Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
ParticipantLOL, brian, I’ve used balsamic vinegar on my veggies and salads for many years, sometimes with light olive oil on my salad and sometimes not.
In a couple of months, I’m not going to have anyone to “cook for” except myself. So I’ve already started paring down my pantry and frig to just what I will eat. It’s going to be liberating to be able to cook only what I want and not have to satisfy a “teenager’s” tastes. I’ve tried to teach them what I learned about a good diet and exercise but have never had control over these things 24/7/365. I bought a hotpot that turns off automatically for their dorm room and they will bring a used small frig and the roommate will bring a microwave. Fortunately, the kids will have access to a Farmers Market while at college and, of course, will use will their food points as they wish at the cafeteria or food court (I fear coffees and smoothies, mostly). I’ve done all I could, and, except for paying the campus room/board bill, my kid’s diet is not my problem anymore. They either learned from my (boring) example of maybe 5-6 dishes I know how to make well … or they didn’t. Every adult has to find their own food path … what works for them.
Participant[quote=joec]Agreed…I think if like the old days, 20% down was required, the housing crash probably would’ve never happened and banks would probably not need to be bailed out.
20% down would eliminate probabl 85% of the buyers since people seem to have trouble saving money in general.[/quote]
I think a 20% down requirement would eliminate some FTBs but repeat buyers, not so much.
The prospective FTBs who would be eliminated probably weren’t in good enough (financial) shape to be homeowners, anyway.
Then there is the VA zero-down mortgage (currently up to $527,500 for a SFR in SD County) to expose taxpayers to more deadbeat FTBs, many of whom default as soon as they get (predictable) “change of station” orders. Due to the VA “lender guarantee” equaling only 25% of the loan (and the vast majority of the VA’s defaulted properties returned to them in terrible condition due to the defaulted trustor usually moving in a hurry and leaving a ton of crap and filth behind), this is but one more failed gubment program which undoubtedly costs taxpayers billions in losses every year.
ParticipantHLS, I’ll read the article.
I’ve posted a few times before here that I have never been in favor of 3.5% down mortgages (FHA 203(b) plan). Historically, the FHA has always had a very high default rate on 1-4 unit properties where they have guaranteed a mortgage under this plan.
see: http://piggington.com/fha_warning#comment-232383
Especially with the ridiculously high up-front and monthly MMI required with these loans made in recent years, of course these buyers are underwater from doc-signing forward and on into oblivion. In addition, MMI on these newer loans can no longer be canceled. Loan payoff or refinance to conventional financing is the only way to get rid of the MMI (now “MIP”). Do I have this correct, HLS?
As such, the FHA 203(b) program is nothing more than a debtor’s prison for “glorified renters.” In any case, the FHA loan ceiling in ALL US markets should have never been more than $300K, tops. This program was never intended for move-up and “luxury” home purchases. It was created in 1934 in part to assist low and moderate income buyers to purchase a “decent” home for their families.
3.5% of $300K is $10,500 and that is already a miniscule downpayment on a $310K home. That is not enough skin in the game to prevent ANYONE from walking on their mortgage if owning the property becomes the least bit inconvenient for them LET ALONE anyone being able to put a downpayment of ~$20K on a ~$565K home (using the current SD County FHA loan ceiling of $546,250 for a SFR).
https://entp.hud.gov/idapp/html/hicost1.cfm
The monthly FHA MIP payments are now so burdensome that they could cause a family to default all by themselves due to being a “monthly addition” to PITI. This problem is especially pronounced with FHA buyers who purchase properties with longstanding and substantial Mello Roos payments and also HOA dues in addition to PITI. In spite of low prevailing fixed interest rates, these addition(s) to PITI cause said FHA-mortgaged property to cost far more per month than if those same buyers had just rented it.
I don’t think the current up front and monthly MIP is or will be enough to compensate for the agency’s current and future losses from strategic defaulters and walkaways. As always, we’ll all be left holding the bag.
ParticipantI understand about the possible brain injury of the 10-year old girl here but totally agree with what FlyerInHi (brian) has been trying to say in this thread.
Overweight is caused by taking in more calories than expended, plain and simple. I have always subscribed to viewing food as something one needed to survive and not as “pleasure inducement.” Having had several relatives (immed family and second-tier) who WEREN’T obese but nonetheless succumbed to heart failure at relatively young ages due to severe atherosclerosis, I have always been very mindful of what I eat since I have been on my own (age 17). My family originates from a flyover state where the local culture highly values extended family potlucks with lots of (homemade) starch and sweets. White or redeye gravy (made from lard) was served by the quart at 80% of dinners when I was growing up (along with lots of white bread with butter or margarine with trans fats). Even most vegetables were first fried in cornmeal (with shortening w/trans fats) and eaten with redeye gravy. The few dozen relatives I have whom are still living (boomer and older portion) have since gotten a clue (after attending dozens of funerals of family members) and have done an about-face on their daily diet in recent years and have long since quit smoking. While the vast majority of my relatives worked (physically) hard throughout their lives and were not obese (some were even thin), it is now widely known that this type of diet will kill you before your time and it is entirely culturally-based. This is why some regions of the country have far higher obesity rates than other regions. It is all this population knew and what they were brought up with.
There’s nothing wrong with eating oatmeal 6-7 mornings per week (however one likes it), 52 weeks per year. There’s nothing wrong with eating the same things every day/week or subscribing to a mostly vegetarian or even vegan diet. Food is simply fuel to live well and do what one needs to do. If it was viewed in that vein by everyone (as well as the necessity of daily exercise), then our country wouldn’t have an obesity problem (and most fast-food chains and Frito/Lay and its competitors would probably go out of business, at least in the US).
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=joec]I was just commenting on what’s even accepted, not any rate/payments or reimbursement contracts. More of the “Do you take [fill in the blank insurance plan]?”
So as an example, I was saying if, say UCLA medical center doesn’t take Blue Shield ACA, then no matter what Blue Shield health plan you have, UCLA medical will never take it since they don’t have a provider/insurance contract with Blue Shield.
At least that’s what I’ve read.
Again, this is all self purchase and company plans might be different.[/quote]
Nothing has changed in that regard. It has nothing to specifically to do with the ACA. (And again, almost ALL policies are now ACA policies.) Telling a provider that you have Blue Cross is rarely sufficient. Blue Cross has dozens of different types of policies. Some providers may take all. Some take none. And some take only selected policies. It is all about reimbursement rates. That’s how the decision to accept insurance is made.
You might remember a few years ago, I think it was Scripps who decided not to accept Blue Cross. (It may have been another large carrier.) It was huge news in the industry. It was all because their reimbursement rates weren’t high enough.[/quote]
All Sharp facilities and providers (except for emergencies) stopped taking Tricare Standard and Prime back in about 2004 but I noticed they have gone back to accepting them. My college-bound kid is on Sharp Healthplan but will be transferring to Tricare Prime beginning 10/1/14 (beginning of fiscal year for the Federal Govmt) as they will be leaving the county in late September.
Participant[quote=joec][quote=bearishgurl]
joec, I have a Blue Shield of CA Platinum PPO from Covered CA. It took a l-o-o-ong time to get my membership card, but so far, I am happy with it and they have paid 90% of the bill for one “expensive test” so far in 2014 and all my current providers take the plan. I just found out that Sharp Rees Stealy is not on their provider list (not sure about Sharp hospitals) when I tried to access care in a local Sharp Rees Stealy Urgent Care clinic a few weeks ago on a weekend. They sent me to a nearby “US Healthworks” urgent care clinic who treated my minor injury just fine and I’m all healed up now.
IIRC, Sharp Platinum EPO was going to be ~$125 per month more for me and I needed national provider access, due to being on the road several weeks per year. Blue Shield of CA belongs to the BCBS National Provider Directory in the 48 contiguous states and even worldwide:
Absent needed emergency care while out of county, Sharp EPO only covers the bills of providers within their EPO …. all located in San Diego County.[/quote]
Thanks for sharing…and confirming what I found out since in December, Anthem actually listed them as a provider as well.
We wanted to use the Sharp Rees-Stealy hospitals (and also Rady’s Children) since my kids have been going there since birth and Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield just didn’t offer them at all…so we switched.
Glad to hear you’ve been happy with it so far and your current medical professionals still takes your Blue Shield.
Just hate dealing with any issues with the Blue companies since it takes so long to get anyone on the phone.[/quote]joec, I just sent for a Blue Shield PPO Provider Directory for San Diego County and it was instantly e-mailed to me. ALL the hospitals in the county are in their network, including Rady Children’s and Sharp Mary Birch (Sharp’s specialty hospitals), including ALL standalone surgical centers and facilities in the county.
Blue Shield’s Urgent care providers are either US Healthworks or Doctor’s Express (and a few independents here and there where neither of these two exist). Sharp Rees Stealy and Sharp Mission Park providers work exclusively for Sharp (EPO) and thus are not on Blue Shield’s provider list.
I think Blue Shield has to cover all facilities because they have a very wide range of providers in each specialty, some of whom have been practicing for decades and have rights to practice at multiple hospitals and so they have to follow where the providers on their list choose to practice for a particular procedure.
Blue Shield of CA PPO definitely has more providers to choose from than any other healthplan on the exchange and was available in more regions than any other carrier. HOWEVER, Sharp EPO’s computer system amongst themselves ties together the care of a single patient at multiple facilities and therefore likely prevents mistakes. It’s a good system IF you are not planning on leaving the county, don’t travel for weeks at a time by road and generally don’t spend too long at a time away from home (“home” being SD County). The Gold and Platinum Sharp EPO plans are very pricey (esp for my demographic).
And yes, Blue Shield takes a l-o-o-o-ng time to answer the phone … or at least they did before April 30. (I used to put them on speakerphone and keep working.) They are HQ in SF but they opened up a HUGE warehouse-like call-center in Lodi last September where they hired thousands of newbies to take calls from Covered CA applicants. It was a real mess for a few months because their computer and Covered CA’s computer weren’t able to “talk” to each other. I haven’t called lately because I finally got taken care of. It took 120 days to get my membership card from my October 2013 application date. And I still didn’t have pharmacy benefits until the end of April, but they reimbursed me for my out-of-pocket expense in the interim.
You were with Anthem (HMO or EPO) and that is a completely different animal than Blue Shield of CA PPO. In CA, the two organizations are not related to one another (as they are in other states).
Participant[quote=joec][quote=bearishgurl]
[snip] [/quote]Not sure if anyone has used their ACA coverage yet, but I HAD Anthem Blue Cross thinking they had a good network, but their coverage and doctor/hospital access is EXTREMELY limited. Also, based on the law, ACA coverage should be the same as their regular plans in terms of doctor/hospital access so if they don’t have it in ACA, they probably would not have it even if you purchased outside of ACA (no idea on grandfathered plans).
There was just an article published this week I think investigating that they misled consumers in CA as to which doctors they even had access to so I’d recommend everyone who has Anthem to check to see if they can even access the doctor they wanted to. I know I signed up specifically for Anthem since the doctor was on the list, but low and behold, it was a lie and they weren’t.
I changed our plan right after I couldn’t be seen. Also, getting support and talking to ANYONE at Anthem is incredibly hard and they are the WORST company to deal with. I’m still waiting for a billing issue currently.
We eventually went with Sharp Health since it’s much smaller and when you call, someone picks up immediately actually and you aren’t in a phone tree…It was also cheaper amazingly.
They AREN’T national though so if you have to pick someone who is, you’re more limited…(honestly, who needs national anyways?)
I never hated Kaiser, but it seems like a lot of people do (like my wife) and I’ve probably picked them instead if not for Sharp.[/quote]
joec, I have a Blue Shield of CA Platinum PPO from Covered CA. It took a l-o-o-ong time to get my membership card, but so far, I am happy with it and they have paid 90% of the bill for one “expensive test” so far in 2014 and all my current providers take the plan. I just found out that Sharp Rees Stealy is not on their provider list (not sure about Sharp hospitals) when I tried to access care in a local Sharp Rees Stealy Urgent Care clinic a few weeks ago on a weekend. They sent me to a nearby “US Healthworks” urgent care clinic who treated my minor injury just fine and I’m all healed up now.
IIRC, Sharp Platinum EPO was going to be ~$125 per month more for me and I needed national provider access, due to being on the road several weeks per year. Blue Shield of CA belongs to the BCBS National Provider Directory in the 48 contiguous states and even worldwide:
Absent needed emergency care while out of county, Sharp EPO only covers the bills of providers within their EPO …. all located in San Diego County.
Participant[quote=UCGal][quote=bearishgurl]
The 75+ yr old demographic that I’m seeing have Tricare for Life at very little cost out of their military pensions and/or: union pensions, plenty of savings and rentals and other comm’l property which one or more of their children are managing. They don’t need to worry about “being put into a home” by one of their children. [/quote]
Tricare for life is only for military. And, if I’m not mistaken, it also becomes secondary/supplemental to medicare when the person reaches 65. Medicare does NOT pay for nursing homes except in a limited way for max of 100 days if they transfer to the home directly from a hospitalization. Medicaid does pay for nursing home care – IF you spend down all the assets. So there’s no leaving assets to your children AND having the government pay for the nursing home. (And that is how it should be.) There is a 5 year look back – so perhaps the more savvy elderly folks you’re seeing have already transferred title to their grown children – in hopes of having it in place longer than 5 years- to beat the lookback.[/quote]I understand all this about Tricare for Life, UCGal. I realize it is a Medicare Part B and D supplement (one of the better ones, btw). I don’t think any of these octogenarians + are planning on going into assisted living or a skilled nursing facility. They’ll just use home health care/companions, etc, as long as possible. Some are stubborn and don’t even want to move in with kids who have room for them. They’re planning on dying in their homes. If that’s from a fall that isn’t discovered until 1-3 days later, then so be it.
In any case, 100 days is a long time for an 85+ year old to continue to survive who was moved to a skilled nursing facility directly from a hospital. Their mental health (and will to live) usually takes a turn for the worse when they are told they cannot return to their homes.
Participant[quote=CA renter] …. You’re also forgetting about the elderly people who have no savings outside of the house, and when they/the kids want to put them in a home or have them live with one of their kids, so they sell the house to help pay for this…[/quote]
The 75+ yr old demographic that I’m seeing have Tricare for Life at very little cost out of their military pensions and/or: union pensions, plenty of savings and rentals and other comm’l property which one or more of their children are managing. They don’t need to worry about “being put into a home” by one of their children. They have their EOL docs in order. I also see widows/widowers having local meals on wheels delivered at least 5 days per week and have a part-time companion to help them out with household maintenance and errands and a gardener. Their children help them with home repairs, as needed. Many of the WWII and (dwindling) Greatest Generation homeowners I come into contact with (yes, 85+ yrs old) are still driving and have absolutely no need whatsoever to liquidate their home equity. As a matter of fact, a good portion of them are no doubt still saving due to having “double-dipped” on their pensions in their working years and have way more income coming in than they need to survive month to month.
ParticipantI’m living in an area which is 10 – 20 years older than UCGal’s (depending on street). I also have at least a dozen neighbors (that I know of) in their 60’s who “inherited” their parents home (or bought their sibling(s) interest(s) out) and are residing in it. I think the difference here is cost. It is easier for a sibling to buy out the others to get title to a parent’s home when the appraised value is only $350K to $550K as opposed to values in UC (not sure what they are now but have always been higher than my area of dtn Chula Vista).
A few of my neighbors purchased their deceased parents’ homes from sibling(s) as far back as the early ’80’s for the $35-$50K range (with temporary OWC financing to the executor, due to exorbitant prevailing interest rates).
This same phenomenon occurs in many other communities in San Diego County with tracts of smallish “mid-century type” homes, the kind that Joe 6pack Rohr or Convair worker used to buy to raise his family in. (Lemon Grove comes to mind but there are many others.) I’m not sure UC fits that criteria as the homes there tend to be a little larger and a bit newer (1961-1968+ ?) than most run-of-the-mill tract housing built when SD was a manufacturing town. In addition, UC has mushroomed in value (above and beyond other similarly-situated communities) over the years due to tech companies moving in nearby. I could see how it could be a challenge at today’s values to buy other siblings out in UC when it was likely that none of the heirs were planning on attempting to qualify for a mortgage when their last parent passed away. If one needs to get a mortgage to buy other siblings out, that takes advance planning and you can’t plan death.
Heirs taking over their deceased parents property is very common in the established areas of South County. Extended family usually always finds a way to do it to keep the family home in the family if it has an ultra-low assessment. As is the case in many other moderately priced areas in the county. Hence, the neighborhoods are very, very stable.
I think those many extremely fortunate CA heirs of parents’ “trophy properties” were either an only child, the only surviving child, a sibling who was well-heeled enough in their own right to enable them to make the deal or there was enough cash in the estate to settle with any other siblings so one of them could take title to the parents’ trophy (ocean view, historic, etc) property.
ParticipantI can’t believe this thread has devolved into all this crazy talk, especially about kids who aren’t even in school yet!
Instead of worrying about “IQ” (ESP “IQ” of toddlers, lol) today’s parents would be better served by making sure their kids are ready for school (potty trained, no thumb-sucking or tugging on mommy, etc) enrolling their kid(s) in school (if public school in CA, then with UNIONized teachers) and let those UNIONized teachers do the job they were hired to do! TRUST ME, they’ll get your kid(s) through the “system” with all their A-G reqs met for college admission if your kid is even halfway motivated!
Parents should just relax about all of this and go to work every day so they can pay taxes to support the public schools and leave the education of their kids to the “experts.”
I know this info may be quite a stretch for a few Piggs out there but hundreds of thousands of students from EVERY race, nationality and socioeconomic level graduate from EVERY PUBLIC HS in CA EVERY year and get accepted into university right out of HS (yes, UC, CSU and the Ivies, etc). This thread has turned into a wacky diatribe of once again “overthinking” the whole concept of child-rearing.
I counted no less than 43 IB diploma candidates in my kid’s HS graduation class of 2014, not counting the hundreds of Honor Diploma awardees, President’s Education awardees, CSF Life Members, Honor Roll Scholarship awardees … even two National Merit Scholars! This is a school situated about 8 miles north of the international border with its largest demographic, “Hispanic” students representing 58% of the student body, “white” students representing 22%, “Asian” students representing 13%, “African American” students representing 4.6%, “American Indian/Pacific Islander” representing 1.5%. It also had 18% “socioeconomically disadvantaged” students, 11% ESL learners and 9% disabled students. Guess what, folks? Almost every one of these graduates is going to college this fall (except for the few going into the military and the developmentally-disabled students).
It doesn’t matter what the racial or even socioeconomic backgrounds of students are in a given public school. The educational opportunities in every public HS in CA are the same (except those offering IB Diploma contracts – those schools are very limited). Yes, even CA’s high schools serving rural students offer AP classes!
I’ve got Vergara v. State (CTA) on my tickler to keep tabs on the filing of a new appeal. This case truly needs to wind its way through the court system to lay this issue to rest, once and for all. CA (and the rest of the country) have come wa-a-a-a-y too far down the road in the last 60 years to be wasting time fighting off ignorant claims such as the ones these plaintiffs are making (along with the idiot judge who agrees with them).
ParticipantIt’s not just “boomers,” Jazzman …. it’s the already retired and long retired, the WWII and remnants of the Greatest Generation. These are the generations which managed to buy the SD County “bread and butter” house in a “plain jane” ‘hood for $4K to $17K, a similar house in a “coveted” ‘hood for $18K to $25K and the “trophy” or “expansive view” house in SD best areas for $25K to $45K (yes, incl LJ and Coronado).
A huge portion of these folks will die in their houses (perhaps with part-time assistance).
I’m going to tell y’all again with a straight face that this demographic typically doesn’t need the proceeds from the sale of their home. They’re living on SS and pension(s) and many have been “savers” most of their lives, due to living through the great depression. The vast majority of them are are used to living a far more “spartan” lifestyle than the rest of us are and many of them are now too old to travel. They’re just going to hand their residence (and any rental houses they picked up when they were young whippersnappers) down to their heirs. It’s the same story up and down the state. After their deaths, their heirs’ lawyers will tell them that they are fools to sell a perfectly decent SFR in a perfectly decent area and lose it’s ultra-low tax assessment. So, if at all possible, one heir will buy out the others in a multiple-heir family.
Nor do I see boomers “fearful” of running out of money. I see the ones who have already retired content with steady monthly incomes (pensions, SS). The ones I see that have owned their current residences more than 25 years have either paid them off or have a small encumbrance left (often a HELOC taken out at one point for repairs and remodeling). A very small minority have not handled their finances well and some of that has to do with giving too much to adult children when they (invariably) get themselves into financial jams and beg for money from parents.
Not EVERYONE wants to retire and go around the world. A lot of people just want to visit county/state campgrounds or visit relatives in other counties/states where they won’t be paying for lodging. They’ll just pack up and hit the road (even taking pets with them). I’m a “boomer” and this is how I often travel. I’ve offered numerous times to take my own Gen Y kid(s) with me, who have only joined me on three out of over a dozen trips I’ve made in recent years (and they flew back one way at some point on the trip). They won’t even join me when they themselves are on vacation because they don’t like road trips. They want to fly and rent a car (way more hassle, expensive and lacking in flexibility, IMO). This is the difference in values between the generations.
The reality is that the older generations are lower maintenance.
In spite of what all the “financial advisor” types seem to be spouting on the intrawebz (spdrun’s word, lol), I don’t think a retiree needs as much income as they had while working. In most cases they can live on less and certainly far less than they lived on when they still had kids in school and college.
Jazzman, do you have any idea WHERE those 2375 (defaulted-upon or foreclosed?) currently “distressed properties” are located in the county? Could it possibly be that 90%+ of them are located in outer lizardia which was built within the last 15 years?
If so, how does this affect property values in SD County’s most established areas? Who is the demographic who typically goes into foreclosure and why did this happen to them? And who was the demographic who bought into micro areas of the state which were hard hit by foreclosure and decimation of residential property values?
Oh, and Jazzman, I forgot to add that I don’t believe San Diego County RE is “overvalued.” If anything, some areas of the county are still “undervalued.”
Participant[quote=spdrun]Bearishgurl —
Again: sale prices are still 20%(?) below their peak and were even lower before. Clearly, economic conditions did affect the market in SD. Your neighborhoods seem to the anomalous rather than the norm.[/quote]
Yes, they ARE 19% below the peak, on average according to Rich’s current graphs. BUT this means they may be 32% below peak in places like Lakeside and at or above peak in places like LJ or LaPlaya/Fleetridge SD (92106), for example.
It depends on the micro-area how values are currently faring in comparison to the (late 2005) peak prices. Some areas didn’t have a lot of bubble purchasers who purchased with funny money and hence, didn’t have a lot of distressed property afterwards. They had more all-cash buyers and well-heeled buyers with great credit who didn’t have to sign up for “funny money” mortgages in order to purchase the property.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=bearishgurl][quote=spdrun]Whether a home is paid off or not has no effect on value, only on whether the home CAN be sold without resorting to short sale or bank foreclosure.[/quote]
I understand that, spdrun. But an owner who has a paid-off property to sell (esp a longtime owner in CA with artificially low taxes) has many options. If they don’t get their price, they can rent it out or just furnish it, get an occasional landscaper and leave it “vacant” for occasional guests. Many do.
All I was trying to say is that these owners don’t have to entertain lowball offers or even need to price their listing in line with the comps. If they don’t get any offers that they will accept in a short period of time listed, they can just withdraw the listing and wait for a better day. And many do because it costs them very, very little to hang onto the property into oblivion.
I believe lots of these owners are just “testing” the market when they list. And they have the luxury of time and can do so.[/quote]
But this still doesn’t change the price they could get for their homes if they were to decide to sell. The only homes that matter are the ones that do sell to buyers who are willing/able to buy at a given moment in time. Those buyers are under no obligation to buy a house for any price, much less an artificially inflated one.[/quote]
Yes, of course. I agree that a withdrawn listing doesn’t constitute a “sold comp.” All I was trying to say is that withdrawn listings and properties turned into rentals or guest houses and never put on the market due to their ultra-low tax assessments could be marketed but are not. This leaves a permanent dearth of listings in established micro-areas (some very coveted areas) which cause prices to be permanently sticky there. The sellers who ARE motivated to sell in those areas have a “take it or leave it mindset” because they CAN. If buyers don’t like the prices there on the few listings available, they must go shopping elsewhere. This problem isn’t going to go away. It will only get worse as owners of these properties will simply hand them down to children/grandchildren, most of who will live in them, rent them out or keep them vacant. Buyers will continue to have little choice of inventory in the established areas (many of them coveted).
This phenomenon creates a situation where buyers lose out unless they can get an accepted offer on one of these properties. That means they’re going to have to pay at or very near what the seller wants or they don’t get the property. Would-be sellers in this category don’t lose out. They have several options at their disposal and always will.
These are the ramifications of the long-term effects of Prop 13 and its progeny, Props 58 and 193.
-
AuthorPosts
