Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=The-Shoveler]This has very little chance of working even if passed (unless EV’s become much cheaper and more practical)
1) People will not be driving less because they can’t.
(there is no room, they MUST expand/sprawl).2) There will be more mass transit so that will help a little but driving your own car will always be more convenient and desirable for most.
3) there will be about 15-20 million more people living in Socal over the next 50 years, they are going to live where?[/quote]
Shoveler, I don’t know how you can claim 15-20 million people can fit into the available housing in SoCal. Newcomers won’t come if they can’t find housing in the area. That’s the way it works all over the west coast. Your city/county governments don’t owe newcomers anything and never have. If they can roll into town and find an existing home they want to buy and get their offer accepted on it or find an acceptable rental to move into, fine … more power to them. The six-county urbanized So-Cal area (4 coastal counties) is pretty much built out and it’s not in anyone’s best interest to create more sprawl … assuming there was actually somewhere available to build subdivisions. Most existing residents don’t want any more people, nor do we need any more.
Cities and counties aren’t obligated to issue ANY more building permits if it will financially break them to service any more outlying areas, as has happened repeatedly in the past. The outlying areas left in SD County are mostly full of very heavy rock and as such, these hilltops cannot possibly be graded properly for roads and home pads (or it would be too cost-prohibitive to do so). Face the fact that land available for subdivisions is long gone. Even major US developers have been quoted to corroborate this fact on national TV in recent years and have packed up their trailers and split SD for good. Sorry to have to break it to you, but LA County is not going to suddenly start issuing building permits for its hundreds of acres of coveted and environmentally-sensitive open space. And that is as it should be (LA is the only SoCal County that was smart enough NOT to sell out to Big Development in the past 25-30 years.)
So Cal is running out of water and we’re done. Newcomers and everyone else must accept existing housing if they want a single family home. High rise condos MAY be able to be built as infill, after something else is razed. It all depends on zoning and ability to get something like that permitted. A project like this will be an uphill battle for a spec builder all over SoCal on a case-by-case basis. Good Luck with getting 15-20 million more people in SoCal …. won’t happen.
Participantlivincali, I don’t see a proliferation of “dated properties” (SFRs) flooding the market at any one time, ever. I believe those owners of “dated properties” who succumb to reverse-mortgage lenders are far and few between in SD. The majority of senior citizen-homeowners in SD County have more pension/SS monthly income than they can even use, due to many thousands of them collecting pensions and survivor benefits from the VA and CSRS/FERS/SDCERS/SDCERA + SS. Tricare for Life charges military retirees and survivors very little in monthly premium (and no copays except for a small copay for brand name drugs) for their Medicare Part B and D coverage. SD at one time was a city/county populated by predominately government workers and military and a good portion of those senior-homeowners (now retired) are still alive and not going anywhere …. nor will they ever need to take out a reverse mortgage, IMO.
The only seniors I know of who were stupid enough to do that owned fairly expensive homes in Bonita, free and clear. Their spoiled 30-40-something kids convinced them to get a reverse mortgage to (a) bail them out of the fog-a-mirror-get-a-loan mess they created for themselves; and, (b) pay for their grandkid’s college education when they could ill afford it. The first spoiled kid ended up losing their own home, anyway, in spite of mom’s earlier bailout and the second spoiled kid’s son had to drop out of college after he found out that his mom spent the rest of his college fund on a luxury vehicle for herself.
Seniors shouldn’t be so codependent to their loser-adult children and fall for their manipulation but oftentimes they are and do … to their detriment.
Participant[quote=livinincali]I think there’s a couple points here to consider.
Tax policy in CA certainly encourages inherited properties to be kept within the family either via heirs moving into the property or as a rental.
I’m not entirely convinced that in 10 to 20 years that we could see significant owner user communities turn into mostly renter communities for a couple of reasons.
1) I just don’t think the market for dated 3/2 smaller properties at @ $2500+/mo is really that deep.
2) I think some significantly portion of properties will get the equity striped out via reverse mortgage or some other means.
3) I think this next generation that inherits these properties may want the instant gratification of selling rather than land-lording even though it might be in their long term interest to do so.The last point is that there is a significant number of likely dated properties that could potentially hit the market over the next 10-20 years. Might be a flippers dream come true or it might just mean appreciation going forward in housing is much more limited than people are currently considering.[/quote]
livinincali, among these “dated 3/2” (and 2/1) SFR’s, I only see about one-fourth of them being turned into rentals by heir(s) from my street view (and those LL-heirs do reside within SD County and manage the property themselves). What typically happens is that one of the original owner’s boomer (or early Gen X) children moves in the old family homestead to occupy before or after their parent’s death, likely for the rest of their lives. If they are only children, then there is no one else with which to fight over the property. In the case of heir-siblings, there always seems to be at least one sibling who has been down on their luck for many years and/or has never been able to “own” a home and is more than happy to be able to occupy their childhood home (if they haven’t already moved in under the guise of “taking care of the last parent”). I haven’t really looked too deeply on how these heir-siblings are financing the property if there was little cash left in the estate when the last parent died (and I have only examined a couple of probate cases in this regard). Most of these homes were in trust and kept out of the courts. It is very possible that the “successful-in-life heir-sibling(s)” are carrying a low-rate, unrecorded loan (for ten years?) to give the occupying heir time to pay off the non-resident heir(s) their portion of an agreed-upon value of the property before the estate issues them a quitclaim deed. I’ve actually seen this done twice, both times with out-of-state/out-of-county heirs making the loan to the less-fortunate local heir who is already occupying or wishes to occupy the family home.
I don’t think Props 58 and 193 have the effect of actually changing the complexion of single family neighborhoods (ie mostly owners to mostly renters). They have the effect of keeping properties off the market indefinitely because the “more unfortunate heir” wouldn’t be trying mightily to make their parent’s/grandparent’s old property theirs if the taxes were $4000+ …. like mine are …. on the very same block/subdivision. And heirs taking advantage of these Props are on the (undeserved, imho) receiving end of a gross inequity among similarly-situated homeowners living in very similar homes amongst each other.
Inheriting a parent’s old home (no matter what the condition) is absolutely a windfall for those who are 55+ and have not been able (or willing) throughout their lives to earn a pension, have no savings, have never owned a home and perhaps don’t even yet have enough quarters of employment under their belt for a SS (OASDI) award in their own right to begin collecting at age 66+. First and foremost, this group needs stable housing that they don’t have to get on a 3-year+ waiting list for and which they can’t be evicted from and their former family home fills this need.
As far as these homes being desirable to today’s SD millenial buyers, they might be if they were located near the beach (but would then be too cost-prohibitive for them). Millenials seem to heavily prefer new or newer construction to buy or rent (even with HOA/MR added in). And millenials typically do NOT want to mow lawns or do any heavy landscaping. Even my own kids don’t. They just don’t care whether the property they buy has any land around it (even if just for buffer space). I think those are strange values to have while attempting to raise kids, but whatever. SD millenials with school-age kids will buy older homes on blocks where a relative resides who is willing and available to take care of their kids all day (or after school) or both during the business day while they work. Especially if they have relatives willing to help them get the house (usually make the downpayment for them).
In other coastal counties of CA, millenials will buy whatever they can get an accepted offer on, (age be damned) and are thrilled to be able to buy any home at all. SD Millenials (now the biggest buying group) has been spoiled over recent years to “new” and “newer” construction because there is always a lot of it on offer in 3 of 4 corners of this county (excepting the SW corner). I don’t think they care much about difference in commute times, either. “New” or “newer” is king to them.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]Learn what, CAr? The economy is now well above precious peak. Houses were built but we still have a shortage. It’s not like houses are sitting empty.
Overall, we are better off. Until we are worse off, there’s nothing to learn but to do things better.[/quote]
Actually, FIH, houses ARE sitting empty. Sometimes up to 3 on each block! Many are still in disrepair and some of them have had household goods stored in them for up to 12 years. Some have landscapers visit periodically to keep the weeds down so the property won’t be cited. They’re not distressed and no one is in any hurry to sell. Why? The biggest reason is that it costs the owners almost nothing to keep them . . . in any case, much, much less than a storage unit would cost them. Hence, my (now tired) arguments against Props 58/193 on the public housing thread :=0
ParticipantAs far as land used for agricultural uses in CA, I’m mostly okay with current owners keeping the original assessment of their parent/grandparent as long as the descendant continues to operate the land for agricultural uses and doesn’t instead subdivide and attempt to develop it with its ultra-low assessment intact. My rationale is that CA supplies food for the entire nation (especially western states) and food is a necessity. I DO realize that these landowners also receive agricultural exemptions from their respective assessors as well, which may or may not be a better deal for them than their parent/grandparent’s original assessment.
As far as wineries, I’m really on the fence here whether their current operators should be allowed to “inherit” their ancestor’s ultra-low assessment (most of them have) as they operate for profit and wine is not a necessity. However, wineries DO bring a lot of tourism to CA, and, for the most part maintain their land well, create beauty and contribute heavily to their surrounding communities. I also realize that a new winery may take several years to turn a profit and (like domestic dog or cat breeding) it is mostly a “labor of love” and is slow to show a profit, if at all. This is evidenced by the many startup wineries which end up being folded into or having to contract with larger wineries due to ultimately being financially unable to process their crop and bottle on their own. The existence of wineries in CA has also been doing a GREAT job of keeping thousands of acres of prime real estate OUT of the hands of Big Development which has undoubtedly averted more urban and suburban sprawl.
As far as your typical Norwalk Section 8 heir/slumlord (and there are many thousands in CA which fit this description, btw), AFAIK, he/she should receive title to their parent/grandparent’s multifamily investment property with a tax bill equal to its stepped-up value on the date of their deaths (or title transfer), whichever occurs first. The reason is because HUD is going to pay that landlord/heir market-rate rents on time every month no matter how much they are paying in property taxes. The landlord’s expenses are irrelevant to HUD. They pay landlords market-rate rents according to the condition of the complex/units and what the local rental market will bear no matter how much their eligible tenants’ monthly portion of the rent is. Likewise, heir/owners of CA market-rate investment properties (both residential and commercial) should also pay property tax based upon their “inherited” property’s stepped-up value on the date of title transfer. These two sets of LL’s (as well as their “straw `owners'”) who have been (legally) sucking CA and its cities/counties dry and pocketing the proceeds every month are the prime reason why Prop 58/193 needs to be repealed and the sooner, the better.
ParticipantOh, and I don’t see Jerry’s high speed train thru podunk Hwy 99 farmbelt actually ever coming to fruition. CA could most definitely fund the courts much better than it has in recent years, though. It takes ridiculously long to litigate anything these days, filing fees have almost quadrupled in the last 15 years and the clerk’s offices have been majorly dysfunctional for over ten years now, due to lack of staff (no budget to replace recent retirees, including judges). It now takes 4-6 months just to get a judge’s signature on a stipulation or post-judgment order (where the parties made an agreement and a court date is not needed). Their lines are inordinately long and they don’t even have enough people to collect fines!
ParticipantHa, ha, NSR! I think ALL heirs from EVERY area of CA (not just the LJ’s of CA) should pay property tax based upon the stepped-up value of their parents/grandparents home on the date of their death (or date of transfer, whichever occurs first). Presently, they’re having their cake and eating it, too. I don’t care if they’ve been living out of their car for the last three years. If they can’t afford $3000+ per year for property tax to live in an otherwise “free” home, then they can’t afford to live there and should elect to sell it. This doesn’t even include the costs of fire insurance (which they undoubtedly don’t all have), extermination, utilities, landscaper, pool person (if applicable) and handyman if they can’t do the maintenance themselves.
And I agree with spd. I’ve been “shopping” on the ground … very informally since Fall 2012 in four states … all “flyover states.” Even though I have 2 longtime RE broker relatives I could get instant help from, I never utilized either of them and never actually viewed a property … didn’t need to. I understand types of houses well enough from online photos and wasn’t yet a serious buyer. I just drove though areas and drove by a few properties to “get a feel” for the area. These exercises helped me to decide to remain in Cali. People, there are no “bargains” out there. For what I want (fairly simple one-story home on larger lot), it isn’t any cheaper in those states when you take into account A/C running constantly several months per year, extermination in and out (nearly year-round in some areas), attempting to mitigate excessive humidity or excessive dryness in the home (both of which I’m sensitive to), the presence of blooming trees and plants everywhere for half the year which I’m highly allergic to, the cost and hassle of winterizing vehicles and homes, rusty water you can’t drink and don’t really want to bathe in, polluted lakes and streams, frequent hail, high winds (incl tornadoes) and scorching heat, etc, Cali seems like a bargain when all is said and done … even with the threat of earthquake! Housing in the state of Colorado (which is breathtakingly beautiful in some areas) is pricey in all the areas I was even remotely interested in living in (on par with SD prices except the coast). On the front range, it has been a hot seller’s market for at least 18 months (and for up to 3 years in some of my choice areas). Bidding wars are the norm, just for the typical mid-century brick ranch (with or without a basement) which are everywhere. My mom’s old home just a few miles from downtown Denver, which we sold almost 20 years ago (after her death) is now worth four times as much as we sold it for and the couple we sold it to is still there, now with four teenage kids. (They all posed for a pic for me this summer in the front yard next to now HUGE trees :-)) Good one-story mountain homes start at about $450K (in lesser-known small towns) and don’t always have access to natural gas, sewer or high-speed internet. The “radiant” (floor) heat used in many mountain homes is very expensive to run and a leachfield is expensive to maintain in often rugged terrain.
In flyover states, gas for your vehicle is really the only thing that is cheaper than Cali.
South Lake Tahoe is looking better and better to me and is still relatively “affordable.”
Participant[quote=no_such_reality]That laborious activity is what is needed. Corporations don’t need prop thirteen. An heir I’m more neutral on. Like the housing authority starting the thread, is the problem less than 1% of owners or 30% of owners?
As for non principal residence, I think those impacts would actually hurt the 99% more than it would benefit them. It would several impact the rental market quality and availability and I doubt it would lower sales prices as the homes.[/quote]
The “transfers” pursuant to Props 58/193 mainly exist in communities of the state which were built out by about 1986. So, in spot checking, you won’t see too many of them (if any) in communities which are newer than that. In vacant land and commercial and multifamily properties, Prop 58/193 transfers exist everywhere in CA … ex: office buildings, section 8 complexes, wineries, ranches, egg farms and beef processing plants in rural areas. In single family homes, the older the community, the more 58/193 transfer deeds you will come across at the recorder’s office. The higher the market value in an older community, the more 58/193 transfer deeds you will run across. Examples where you will see the bulk of 58/193 transfers in SFRs are: “trophy properties,” “trophy streets,” inside coastal covenants (ex: RPV in LA County), sit-down full water-view streets, streets in historical districts and homes with Mills Act contracts. It will not be 30% of total CA properties because there are many newer communities and less desirable areas which have lower property values (where a 58/193 transfer wouldn’t have much benefit and an heir wouldn’t be that interested in keeping the property), such as in inland cities and counties. But I predict it will be close to 30% of the tax that would have been collected overall had it not been for the later additions of Props 58 and 193, due to the HUGE disparity on each property between what the annual tax actually IS in relation to the property’s current market value or even its stepped-up value at the time of title transfer.
These title transfers on “garden variety” Chula Vista (or Allied Gardens SD, Buena Park, Milpitas, etc) properties matters, also, because their numbers are significant due to their coastal county location and they are often the largest and/or only asset in a small estate. Throughout history, CA coastal counties have seen the highest real estate appreciation in the state. It doesn’t matter if it is a “shack” (by your standards) or located in a “marginal area.” It is “shelter” for an heir … very often “free” shelter located in the coastal county the heir grew up, wishes to remain in and can ill afford to continue living in on their own.
ParticipantLike CAR, I don’t believe that multifamily and commercial owners (including corporations and REITs) should be able to transfer title (usually in straw name only) whilst continuing to take advantage of humongous property tax breaks stemming from ONE owner’s ancestor’s original assessment.
A review of multifamily and commercial parcels’ tax bills in SF (District by District) would be a very laborious but highly instructive exercise in seeing exactly how this is done and exactly how much money these (mostly slumlords) are pocketing in property tax savings every year whilst charging their tenants exorbitant rents (where allowable by law).
ParticipantNSR, I could see your point if Prop 13 was repealed (extremely unlikely to happen) and all CA properties were reassessed to market value or near-market value.
There are no “sour grapes” on my end regarding Prop 13 in and of itself. My only issues are with “heirs” receiving their parent’s/grandparent’s assessment appurtenant to any real property they inherit. It is wrong because (a) they are usually younger, able bodied and no more deserving than you or me to get a HUGE tax break; (b) most of the “heirs” can well afford to pay tax on the “stepped-up value” of the property upon their parents/grandparents death (and if they don’t think so, they can learn to budget for property taxes …like you and I do… or decide to sell the property instead); and, (3) Props 58 and 193 heavily encourage and facilitate keeping a property in the family into perpetuity, thus reducing inventory and resulting in higher asking prices.
August 23, 2015 at 3:12 PM in reply to: Millions Of U.S. families can’t afford their homes…. #788857ParticipantWell, HLS, both of your links are exactly the same but I want to comment on lenders accepting high-ratio applications (43-50% of monthly gross). I do think a lot of homeowners (and renters also, but mostly owners) CAN and DO survive paying 43-50% of their gross income on housing. And survive for years. These people are just cutting all the other expenses of their lives in order to do so and possibly qualifying for utility and phone discounts. It IS possible to drive used, paid-for vehicles and get only liability insurance (or even take public transportation instead of owning a vehicle). It is possible to only see a dentist once a year (instead of twice) if you have no dental insurance and get economy cable (or use rabbit ears or not watch TV). The article states that people who are paying 43%+ of their monthly gross for housing are having to cut their food budget, leading to health problems. Actually, you can eat really well without buying expensive convenience food and individually bottled water. Even today, one person can eat well on $100 month, you can feed two small pets quality food for less than $20 month, and buy household cleaners and toiletry items for $50-$70 month (including outdoor stuff like plant food, weed killer, ant spray and fertilizer).
I think typical “sample budgets” laid out for families have too much money allotted to the different categories in which the actual expenses could vary wildly from household to household. Seriously, a family of four in SD DOES NOT NEED to spend $400 month in food (exclusive of non-food items and eating out)! $400 month is way MORE than enough for food groceries. We in SD don’t live in the boonies and have stores everywhere and so don’t need to stock up extra freezers of food. Sale and clearance items are abundant every day in all the big chain food stores.
It is probably prudent for a lender to look to their credit history and other assets if the mortgage applicant’s front-end ratio for the mortgage size they are applying for is 43-50%. But I don’t think this group is a particularly big risk, especially with a 30% downpayment or at least 30% equity in the case of a refi. Not everyone is a voracious consumer. There are many people who are perfectly happy with old cell phones, used household items and clothing and used vehicles (or just not replacing their perfectly good 20+ year old stuff) and aren’t in danger of ratcheting up their credit card balances the moment after they close on a home loan.
It’s too bad most of the residential portfolio lenders have disappeared.
This is not just a CA problem. A LOT of U.S. cities are getting expensive to buy into and also rent in these days (relative to local salaries), even flyover cities. It’s not uncommon to find homeowners and renters paying 50% of their monthly gross income on housing … almost anywhere in the country.
ParticipantIMO, this young lady (age 35-40?) is two jokers short of a full deck. First of all, she apparently still has minor (school-age?) kids living with her and her spouse and now believes that renting (while paying HIGHER rent than her former PITI? and being at the mercy of a landlord’s whims) is preferable to being a homeowner. She claims she had been a homeowner for 15 years and was “tired of it” but didn’t list any complaints about the home itself or neighborhood. Since she didn’t mention any other homes but the one she just sold, we’ll just assume she owned the home she just sold for 15 years and it was their first home.
Probable backstory: We all know that the 15 years between 1998 and 2013 (the date of the article), she and her spouse have had plenty of opportunities to “fog a mirror” in order to remove home “equity.” I would bet marbles to chalk that that is exactly what they did, getting themselves into “hot water” and later accepting a “40 year mod deal” from their lender. After they paid their 2% “modded” payments for ~2 years, they probably sat down, (finally) did the math and realized that it would take them way too long to pay down the new note with all their back interest payments folded into it (which they defaulted upon while under those “exotic” terms they signed up for in the mid-aughts), lol. So they came to the conclusion that they had already removed most of their home “equity” and would try to get out by the skin of their teeth and were successful in doing so only due to the passage of time. Of course, their credit is now shot and so they can’t qualify for any mortgages at present. Thus, they’re now “happy” smiley-faced renters who aren’t “trapped” anymore by their evil house :=)
She doesn’t state that she was or is employed full time but it appears she may be a tax professional so she at least has steady work 4 months per year. However, she DID state that she herself still has student loans (plural) and you have to ask yourself why she co-signed a purchase-money note with her spouse in the first place with those outstanding student loans looming over her head (likely at 6-8% interest)! The reader also has to wonder why, now (15 years later), she still has (the same two?) outstanding student loans (plural)!
Really dumb all the way around. She isn’t the first “accountant-type” in the interwebz that has made sorry a$$ personal financial decisions and she won’t be the last.
Participant[quote=no_such_reality] . . . There’s a counter point to you discussion too. I’ve bought rental properties in the last five years. Take prop thirteen away, and I’d be passing sizeable rent increases on to tenants. Don’t think long term landlords are go prevent it either, they’ll all see the increases in property tax as an increase in expenses and raise rents with it.[/quote]
NSR, you can only pass on rent increases to your tenants which the local market will bear or you will likely lose your tenants in short order. Your prospective tenant(s) won’t give a rat’s @$$ how much your property taxes, Mello Roos or homeowners dues cost you, nor should they.
Participant[quote=EconProf]BG: Not everyone wants to be a landlord.
The decision of heirs to rent out rather than sell an inherited SFR depends upon a whole host of considerations. First, most heirs, especially if they are several, may have differing liquidity needs. They also face the question of managing the property, perhaps from afar, and dealing with all the headaches of landlording. SFRs are the least profitable of real estate categories from a cash flow standpoint. Yes, they may appreciate, but CA has had years-long episodes of depreciation at times, and having a tenant for a few years usually hurts the value.
Property taxes are only one of many expenses involved in making this investment decision, so it alone will not be the deciding factor.
BG, I agree with your opinion about the unfairness of the present laws. They grant an unearned tax break to an underserving population. This “subsidy” must be made up by other taxpayers.
But you have a tendency to jump to broad and unwarranted conclusions based on your own experiences in your particular older neighborhood. What’s needed are in-depth, unbiased, peer-reviewed studies of the total revenue loss due to these two Propositions.[/quote]EconProf, I myself never want to be a landlord again. I agree with heirs’ differing liquidity needs but one of my questions (if there were siblings) was “Would you attempt to buy them out (in order to get an investment property with an ultra-low assessment)?”
I did not state it here but both properties which were the subject of my two questions were free and clear. This fact, combined with their low assessments, makes turning them into rental investments (for a locally-based heir) a good option, considering the “safe” alternatives today. Frankly, I’ve never seen a house passed down around here which wasn’t free and clear at the time of the owner’s passing, EXCEPT ONE around the corner which had been vacant for nine years prior and in terrible disrepair (where ~$20K is currently owing on it). When their mom finally passed, the 60-something son and daughter finally came in on weekends in a 4-month time period and did major repairs themselves and cleaned the property up.
My “broad and unwarranted conclusions” stem from what I’ve personally seen and witnessed on the ground almost the entire time I’ve lived in SD (~40 years). At all times, I have lived in well-established areas where there were always “heirs” occupying SFRs (some were still caring for infirm parent(s) but were expected to “inherit” the family home one day). In most instances, they were only children. Usually, the only child or sibling who took care of their parent until they died never made good money on their own to begin with so did not really “sacrifice” a career to take care of mom and/or dad. In any case, they usually needed a “free” place to stay at various times in their lives, and their parent’s home was always convenient for that.
One of my biggest “heir” issues is with extremely low-income “heirs” attempting to shelter themselves in their former family home after their last parent’s death. This typical heir either did not receive any cash, received very little cash or had to use what cash they were entitled to from their parent’s estate to buy sibling(s) shares out of the property. The vast majority of them had no savings of their own and likely could not qualify for a mortgage. I actually know of two “heirs” who took over their parent’s home after their deaths who had been living out of their car and 5th-wheel camper for months/years before their last parent passed and did not want to leave SD under any circumstances.
Even if a SFR is 1000 sf or less, it is a SFR, usually more than 40 years old with a >=5000 sf lot and needs constant maintenance which, as we all know, is not cheap, especially pest control and tent fumigation. Nor are gas & elec and water and sewer cheap (low-income ratepayers eligible for 20% discount on SDG&E bill, however). If a very low-income heir takes title by themselves of a home they inherited, the property invariably ends up quickly going to waste with trash and discarded items piling up around the property in 4′ high weeds causing neighbors to report the address to the city, who fines the heir/”homeowner” (for the first time in their lives). You can’t squeeze blood out of a turnip.
It’s a sorry situation for their neighbors and I’ve seen it all over SD, South and East County (I’m sure it happens in North County as well as all over the state).
There IS a such a thing as being “too poor” for homeownership … even if that home is free and clear and has an ultra-low assessment attached to it.
I’ve had this very discussion with one of the top probate attorneys in town, who told me, “I don’t care if they (the heir) had been thrice bankrupt and/or just got released from prison yesterday. If they are named in the trust, they are entitled to their portion. If they are only children and the trust leaves them whatever the remaining parent still had at the time of their deaths, then it is all theirs. What they choose to do with it is their business.” The attorney was right, except a lot of these “heirs” never had an attorney and never received good advice for their personal situations after their parent died. Since some of them have been making poor choices all of their lives, what is to stop them from making poor choices when they are finally “heirs?”
I apologize if the above sounds judgmental to some folks. This is my “brethren” I’m discussing here and I don’t have a college degree myself (but had a good public K-12 education and 2.5 years of college). For the life of me, public schools used to be very good to excellent in SD, South and East County (at the time these people attended them or abt 1955 – 1975). I’ve interviewed dozens of people (mostly age 55-62) in recent years in attempting to help them with their seemingly intractable problems and I often had a difficult time understanding how they allowed themselves to end up in the situations they were in. I came to the conclusion that they apparently just never took charge of their own lives.
-
AuthorPosts
