Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 21, 2015 at 11:11 PM in reply to: The cost of an Ivy League undergrad degree next year…. #784058
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]i talked to him on the phone for an hour the other day. i always feel like i shouldnt talk to him too much. could be draining energy. it can be draining enough to talk to ones mom generally speaking…like theres nothing left to say, and one doesnt want to have to repeat ones self….. im always 2nd after her, which is ok. usually i cut him off cause i dont want him to feel obligated to chatter. but for some reason the other day he wanted to jabber on and on. it was nice. i got tired and had to go to sleep. he wouldve kept talking. he has so much excitement about every little thing going on…his little life is amazing, so amazing.[/quote]
Glad your kid has found a good housing situation near SDSU (kind of a tight market around there) and is enjoying his college experience and independence. That’s (partly) what college is for. I didn’t get that experience (except as a commuter, after-work PT student) but I’m glad my kids did/are. My social-animal kids just LOVED college (as they did HS)!
ParticipantI just have a couple of comments on this thread. The first one (now water under the bridge), is that the OP absolutely could have bought a 1700-2200 sf home in SD County in 2011 for the price they paid for a 1300 sf home in SEH ($330K). Sure, it would have been older and most likely needed cosmetic upgrades but they spent that money anyway on the smaller, newer home they bought. And it would have been without MR and HOA dues, (which could now have proven to be a financial thorn in the OP’s side).
I DO FEEL 1300 sf is a bit small for a family of five with 3 growing boys and 3 dogs (size of dogs unk?). However, it is doable if it isn’t too crowded with “stuff.”
The second thing is that Piggs counseled the OP in error re: priority of unsecured debt, i.e. consumer/credit-card debt.
CC companies and their collectors have fleets of local attorneys on staff or retainer expressly for the purpose of obtaining (usually default) judgments for delinquent consumer debt for their Big Bank clients. These firms typically file a dozen or more cases in one transaction and if requested by the court for a date for a “prove-up” hg or other motion, schedule several cases in one courthouse in the same day.
In 2010 alone, Chase obtained approx 55,000 default judgments against its delinquent debtors (in civil, limited civil and small claims actions) in a 5-county SoCal region. Post judgment, they typically seek writs of execution or attachment and then lien the individual/couple who will not be able to sell or buy RE without dealing with them (at 10% per annum post-judgment). They don’t often foreclose their liens, unless the debtor’s property and its encumbrances warrant such an action (rare). However, the 10% per annum compounds on itself and these firms have ticklers to refile the liens in a timely manner.
I feel it was not wise to tell this OP that there would be no consequences to ignoring consumer debt.
Consumer debt collection is BIG business in the USA and especially in CA, where RE tends to be worth more.
March 21, 2015 at 10:17 PM in reply to: The cost of an Ivy League undergrad degree next year…. #784054Participant[quote=UCGal][quote=scaredyclassic]
To me, personally, being able to pay SDSU tuition effortlessly now without screwing with our budget fills me with pride. Pride verging on euphoria. I am grateful for this possibility…
[/quote]Scaredy- from your boots on the ground perspective… what’s the annual hit for SDSU/year. I assume you’re also paying for, or helping pay for, food/lodging for your son.
I’m thinking the living costs posted on the website are higher for living costs than they really need to be.
They have the total hit for a year of undergrad at SDSU as $22802. Of that 6976 is tuition and fees. I’m guessing that with roommates and a bike – you can spend a lot less than the $15826 for living expenses/books/etc.
I’m curious what your experience is with your son….
http://arweb.sdsu.edu/es/admissions/costs.html%5B/quote%5D
Oh, hey Piggs, I just finished our tax returns at midnight last night and so now have the 2014 tax software installed. I DO plan on getting Joe and Suzy Sixpack’s (w/2 kids in daycare and after-school care) tax situation up here on a thread within the week. Sorry for the delay but have been very busy the past few months.
UCGal, that $15,826 quote from SDSU is likely for 19 meals per week in the dining hall, which is extremely excessive, especially if the student works off campus. The dining hall at ALL 23 CSUs is the BIGGEST profit margin for the schools. I don’t know if SDSU has them but the BEST HOUSING DEAL at the CSU campuses is the 4 bdrm SUITES where each student gets their own (locked) room and shares a small “kichenette” and living room with 3 others. There are 2 bdrms on each side of the LR/DR and balcony/patio sharing one bathroom (2 baths per suite) and one storage room for bikes and boxes opposite the kitchenette barstools as you walk in the front door (opened with student ID like a hotel to prevent break-ins). Granted, the kitchenette has a 4-burner cooktop, overhead micro, 15 cf frig and NO OVEN, NO DISHWASHER and ONE sink but I donated a large used countertop oven to my kid’s suite (to cook pizzas, etc in), which is “legal” as long as it has a timer on it.
In addition, the suites have personalized mail service, bike lockups, irons and vacuums to borrow, on site RA’s, full security and wifi in every room.
Most of these (~4 story) complexes were built between 2005 and 2011 and not all CSU campuses have them. The typical early 1960’s CSU dorm room has zero privacy, only very small frig and micro, beds seven feet from roommate’s and no wifi (hardwired). It cannot possibly compare with the suites and they cost only ~$600 more per year than a freshman “dorm” room, due to their occupants being able to obtain just a “minimum meal plan” costing $70 week in “points” to spend on campus for fast food meals, snacks and groceries. Compare this to the campus dining room, which ends up costing ~$6.61 to ~$8.31 per meal … whether the student is actually present on campus to eat it … or not.
The “suites” (where my youngest currently lives while attending CSU) cost $12,997 for one academic year and that includes the $70 week food/meal allowance. It addition, the food points do not “disappear” each Saturday night (whether the student used them or not) as they do with dining hall meal plans attached to dorm leases but all the points need to be used by the end of the academic year or they will be forfeited. The student could theoretically go to the campus markets and spend the remaining amount on non-perishable food/sundries before the end of the academic year and bring it home.
So, the total cost for a FT resident-student at my kid’s CSU campus is $20,264 and that includes a parking pass for one vehicle all year.
My kid has $12,066 in annual guaranteed financial aid in the form of a tuition fee waiver and scholarship each year, PROVIDED they consistently carry 12 units and maintain a 2.0 GPA. For academic year ’14/15, that leaves $8,196 for me to pay for room and board (dad covers vehicle, auto/health insurance and cell phone).
I’m still undecided on what we will do for housing for sophomore year and beyond. Kid is coming home for Spring Break and we will decide. I don’t know if I want to buy/rent a nearby house for the remaining years (and rent the other bdrm(s) out to other students) or just do another suite lease on campus … perhaps for one more year. Housing is a bit cheaper than South County SD (where I reside) surrounding my kid’s campus.
UCGal, your kids will be able to live at home and drive to campus for class IF SDSU accepts them (sorry, but this is actually fairly dicey in this day and age, due to their preference for OOS/OOC students paying the full freight) so all you would need to cover for them would be tuition fees, campus fees, parking and books. You live too close to SDSU to be required to pay for housing.
Hopefully the CSU’s tuition and campus fees won’t continue to skyrocket each year like they did between 2004 and 2013. Each campus also has mandatory CSU fees, parking fees and also fees to use amenities on that particular campus (whether the student uses them or not).
I still think the 23-campus CSU system is a good deal in CA but surrounding housing varies wildly in price by campus. Other western states’ public universities have higher tuition than CA but offer the WUE to CA residents and its member campuses have cheaper (in some cases MUCH CHEAPER) surrounding housing than the CSU campuses, so the WUE tuition portion for an out-of-state student combined with their cheaper housing turns out to be a wash compared to CSU. But your kid would have to be willing to attend college in those locales and you would need to figure in the cost of RT’s to/from home. Hope this helps.
ParticipantEssbee, he can speak for himself, of course, but I don’t think think FIH was making a direct comparison. I think he just used Clairemont (SD) as a “middle class” example of SD because it was reasonably close-in.
It is so very difficult to compare LA County communities apples to apples to SD County communities because each one offers something another one doesn’t have. I think part of the reason for higher property values the East LA County corridor are generous lot sizes. Another reason that the older stock of homes in SD County (ex: Clairemont) aren’t worth as much as the the older stock of homes in LA County or even close-in bay area counties is that buyers in SD County simply have too much choice. A “middle-class” buyer can easily flock to subdivision after subdivision of new development in the outer rings of SD county and buy a house or townhome in a “master planned community” which was built in the last decade and likely situated on a substandard lot. Why? Because they CAN! There is a large portion of SD County homebuyers who likely never set foot in a house more than 15 years old in their search. Ditto for buyers in San Bern and RIV Counties (new development in Orange and Ventura counties is likely too expensive for a moderate/middle-income homebuyer).
Not true for LA County and at least a dozen other populous counties in CA (esp close-in communities of bay area counties). Moderate, middle and upper middle income buyers who seek a single family home must buy used in these communities if they hope to obtain a home at all. By “used” I mean 30-80 years old. This is so because the leadership of these jurisdictions saw fit to curb development and didn’t pander to Big Development over the past three decades, as the leadership in SD County did. They valued their open space and took seriously their duty and privilege to ensure wise stewardship over it.
This has resulted in the preservation of thousands of fantastic unspoiled views for homeowners and neighborhoods and home values remaining stable … even during the recent downturn. Longtime homeowners often decide to sell and move when they find themselves surrounded by new development and all the traffic and lines that go along with it.
Middle-class buyers in the East LA corridor (and really, almost everywhere in LA County) must buy used, especially if they want to own a single family home south of I-10.
Essbee, IIRC, you grew up in SD County, no? You must admit that it is NOTHING today like the SD County you grew up in… and the tripling++ of its population did not enhance the quality of life for any resident, old or new.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]I mean a “middle-class” area close the city center, and relatively closer to the ocean, since “ocean proximity” is frequently a criterion.
Del Cerro is not that nice and definitely cheaper then Hacienda Heights.
I don’t see “cheaper than San Diego.” In fact, I think that San Diego is cheaper for a reason. That’s because San Diego is provincial compared to LA.[/quote]
Agree with all of this. I was only comparing housing styles/stock/era, NOT overall areas. When I think of Hacienda Heights, I tend to think of more spacious one-story homes (and two-stories as well), the type that exist in Del Cerro and Pt Loma Woods.
The middle-class in east LA live in those cities directly north/south of I-10 from San Dimas/Covina/West Covina on into LA and RIV/San Bern counties. The Brea/Pomona/San Gabriel corridor is a little too pricey today for most “middle class” families unless they purchase a larger condo (they do exist), “inherit” a home or move on out to Riv/San Bern Counties.
Yes, SD is relatively cheap (as CA big cities go) for the reason you stated. But I feel much of its more “reasonably-priced” housing stock is dilapidated (termites/dry rot/poor original construction) and many of its lots are substandard. The same is true of much of the housing stock in LA county communities much closer to the ocean. But at least one who does not work in a technology sector can earn a decent living wage in LA County and have a semblance of job security.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]San Gabriel is a big area, I suppose. I have a friend in Hacienda Heights. Her parents paid something like $700k a few years ago. Probably about $900k now.
For comparison, Clairemont Mesa, fairly ocean close and centrally located in San Diego doesn’t compare, value wise.[/quote]
What do you mean by the italicized statement, FIH? Do you think Hacienda Heights RE is a better value for what you get in comparison with Clairemont Mesa (SD)? I do and I also feel it is certainly a much nicer area than Clairemont and would compare its housing stock to Del Cerro or Pt Loma Woods in SD, NOT Clairemont or Mission Village.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]BG, I don’t think you’ve been to San Gabriel lately. The area is heavily Chinese now and prices are more than San Diego for comparable inland areas.[/quote]
Yes, I have. In fact, I’m headed back up there this weekend for a dinner.
From my observations from the ground, more than half of the inland LA County corridor are predominantly White with Latino or predominantly Latino with White or predominately Filipino depending on town/city. The Chinese have concentrated themselves in just a few areas.
Yes, the few towns/cities there which are now predominantly Chinese have RE prices which have ratcheted up in recent years. But none of these areas can be compared to inland areas of SD. Firstly, they are 40-50 miles from the Santa Monica Pier. That would place them in Campo and points east (the mtns) in San Diego County. Yes, it tends to be hot 8-9 months year and A/C is necessary. It is heavily trucked (esp on I-10) but the residential environments in the Brea/Pomona/San Gabriel corridor are not spoiled like many inland areas of SD County. Secondly, it is not subdivision hell as SD County is, its views remained pristine and it is comprised mostly single family homes with a few scattered well-managed condo/townhome developments. Thirdly, the older housing stock there have typical lots of 7000 – 12,000 sf. Even most two-bdrm houses have ample lots. This is true even heading west towards Pasadena (West Covina, Baldwin Park, El Monte, LaVerne, etc.)
The RE values hold up well there because of proximity to well-paying jobs, the many transportation choices available, the large stock of well-built single family homes on generous lots, multiple shopping and entertainment venues, and, most importantly, its leadership consciously deciding NOT to destroy their environment by randomly issuing dozens of subdivision permits.
OTOH, their neighbors to the east, San Bern and RIV Counties have both sold out to Big Development which ruined their environments and literally bankrupted the City of San Bernardino. Because of this, the difference (livability) between LA and RIV/San Bern Counties is night and day.
I like the area very much and feel a savvy buyer can get a lot of bang for the buck there but ppsf there is higher than SD because a typical SFR there is smaller in size than those in SD County (due to age).
However, I personally would prefer to “retire” in a CA city/town with a population of ~50K or less (mtns or wine country). I wouldn’t even mind a town with a 1-2K population with a 15-20K pop city/town within a half hour drive to shop and do errands in.
ParticipantActually, the east/northeast LA basin (i.e. San Gabriel Valley, etc) is still quite reasonably-priced (in comparison to SD County) but is currently appreciating fast.
This is because the last single-family home tracts in these areas were built in the very early ’80’s with the average single family home circa 1953-1964. The LA County Board of Supervisors (very wisely) did not sell out their beautiful wide swaths of open space to Big Development’s endless subdivison permit requests, thereby creating “Community Facilities Districts” as did the (greedy) SD County BOS. Therefore, I haven’t noticed any Mello-Roos-encumbered tracts there.
As it should be.
Participant[quote=svelte]Folks here talk like all of California has the same economic situation – just not true!
As has been pointed on other sites, there is really a stark difference between coastal areas and inland California…especially if you get outside of the LA basin.
Prices are much, much lower in the central valley.
You can’t compare places like Bakersfield, Fresno, Stockton, Chico, and Redding to San Francisco, LA, and San Diego especially in terms of home values.[/quote]
Absolutely, I agree …. That’s why always qualify my posts with the phrase “CA coastal counties.”
There is no comparison whatsoever in lifestyle OR real estate values between CA coastal counties and CA inland counties. They are two completely different animals.
ParticipantI agree with both Shoveler and flyer. I myself am a “boomer” and have only known ONE boomer who has lost her home to foreclosure (all due to legal fees expended in attempt to gain custody/visitation of her youngest child, now an adult). She never gained any custody/visitation and her last child aged out of the court’s jurisdiction two years ago. Unfortunately, this scenario is quite common among single moms in CA whose children(s) father is deep-pocketed enough to keep litigation going ad infinitum and were successful in turning their child[ren] against the other parent for the sole purpose of avoiding having to pay child support.
In CA, whichever parent earns the most money (and thus can provide the child[ren] with the most stable home) usually prevails in family court child custody disputes.
After much thought, I have decided to keep a home in CA, even if I decide in the coming year(s) to relocate. I will either keep my present home or sell and purchase a similar or slightly smaller single-family home in another CA county and place tenants in it.
I don’t want to find myself one of the many (foolish) people I have known throughout the years (all older than boomers) who sold their home in SD County to relocate in retirement out-of-state only to return to CA in 3-5 years at the age(s) of 65-75 years old, desperate to purchase another home but find themselves unable to. These people couldn’t repurchase ANY residence (much less than the one they sold) in their CA coastal hometowns because they lost money on their out-of-state home purchases due to (1) high selling costs; (2) lack of appreciation; and/or (3) their over-improvement of said out-of-state purchase (or combination of the above).
The vast majority of boomers who own their primary residences in coastal CA counties aren’t going anywhere, especially those whose current assessments are a mere fraction of their propert(ies) market values pursuant to Props 13, 58 and 193.
All the foreclosures/short sales I studied between 2008 and 2011 had “Gen X” owners, 90% of whom were living wa-a-a-a-ay beyond their means (by ATMing their property to death to buy more property and/or for consumption). The other 10% paid way too much for the property using exploding sub-prime mortgages.
In CA coastal counties, Gen Y is only now starting to get off the ground in purchasing a primary residence for themselves (they weren’t homebuyers during the 2004-2007 era of fog-a-mirror mortgage lending). Gen Ys who grew up in CA ARE getting good jobs but as flyer has stated here many times, the vast bulk of the good jobs are in the SF Bay area and LA/Ventura/Orange Counties (NOT SD County) with the majority of good, living-wage jobs located in the five of the eight SF Bay area counties. I have heavily counseled my kid(s) to NOT relocate back to SD County but to stay put, earn as much as they can (even if they have to job-hop to do so) and try to save downpayments for a house.
December 23, 2014 at 12:51 AM in reply to: local realtor may have stolen property from mentally disabled man #781293Participant[quote=CA renter]Thanks, Brian!
Through my searches, I had come up with 4591 Orchard Ave. Forgot that Hatfield had mentioned that this was the next-door neighbor.
Even if the house was bought decades ago, don’t you think that an $80,000 valuation seems WAY below value, even if the assessment had just gone up by 2% each year? I’ve seen a lot of houses that were purchased way back when (including my MIL’s house that was purchased by her parents), but have not seen a valuation that low for a home in an area like this. They also updated the owner’s name, so I’m wondering why the amount doesn’t match up. And the sale price of $480K looks VERY shady.
Either way, I think Hatfield is on to something here. I’m glad he’s decided to look into it further. I will do whatever I can to help, too.[/quote]
I’ve viewed dozens of grant deeds on microfilm of parcels in 92106 (Roseville) and 92107 (Hill St/upper OB), some with 270 degree views, in which the tax stamps revealed that the property sold for $40-44K between 1970 and 1974. It was not uncommon at all.
December 23, 2014 at 12:38 AM in reply to: local realtor may have stolen property from mentally disabled man #781292Participant[quote=CA renter]Okay, I’m going to retract my statement about it being *very* shady. After looking at the condition of the house (via the internet), and comparing it to the comps, this would be an exceptionally good deal, and might not warrant *very shady.*
However, the fact that this house was not put on the open market leads me to believe that the trustee of the estate did not do his/her job. Everyone knows that the best price is achieved by opening up the market to the greatest possible number of potential buyers. If the son is disabled enough to live in a group home, he’s not capable of making the decisions for the estate, and I’m sure his parents would have wanted to maximize whatever the estate could get for the home in order to care for their son. Because of that alone, this looks unethical, to say the least. It warrants some more attention.
An afterthought…maybe the neighbors were such good friends that they are trying to help this son by flipping the house for the highest possible price and then giving him the net profits. It’s a long shot, but at least it’s a possibility. Just trying to think of the different angles.[/quote]
It is possible that the disabled former resident is a brother or nephew of Victor Gilbert Olson. You would have to order the probate docs to see what kind of provisions were made for the disabled son and that would be expensive. Since Hatfield is only about seven miles away, he could go view them at the Madge Bradley Bldg, 1409 Fourth Ave SD 92101.
****
And yes, CAR … JOE and JANE are on my desk, front and center. Since I finished my work, I’ve had to spend 65 hours cleaning my home inside and out … long story. My people are due in tomorrow and Christmas Day but are leaving before New Years, at which time, I expect to address Joe and Jane’s situation. Thank you for your patience.
December 23, 2014 at 12:29 AM in reply to: local realtor may have stolen property from mentally disabled man #781291Participant[quote=spdrun]2% per annum compounded over 35 years is only 200%. If they bought it for $40,000 in 1979, it’s quite plausible.
Also, there may have been some years where the assessment did NOT go up by the 2% per annum.[/quote]
spd, for being located on the east coast of the US (and not “local”), I think you’re pretty sharp.
I actually think the Olson’s purchased it between 1966 amd 1973.
December 23, 2014 at 12:24 AM in reply to: local realtor may have stolen property from mentally disabled man #781290ParticipantThe tax bill is legitimate. The property was owned by the Estate of Irene Olson for Tax Year 13/14. The tax bill reveals that the last document filed on the property under owner(s)Olson was in 2010 (perhaps an affidavit when the joint-tenant died?).
The property was likely owned by the Olsons for several decades, hence the low “current” assessment. The new buyers, the Lenyks, have not yet received their supplemental tax bill as this typically takes the county assessor about nine months after closing to generate and mail. The Lenyks paid their first tax bill, the 12/10/14 installment of $487.15, on 12/5/14. Since the FY 14/15 tax bill with the Olson’s assessment on it was generated the third week of September 2014 and mailed to the Lenyks at the property address, it is the only current tax bill the Lenyks could pay at this time.
The new SDARCC system reveals that the property was sold on 5/2/14 to the Lenyks by Victor Gilbert Olson, Jr, the court-appointed administrator of the Irene Olson Estate who issued the Lenyks some sort of a deed (grant deed, quitclaim deed or Administrator’s deed). On that same day, Victor Olson carried a purchase money deed of trust for the Lenyks and recorded it (amounts not revealed without ordering docs). Acc to the the San Diego Superior Court Register of Actions, the Estate of Irene Olson was Petitioned for on 4/29/13 in the San Diego Superior Court by Victor Gilbert Olson. He made 16 filings to the court (including the estate inventory and final accounting), was issued Letters Administration on 6/6/13, attended two hearings and was at all times represented by counsel. Minutes were taken during those hearings, an examiner was present and could find no abnormalities in the documents filed. Victor Olson filed a court order with the county recorder (giving him the power of sale of real property?) on 4/14/14 and filed an ex parte Petition for the discharge of the Olson probate matter on 4/18/14.
I dunno. Were the Lenyks in the right place at the right time willing to accept the property with no guarantees? Was the property ever actually listed on the MLS? Did Victor Olson decide NOT to list it for some reason? (I haven’t checked.) Was there extensive termite and/or dryrot damage? Was the property insurable? Were the Lenyks willing to buy the property “as-is” on the spot without “realtors” and thus save the estate the cost of commission (since one or both of them are apparently licensees – haven’t checked this out). Who is Victor Olson and why was he willing to extend credit to the Lenyks instead of accepting an all-cash deal (preferable in a probate sale)? Could it be that the cash offers he got weren’t as much as the price that the Lenyks offered him with an owner carryback (which may be a balloon note for a short time frame, as many probate OWCB sales are). It is very likely that the property didn’t qualify for financing.
If the property now appears to be getting readied for sale, then the Lenyk’s intention was apparently to do just that, successfully sell it, pay off their OWCB financing and make a profit.
I found out all of the above in approx 22 minutes while learning to use a new online system SDARCC has (but could have pieced it together on the old system in half that time simply because I am more familiar with it). I do not know the address because I do not subscribe to REALIST or other service.
It appears that the “sales” data (parcel transfer transactions) for the last two years has been removed from the assessor’s new system so I cannot corroborate Hatfield’s purported sales price. If anyone can find it, let us know.
Perhaps Hatfield can answer some of the above questions himself.
-
AuthorPosts
