[an]

[quote=all][quote=AN]Again, not anywhere close to the same scale. We’re talking about billionaires getting their fortunes through bribery and being able to dictate what business succeed or fail based on whether they get a share of that company or not. All the while the citizens are dirt poor. We’re not talking about American “poor” either. We’re talking about local officials skimming from the top off road projects where the end result funding is a fraction of what it started out as and end up with poor quality roads due to lack of funding. The corruption starts from the bottom and go all the way to the top. I can go on and not, but point is, not even close.[/quote]
This does not sound like communism, or even socialism. It sounds like any country with weak institutions.[/quote]If it’s not communism, then what is it? Last I checked, China, Vietnam, Laos, North Korea are all communist countries. Do you have new information that I don’t know about?

[an]

[quote=Jazzman]And you think capitalism doesn’t? Of course there a controls against corruption in China. There is a huge clamp down going on now against regional corruption (if you can believe the media). First, you have to determine what you mean by corruption or fraud. There are restraints on the free movement of capital preventing you from taking money out of China. No wonder people ferret it out illegally. So what may be legit to some may be deemed fraud elsewhere.[/quote]Again, not anywhere close to the same scale. We’re talking about billionaires getting their fortunes through bribery and being able to dictate what business succeed or fail based on whether they get a share of that company or not. All the while the citizens are dirt poor. We’re not talking about American “poor” either. We’re talking about local officials skimming from the top off road projects where the end result funding is a fraction of what it started out as and end up with poor quality roads due to lack of funding. The corruption starts from the bottom and go all the way to the top. I can go on and not, but point is, not even close.

[an]

[quote=CA renter][quote=AN][quote=CA renter]It’s typical of capitalist societies, too. It’s natural behavior for humans who are on the extremely high end of the greed spectrum, and has nothing to do with a country’s political-economic structure.[/quote]Yes, it is human nature, but communism allow greed to go unchecked.[/quote]

How is capitalism any different? Seem greed goes unchecked here on a regular basis.[/quote]
Not even close.

[an]

Desirable areas of CA was affordable not too long ago after every crash. Real estate in CA is cyclical, so I think it will be affordable again.

[an]

Unfortunately, I know many who don’t think that far ahead or don’t see the impact of their high cost of living. They just love the city and the vibe. Being a native SoCal-er, I don’t understand it, but I guess people outside of SoCal would say the same about us.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]It’s typical of capitalist societies, too. It’s natural behavior for humans who are on the extremely high end of the greed spectrum, and has nothing to do with a country’s political-economic structure.[/quote]Yes, it is human nature, but communism allow greed to go unchecked.

[an]

[quote=spdrun]Why do you give a shit what happens to the stadium? It’s a decent stadium for soccer and university games with a parking lot for events. Why not keep it, whether professional football plays there or not?[/quote]
Because I don’t watch soccer or university sports. So I don’t want my tax dollar going to maintaining that POS. However, I would use the river park they build or the retail that they build.

[an]

As long as they’re tearing down the current QCOM stadium and rebuild something, that all I want. If it’s a new stadium that the task force proposed, that sounds great. Else, if they leave, I hope they tear it down and build a high density mixed use development to tie into with the Civita development, I’d be all for that too. Especially if they keep the river park they have planned with the stadium.

[an]

Could it be because when unemployment is high, it also mean labor participation is low? Why repeat the same obvious fact?

[an]

One other thing is that apartment tend to have much smaller deposit. Some people are more willing to pay more monthly than plunk down a large deposit.

[an]

[quote=flu][quote=AN]It’s in the middle of Mira mesa, not east side. It’s behind babies r us.[/quote]

Oops. Mixed this one up for something else…Still kinda high (for now)….[/quote]Yes, still kinda high, but apartments have always been higher than condo. Here’s Gable Summerset apartments: http://gables.com/find/apartment/441-gables-summerset-san-diego-ca. 1/1 are listed at $1460-1945. I assume that’s the differences between 1 year lease and month to month. Also, Summerset, fridge is extra.

[an]

It’s in the middle of Mira mesa, not east side. It’s behind babies r us.

[an]

[quote=flu]dealing with 15 renters doesn’t end up being a “passive investment”. It ends up being an almost full time/part time job, even if you use a property manager. I mean, you wouldn’t want to be completely hands off either, since then your costs would get totally out of wack….Also, the likelihood of getting near 100% occupancy in at 15 condos for an extended period of time is less likely than I think renting 3 houses to 3 families. Then again, I’ve haven’t been in the situation of dealing with 15 tenants yet, so I wouldn’t know if the PITA factor would really be an issue….[/quote]I know someone who have to deal w/ 10 in low income areas and it’s not as bad as you think it is. It’s definitely not their full time job.

If you don’t want to deal w/ 15 1/1 condo, you can deal w/ 6 SFH in MM instead. They’re going for $2400 now: http://sandiego.craigslist.org/csd/apa/5032950024.html. Since you don’t have to deal w/ HOA, your cost to maintain would be less than 3 SFH in CV. That mean your rental income would be $14.4k/month. Maybe you can maintain 6 yourself :-). That would actually yield a higher rent than the 15 1/1 condo.

[an]

[quote=flu][quote=AN][quote=flu]When you get old like me, if you had to choose between managing 15 1/1’s or 3 SFH for slightly less returns, I’d takethe 3 SFH’s….[/quote]When I’m old like you, I’d hire a property manager for $100/property to manage it for me. So, my $19500/month rent would go down to $18k/month rent. Still higher than $12k/month rent of SFH and I don’t have to mange it myself.[/quote]

So each condo will then produce about $900/month ($100 for property management and $300 for hoa) So that would be about $13500/month. Not too much different. Plus, more tenants = more exposure to turnover and liability.

Not that this would be my problem in the short term. I don’t think I’ll be getting 3 SFH in CV or 15 MM condos right now….lol…

Then again, any turnover in a SFH in CV wouldn’t be negligible….[/quote]That’s 12.5% higher rent. $1500/month = $18k/year. That would be enough for you to go to a track day every month and pay for maintenance cost ;-P

[an]

[quote=flu]When you get old like me, if you had to choose between managing 15 1/1’s or 3 SFH for slightly less returns, I’d takethe 3 SFH’s….[/quote]When I’m old like you, I’d hire a property manager for $100/property to manage it for me. So, my $19500/month rent would go down to $18k/month rent. Still higher than $12k/month rent of SFH and I don’t have to mange it myself.

[Author]

Posts