parents get low LTV purchase-money loans or pay cash for some of their properties? If so AND they didn’t bleed the properties, obviously some of them would be paid off by now and generating very good profits.

Could they also have purchased properties with more amenities with other equity partners? These properties tend to attract a higher-quality tenant.

I say “kudos” to your parents for hanging around long enough managing, for doing the repairs themselves and for their patience with flaky tenants and their (hidden) pets, etc. in good times and bad. My “negative” cash flow scenario presumes a 25% vacancy rate. This is in line with more a transient (low income and military) tenant population, which I am most familiar with.

My 12-year “landlord-stint” had nothing to do with bubbles. I myself have been a licensee since 1984. I’ve owned two rental properties, one duplex, sold ’90 (small loss) and one triplex, sold ’94 (break-even). In both cases, I HATED dealing with tenants and their lame excuses for late rent payment, when I am observing standing in their doorway that they have more cable channels and a much newer vehicle than I do. Never had to evict but hung several “3-day notices” and wrote letters to commanding officers. And I HATED spending my weekends cleaning, repairing and painting the units between the frequent vacancies.

I believe we will soon enter a very favorable period in which to purchase working-class SFR’s for rentals, but I no longer possess the “DIY” patience or personality for the landlord thing.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter]The whole “I’m a landlord with negative cash flow ‘investor'” comes with bubble territory. My parents were RE brokers, landlords, and investors for decades. They would NEVER have purchased a property where rents didn’t cover all expenses and provide a profit on top of that. They never had a negative cash flow in any of their properties, and I know many other long-time landlords who are in the same boat (my current landlords, included).[/quote]

CA Renter, did your parents purchase the bulk of their rental portfolio prior to the passage of Prop. 13 (April 1978)? Until about 1983 or 1984, it was difficult to get a loan of more than 60% LTV on rental properties. In addition, the interest rates were high during that time period. Did your parents get low LTV purchase-money loans or pay cash for some of their properties? If so AND they didn’t bleed the properties, obviously some of them would be paid off by now and generating very good profits.

Could they also have purchased properties with more amenities with other equity partners? These properties tend to attract a higher-quality tenant.

I say “kudos” to your parents for hanging around long enough managing, for doing the repairs themselves and for their patience with flaky tenants and their (hidden) pets, etc. in good times and bad. My “negative” cash flow scenario presumes a 25% vacancy rate. This is in line with more a transient (low income and military) tenant population, which I am most familiar with.

My 12-year “landlord-stint” had nothing to do with bubbles. I myself have been a licensee since 1984. I’ve owned two rental properties, one duplex, sold ’90 (small loss) and one triplex, sold ’94 (break-even). In both cases, I HATED dealing with tenants and their lame excuses for late rent payment, when I am observing standing in their doorway that they have more cable channels and a much newer vehicle than I do. Never had to evict but hung several “3-day notices” and wrote letters to commanding officers. And I HATED spending my weekends cleaning, repairing and painting the units between the frequent vacancies.

I believe we will soon enter a very favorable period in which to purchase working-class SFR’s for rentals, but I no longer possess the “DIY” patience or personality for the landlord thing.

[edna_mode]

OK, I bring examples, and analysis in the form of an open letter to Warren Buffett by a Menlo Park resident who researched the effect of Prop 13 on not only resident properties, but commercial properties:

http://www.almanacnews.com/news/show_story.php?id=6256

I wonder what a similar analysis for San Diego would look like. Maybe the ire of all these homeowners is misdirected at each other, and they should be looking more deeply into what the inherited mom-and-pop shops are paying for fire, sewer, water, police, courts, and an educated work force.

Deconstruct away.

[edna_mode]

OK, I bring examples, and analysis in the form of an open letter to Warren Buffett by a Menlo Park resident who researched the effect of Prop 13 on not only resident properties, but commercial properties:

http://www.almanacnews.com/news/show_story.php?id=6256

I wonder what a similar analysis for San Diego would look like. Maybe the ire of all these homeowners is misdirected at each other, and they should be looking more deeply into what the inherited mom-and-pop shops are paying for fire, sewer, water, police, courts, and an educated work force.

Deconstruct away.

[edna_mode]

OK, I bring examples, and analysis in the form of an open letter to Warren Buffett by a Menlo Park resident who researched the effect of Prop 13 on not only resident properties, but commercial properties:

http://www.almanacnews.com/news/show_story.php?id=6256

I wonder what a similar analysis for San Diego would look like. Maybe the ire of all these homeowners is misdirected at each other, and they should be looking more deeply into what the inherited mom-and-pop shops are paying for fire, sewer, water, police, courts, and an educated work force.

Deconstruct away.

[edna_mode]

OK, I bring examples, and analysis in the form of an open letter to Warren Buffett by a Menlo Park resident who researched the effect of Prop 13 on not only resident properties, but commercial properties:

http://www.almanacnews.com/news/show_story.php?id=6256

I wonder what a similar analysis for San Diego would look like. Maybe the ire of all these homeowners is misdirected at each other, and they should be looking more deeply into what the inherited mom-and-pop shops are paying for fire, sewer, water, police, courts, and an educated work force.

Deconstruct away.

[edna_mode]

OK, I bring examples, and analysis in the form of an open letter to Warren Buffett by a Menlo Park resident who researched the effect of Prop 13 on not only resident properties, but commercial properties:

http://www.almanacnews.com/news/show_story.php?id=6256

I wonder what a similar analysis for San Diego would look like. Maybe the ire of all these homeowners is misdirected at each other, and they should be looking more deeply into what the inherited mom-and-pop shops are paying for fire, sewer, water, police, courts, and an educated work force.

Deconstruct away.

[bearishgurl]

Awesome letter, edna. Thanks for sharing. I think as more “Prop. 13 original owners” die and leave their properties to their heirs, it will become more and more palatable to the voting public to have a closer look at Prop. 13 and find ways to dismantle it, either piecemeal (repealing Prop. 58) or in its entirety. It’s not a fair system for the vast majority of CA property owners today and is becoming less and less fair as the years roll by.

However, I’m all for leaving it in place for pre-1978 owners of their PRINCIPAL RESIDENCES only. This “grandfather” clause would eventually become moot, due to deaths. I agree that everyone else should be reassessed. Built into the system should be re-assessment triggers based upon the death of the original (Prop. 13) owner or a pre-death transfer of eligible property. To circumvent the (predicted) non-filing of death certificates with county recorders, ALL county health departments should furnish electronic lists of adult death certificates they issued to every county assessor once a month.

Sound a little like “Big Brother?” Prop. 13 proponents believe their rights to this perk are sacrosanct. If Prop. 13 was decimated, heirs would just take posssession but fail to take proper title if the property is in a trust or there are not enough assets to be probated. Who’s to know, anyway?? As long as they don’t want to borrow from the property, IMHO this could work, indefinitely.

[bearishgurl]

Awesome letter, edna. Thanks for sharing. I think as more “Prop. 13 original owners” die and leave their properties to their heirs, it will become more and more palatable to the voting public to have a closer look at Prop. 13 and find ways to dismantle it, either piecemeal (repealing Prop. 58) or in its entirety. It’s not a fair system for the vast majority of CA property owners today and is becoming less and less fair as the years roll by.

However, I’m all for leaving it in place for pre-1978 owners of their PRINCIPAL RESIDENCES only. This “grandfather” clause would eventually become moot, due to deaths. I agree that everyone else should be reassessed. Built into the system should be re-assessment triggers based upon the death of the original (Prop. 13) owner or a pre-death transfer of eligible property. To circumvent the (predicted) non-filing of death certificates with county recorders, ALL county health departments should furnish electronic lists of adult death certificates they issued to every county assessor once a month.

Sound a little like “Big Brother?” Prop. 13 proponents believe their rights to this perk are sacrosanct. If Prop. 13 was decimated, heirs would just take posssession but fail to take proper title if the property is in a trust or there are not enough assets to be probated. Who’s to know, anyway?? As long as they don’t want to borrow from the property, IMHO this could work, indefinitely.

[bearishgurl]

Awesome letter, edna. Thanks for sharing. I think as more “Prop. 13 original owners” die and leave their properties to their heirs, it will become more and more palatable to the voting public to have a closer look at Prop. 13 and find ways to dismantle it, either piecemeal (repealing Prop. 58) or in its entirety. It’s not a fair system for the vast majority of CA property owners today and is becoming less and less fair as the years roll by.

However, I’m all for leaving it in place for pre-1978 owners of their PRINCIPAL RESIDENCES only. This “grandfather” clause would eventually become moot, due to deaths. I agree that everyone else should be reassessed. Built into the system should be re-assessment triggers based upon the death of the original (Prop. 13) owner or a pre-death transfer of eligible property. To circumvent the (predicted) non-filing of death certificates with county recorders, ALL county health departments should furnish electronic lists of adult death certificates they issued to every county assessor once a month.

Sound a little like “Big Brother?” Prop. 13 proponents believe their rights to this perk are sacrosanct. If Prop. 13 was decimated, heirs would just take posssession but fail to take proper title if the property is in a trust or there are not enough assets to be probated. Who’s to know, anyway?? As long as they don’t want to borrow from the property, IMHO this could work, indefinitely.

[bearishgurl]

Awesome letter, edna. Thanks for sharing. I think as more “Prop. 13 original owners” die and leave their properties to their heirs, it will become more and more palatable to the voting public to have a closer look at Prop. 13 and find ways to dismantle it, either piecemeal (repealing Prop. 58) or in its entirety. It’s not a fair system for the vast majority of CA property owners today and is becoming less and less fair as the years roll by.

However, I’m all for leaving it in place for pre-1978 owners of their PRINCIPAL RESIDENCES only. This “grandfather” clause would eventually become moot, due to deaths. I agree that everyone else should be reassessed. Built into the system should be re-assessment triggers based upon the death of the original (Prop. 13) owner or a pre-death transfer of eligible property. To circumvent the (predicted) non-filing of death certificates with county recorders, ALL county health departments should furnish electronic lists of adult death certificates they issued to every county assessor once a month.

Sound a little like “Big Brother?” Prop. 13 proponents believe their rights to this perk are sacrosanct. If Prop. 13 was decimated, heirs would just take posssession but fail to take proper title if the property is in a trust or there are not enough assets to be probated. Who’s to know, anyway?? As long as they don’t want to borrow from the property, IMHO this could work, indefinitely.

[Author]

Posts