Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
ParticipantUpon further inspection of the street views, I feel the Dartmoor listing could actually be situated on a +/- 1/2 AC lot.
Participant[quote=njtosd]Water leak showing on driveway, or maybe it’s from backed up drain for AC? I would wonder whether it was run off from irrigation, but . . .[/quote]The houses above (on the east side of 69th) likely have french drains draining down the hillside. The multiple-terrace fence the previous owner installed on the listing is not sufficient to keep the water off this property and foundation. Thus it is likely runoff from the neighbors above. The property needs just ONE deeply dug concrete block retaining wall separating the hill and backyard with a concrete swale parallel and behind it. That would cost at least $30K. Then it needs french drains from the block wall to the curb (there is no sidewalk on that street).
The listing has likely flooded repeatedly in heavy rains because the hill above it has probably been pretty bare ever since the cost of water went through the roof (the last 5-8 years).
Participant[quote=moneymaker]http://www.sdlookup.com/Pictures-160058505
How many atrocities can you spot?
tumbleweeds in front yard
old tires
beheaded palm trees
[/quote]lol, I know that area well. The SD side (NE Encanto at 1 street to the west, in the canyon) actually just got sewer in about 20 years ago. That’s a nice (1/3 to 1/4 AC) pie-shaped lot! But it has a terraced backyard where the SD-facing homes (on the east side of 69th) can see into the backyards of the homes on Dartmoor.Not sure it’s worth what they’re asking. I’d probably pay $110K – $130K for the lot and $60-$70K for the house, depending on condition. Feeds into Helix HS (which WAS an excellent school once upon a time). If the occupant has high-schoolers, TMMV.
See Piggs? I’ve posted here several times that there were “affordable” SFRs available in SD County!
Thanks for sharing, moneymaker! The beheaded palm trees add a little “ambiance” to this (possible) “cosmetic fixer” :=0
ParticipantUmm, phaster?? No one here has complained about “Prop 13” so I’m not sure why you took up so much bandwidth here attempting to justify it. My major complaint was about the existence of Props 58 and 193. Without the existence of Prop 58 (voted in November 1986), YOU wouldn’t have been able to “inherit” your parent(s) apt bldg(s) with their ultra-low assessment intact.
I have a few of questions for you:
Are YOU officially disabled pursuant to Social Security Disability guidelines?
Are the bldgs which sit on YOUR parcels “rent-controlled” by local government entities?
Are YOU a 100% disabled veteran pursuant to Veteran’s Administration guidelines?
If your answer is “no” to the above three questions, why do you think you are more deserving of a 50-90% lower tax bill than your neighbors who have FMV assessments (or assessments close to FMV)?
Do you think the “deal” you have with the county assessor’s office is “fair” to your neighboring property owners who own lesser valuable properties than yours but owe much more annual tax on them?
Would YOU have ACTUALLY KEPT your parent’s investment propertie(s) upon your last parent’s death had its/their assessment been stepped up to FMV upon his/her death? Or would you have sold it/them, instead??
*****
As an aside (not important to the Prop 58 issue but just for general info) are YOU actually residing in any of the units you “inherited” from your parent(s)?
Thanks in advance of your responses to the above.
Participant[quote=ltsdd]Folks, remember, no one thought chump would make it this far.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/ai-system-finds-trump-win-104022784.html
[/quote]Um, ltsdd, the “chump” is actually HRC …. NOT Trump.
Yes, I think Trump will win … but I felt he would win even before the FBI decided to reopen the investigation on HRC’s e-mails. For a whole variety of reasons that a lot of people don’t understand …. but namely that he’s willing to fight the good fight. There are very few people out there who are willing to do this …. especially using their own money …. very, very few … to none. Trump is one in several million.
And this is coming from a former (very effective) Dem activist/operative, lol …..
ParticipantParticipantHuma is very attractive, educated and in many ways, smart. Not sure why she found it necessary to hang around Weiner (aka “Carlos Danger”) for so long. It tainted her as “damaged goods.”
Now, she’s going to have to get as far away from Clinton as fast as she can …. starting tonight …. that is, if HRC is going to have any prayer at all of getting elected.
I don’t understand why women do this to themselves. Especially educated, experienced women who can support themselves. It boggles the mind.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]BG, Bill and Anthony are not running.
As a woman, how do rationalize the sexual exploits of Donald who is running?[/quote]Easily. The Donald’s “exploits” were WORDS, NOT ACTIONS and he was “single” during all of the “alleged” incidences except for the hot mic incident on the bus. Bill and Anthony were very married during all times when they ACTED on their sexual proclivities.
In addition, Donald’s recent “bimbo eruptions” were mostly “Hollywood has-beens” and thus were opportunists looking to get some airtime in a desperate attempt to garner media attention in the middle of a presidential campaign (after being [rightly] ignored by the media for years) . . . OR an attempt to compel Trump to pay them off to go away … or both. They were all disgusting losers who had years, even decades to complain about Trump’s supposed behavior towards them but chose one month before election day to do so. Ask yourself why … and WHO compelled them to do so.
The only classy ladies in Trump’s highly publicized “non-sexcapades” (who were actually the object of Trump’s private bus comments to another male) were Nancy O’Dell and Arianne Zuckor. Being the consummate show business professionals that they were (and still are), they both didn’t take the hot mic comments personally and recognized that the bus conversation was nothing more than “locker-room talk” . . . par for the course in the entertainment industry. They both issued statements that didn’t even mention Trump’s name and never indicated that they were damaged by such statements …. or even remembered the incident well.
brian, if you don’t understand the difference between WORDS and ACTIONS and MARRIED and SINGLE, then I can’t help you :=0
ParticipantI’ve posted it before and I’ll repeat it again. Because of her longstanding codependency issues, HRC brings with her more baggage than could be stuffed into the belly bin of a 747. She stood by her man wa-a-a-ay too long and he is nothing but a liability to her. It’s wa-a-a-a-ay too late to do anything about that now. Bill may very well obtain a legal license to once again roam (“creep”) thru the halls of the White House in his senior-citizenhood but I hope not.
Today, we now have HRC’s longtime sidekick literally joined at her hip with whom she has been “mentoring” for the past ~20 years display the exact same profound codependency problem as HRC did (and still does)! (After all, Huma learned from the best, right?) Even after finally voting with her feet two months ago (5 years, 2 months too late, I might add), Huma’s boatload of baggage she carries with her continuing association to her wayward sexual-deviant and possible pedophile “spouse” could now very well be enough to sink the Clinton candidacy.
We all reap what we sow but this sordid mess is still …. disgraceful. I could well imagine that numerous heads of foreign countries are laughing their heads off at us about now.
Participant[quote=CardiffBaseball] . . . In any case I can’t see how anyone on either side can spike footballs at this point. You could literally see this come down to something like Nevada, Colorado, etc.
I’m wondering if that NeoCon leading Utah will end up winning that state. While this year is ugly as hell I’ve also had more fun than I’ve ever had. Happenings all the time. Wikileaks, Guccifer, Guccifer 2.0, Private recordings, strange alliances. Thoroughly entertaining.[/quote]You are absolutely correct, CardiffBaseball. When all is said and done, it WILL come down to NV and CO. I feel Trump will take NV but not so sure about CO, which has morphed into a different animal since they went 420 crazy and all its attendant millenials moved in to take advantage of that on a daily basis :=0
Yes, McMullin may very well win UT, which wouldn’t be good for Trump. I have my wikileaks pages bookmarked and they are very entertaining, yes …. but I am mostly impressed by the Project Veritas videotapes. They remind me of a bygone era in my life. That’s all I’m going to say except for “Hail to James O’Keefe” for all the good work he’s contributing to educating society! His plant(s) were absolute geniuses!
Participant[quote=flu]…. Just like for me, I’ve realized obamacare is a great thing. It means a lot of you healthy people (even those on fixed income) will end up having to pay for much higher premiums for “their fair share” into a healthcare system so that people like me that was born with less than desirable health can eventually qualify to buy health insurance to pay for my $40-50k/year medical expenses that insurance ends up paying for…every year….
Get other people to pay more than you for things. It’s the american way. I finally get it.[/quote]Well, if this post was or was not directed at me, I’ll bite anyway. As a “relatively healthy obamacare planholder” whose premium is going up another 22% for 2017 and whose insurance carrier has made a minimum of $10K off her annually since 1/1/14, I honestly don’t mind helping to cover the necessary procedures for “unlucky gene inheritors” such as the likes of fat_lazy_union/flu/bullishgurl/flu redux thru my monthly premiums. I fully sympathize with his plight.
What I DO have a problem with is being charged enough in my premium to also subsidize my (much more common) brethren who: (1) smoked for 30++ years (and may still be smoking) and thus are walking heart attacks and probable present and near future emphysema sufferers; (2) have weighed >300 lbs (>200 lbs for females) for the past 20+ years and thus suffer from diabetes and deep vein thrombosis, among other numerous maladies; (3) were former hard drug addicts and current and former snuff addicts (even if “clean” now) who are now having strokes and being diagnosed with mouth cancer; (4)have been heavy drinkers for most of their lives and now suffer from cirrhosis and other liver diseases, etc; and (5) have repeatedly engaged in dangerous activities where they could easily be gravely injured such as skydiving, mtn and ice climbing, race car driving, motorcycling, scuba diving, etc. I feel the latter group should buy their own medical riders for these activities if they wish to pursue them. I don’t want to subsidize their daredevil lifestyles. Nor do I want to pay for maternity care because I don’t need the benefit. And I shouldn’t have to. It’s not my problem and no one paid for my maternity care but me when I needed it.
The MSM is currently claiming that obamacare’s massive rate hikes for 2017 are being “softened” by the subsidies (APTC) that ~80% of obamacare planholders receive but nothing could be further from the truth. The average subsidy paid out is $270-$380 month (providers in most states charge less than CA providers so premiums in the lower-cost states are lower). These subsidies might be substantial for the under-50 crowd but not for me. My subsidy for 2017 will be somewhere between $422 and $434 month. That will represent less than 1/3 of my monthly premium. Of course, I’m going to have to go down another metal level for 2017 so my subsidy will represent ~1/2 of my monthly premium. Hopefully, 2017 will be my last year on obamacare because it will either be repealed and replaced with the major carriers doing business across state lines or I will be allowed into the Medicare program early and be able to buy a top-quality Part B/D Supplement from a major respected carrier. Obamacare is an effing mess run by incompetents and was/is a sad joke played on the American people. It needs to go away yesterday.
I want my old Aetna Advantage plan back (which was $358 month on 12/31/13, when I lost it). It had a fantastic choice of providers and everything I needed. And its customer service was very competent. I realize that premium may be higher now but because it was an HDHP, it would be substantially lower today than what I am trapped into paying, due to the ACA. I wouldn’t need the subsidy to help pay it and don’t want it anymore if I can have my old plan back.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]It doesn’t matter than pensionsers earned anything. If the municipalities can’t live up to their contacts, the courts are where the disputes should be resolved.
No need to change state laws to benefit pensioners.
Let the municipalities deal with their liabilities within the tax framework that existed when they signed the contracts.[/quote]There isn’t any need to “change state laws to benefit pensioners.” State laws already benefit pensioners and all CA municipalities and counties know this. (Apparently FIH [and phaster?] don’t, but that’s okay … they are “laymen” and not expected to know, lol …..)
Again, bring on the lawsuits. It’s all been done before. And …. GOOD LUCK!
Oh, and …. add pri_dk/harvey to that “layman list” :=0
Participant[quote=EconProf]Bearish Girl, your lengthy response shows that you do not use data to come to reasoned conclusions. I suggested that academic studies for ALL of California properties could discover the revenue loss from heirs taking over their parents’ properties under Props 13, 58 and 193. Such a study would be peer reviewed to check for accuracy.
You countered this with a long string of….anecdotes. Anecdotes, whether from your personal experience or properties sold that you apparently looked up prove exactly nothing.
From this handful of examples, you concluded that “The golden state has undoubtedly lost trillions on (Props 58 and 193) since 1986.” Are you aware the upcoming entire state budget from all tax sources is only $171 billion?
Instead of cherry-picking examples of properties taking advantage of Props 58 and 193, why not use your time to look for real research that has surely been done on the subject since it is undoubtedly a question that has occurred to others. I don’t have the time to look up such studies, but you seem to have both the time and energy.[/quote]EconProf, those “anecdotes” are from plat maps I bought 8-10 years ago to conduct a little Prop 58/193 “study” of my own. I have more. The out-of-county examples are properties I am already familiar with …. mostly through case work I have taken on in the past. Yes, you are correct that it would take a lot of time and energy to get an exact figure on how much the Golden State has been missing out on collecting every year due to Props 58/193. I’m sure a lobbying group (to repeal these measures) could hire full-time personnel to take on this daunting task but to make it easiest, they would have to gain access to the Change of Ownership statistics that county assessors keep and focus only on transactions in which no tax stamps were paid (non arms-length transactions).Ok, I exaggerated. It is billions, not trillions the Golden State has lost in operating revenue from these dubious “statutory schemes.” We’re talking about since 1986 here! That’s 30 years of “heirs” who ran, not walked down to their county assessor’s offices to process their Prop 58/193 applications. And they will continue to do so into perpetuity. Why not?
I’ve posted here many times that I am not against Prop 13. If CA did not have it in place and was permitted to assess its properties biennially through a “mill levy” calculation (which takes into account actual appreciation during the past 24 months), as many other states do, CA homeowners would quickly be priced out of affording the homes they just purchased! Especially those who own properties in coastal counties.
I am against Props 58 and 193 because the argument on TV and in print ads FOR Prop 13 in 1978 was “to keep seniors from being priced out of their homes.” I know as I was there. Over 90% of those who were “senior citizens” when Prop 13 was passed in 1978 are now deceased but most of their homes were never sold after their deaths (especially those who died on or after 1/1/87). Instead, a family member took over ownership ALONG WITH their old (base year circa 9/75 plus 2% per year) assessment. When Prop 58 was put on the ballot in 1986 and Prop 193 in 1996, the voters who DID vote for those measures (1/3 to 1/4 of all registered voters?) were sold a bill of goods. Apparently, the “perpetuity” feature of the measures was never brought up in the ballot arguments AGAINST the measures or not discussed in sufficient detail in the Voting Guides for the public to understand exactly what the far reaching fiscal ramifications for the state would be … not to mention a possible (unknowable at the time) severe housing shortage in the distant future directly caused by the disincentive to succeeding owners (who would take advantage of the Props 58/193) to ever market these homes.
In many areas of SD and SD County, there is very little for sale at any one given time. This has been common throughout CA urban coastal counties for at least 15 years, now. The reason for this is due to Props 58 and 193 and this problem is becoming more pronounced by the year.
EconProf, you stated to me that I shouldn’t use my own area as an anecdote but my own area fits this description and is just ONE of many, many thousands of CA residential areas where these statutes are widely used. There has been very little for sale in my area for over 20 years. There was nothing else for sale in it when I bought my house over 15 years ago. The only reason the sellers of my home were selling was because of a very lucrative job relocation. They hired an architect to redesign my home and remodeled in to their liking because it was intended to be their “forever home.” There has been less than a dozen houses for sale around here since then. Several of them were near-uninhabitable longtime rentals which had to be gutted by flipper teams. None of them qualified for mortgages. There have been another 8-9 deaths by the remaining homeowner in my area since I moved here and only one of their homes was sold in a non arms-length transaction thru a probate sale (non-MLS) “pocket listing.” The rest of the properties went to heirs … not counting all the properties around here who had already been transferred to heirs by the time I purchased my home! Typically, no one was aware of these property transfers except possibly the immediate surrounding neighbors. Two of the heirs moved in (one a Prop 193 heir) and the rest of them swooped in out of nowhere within two weeks of their last parent’s death with large pickups, flatbed trucks, long ladders and tools, etc to clean the place out and repair/lightly remodel it for rental service. Even if these heir(s) just worked weekends, they usually got the property into rental service within 2 months of their last parent’s death. My micro area is NOT an anomaly! It is representative of established areas throughout the state but most pronounced in coastal counties. (Because properties are more valuable in coastal counties, they will fetch higher rents and therefore it is more lucrative to keep them with their low assessment attached to them, rather than sell.)
This phenomenon does not bode well for Gen Y (the millenials) trying to buy their first home. Especially those who must find a home as close to work as possible in counties with mostly dedicated open space and thus haven’t had any land left with which to build subdivisions in >40 years (ex: San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties).
A major reason why these measures aren’t getting the public attention they deserve (getting a bright flashlight shown on them) is because all the affected parcels undergo a transfer of ownership in a dark closet. Often, close neighbors don’t even know a neighbor has died. No one moves out or moves in. The heir(s) just moves in and takes a year or more to sort thru mom and/or dad’s stuff and rehab room by room. Neighbors don’t know how to get property records or look at probate cases and don’t care. More often than not, the decedent had a trust, which is not public record. Most of these CA heirs who inherit the typical $350-$550K home (today’s value) wouldn’t take the property if a stepped-up assessment at the time of death was attached to it. They would sell it, instead. They are only taking the property over because of its $400 – $800 annual tax bill which can only rise 2% per year. This huge disparity in current assessment versus market value is far more pronounced in CA’s most exclusive and coveted areas.
Since property tax proceeds (incl “Teeter Funds”) are the lifeblood of CA and its counties, the existence of Props 58 and 193 are an insidious creep on the Golden State’s ability to function and are becoming moreso with each passing year. The vast majority of senior citizens whom Prop 13 was designed to protect (those at least 65 years old by June 1978) are now deceased. Had Props 58 and 193 not been passed 8 and 18 years later, respectively, their homes (the senior’s homes Prop 13 was passed to protect) would have likely been counted in your “every 7-year turnover statistics,” EconProf. But since the two measures were passed, there has been no incentive whatsoever for ANY heir of their parent’s or grandparent’s CA home to sell it (if the home was purchased prior to 1988 and the earlier, the better). That’s what we’re all going to continue to see in all the most conveniently-located areas from here on out (especially those areas in heavily urban coastal counties). We did it to ourselves!
Participant[quote=millennial]. . . Personally I enjoy sociology and this topic came up at work and read an article so threw it up there. . . [/quote]millenial/yamashi, do you know why your employer felt they had to hire a “consultant” (to bridge the “generation gap” among your coworkers?)?
I worked alongside WWII’s (or “Silents”) and even a few of the “Greatest Generation” throughout my “career” and none of my employers ever found it necessary to hire a “consultant” to help us all “get along” with one another, lol …. It was a given that the elder worker had the most seniority and therefore knew the most about the organization and the jobs within it (including where all the bones were buried). A newbie green boomer-worker did not argue with these people or tell them how to do their jobs more efficiently. Instead they cozied up to them in search of a “mentor” who might be able to pull a few strings to get them the next promotion.
Could it be that the self-righteous and self-indulgent millennials were intermittently disrespectful to their elders in your workplace and the elders were the ones who suggested the employer take action on this? I’m a bit puzzled as to why your employer would coddle a portion of their employees in this way. Perhaps they felt they had no choice because of millenials’ propensity to quit, leaving them high and dry in the middle of a project if they don’t get their way at work while their straggling boomer employees are short-timers dreaming of impending retirement.
For the life of me, non “team-players” were usually summarily let go in the past or at the very least, pigeonholed into a forever dead-end position, in hopes that they would eventually quit on their own (which rarely happened).
-
AuthorPosts
