Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=all][quote=bearishgurl]SK, I was referring to outlying areas. Carmel Valley is not really outlying, and, in any case, a portion of its MR bonds should now be ~10 years from maturity/retirement.[/quote]And no true Scotsman…[/quote]
What about the subdivisions which were built in Carmel Valley in the very early nineties??
[quote=all]Carmel Valley is not outlying, but the area right next to it is?[/quote]
Yes.
[quote=all][quote=bearishgurl]Here’s a question for the PUSD Board: “If you purport to currently have a ~$168M “surplus” in MR bond revenue, then, pray tell, why aren’t you using most of it to pay down the ill-fated Prop C monies you borrowed at subprime interest rates??”[/quote]MR is to be used to build and maintain the infrastructure in the covered area. Prop C money is for the schools outside the MR areas.[/quote]
captcha, my understanding is the Prop C bonds are paid by ALL property owners within the PUSD. If you own there, take a look at your last tax bill.
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]
Now, all these affected CA jurisdictions (hundreds of them) are scrambling to figure out how they’re going to properly SERVICE all these outlying residents on into the future. It’s a comedy of errors which isn’t going to end well, folks.Hence my impending “retirement” to a much lesser-populated county or out of state.[/quote]
Is this really true? Are all MR jurisdictions scrambling? The PUSD is the only MR district that I’ve ever heard of that has actually raised MR assessments post initial sale. I suspect there are other problems in other parts of the state. But I’ve never heard of that happening right next door in Carmel Valley or anywhere else in the city of SD (outside of the PUSD). There are plenty of older MR districts in CV that have been paid off in due course. The infrastructures have been built and the homeowners paid for it as originally agreed. Maybe similar problems in Chula Vista as in the PUSD (I don’t know)?
Is it possible that the problem is not the MR regulations allowing tax assessments/bond issuance to pay for infrastructure. The problem seems to be when these schemes are abused by municipalities and school districts. I think there’s some evidence that MR can be used successfully.[/quote]
SK, I was referring to outlying areas. Carmel Valley is not really outlying, and, in any case, a portion of its MR bonds should now be ~10 years from maturity/retirement.
As you know, smaller CA inland cities have been heavily affected adversely by the “boom-bust” culture that urban sprawl causes, so much so that they felt it necessary to file for BK protection. These cities were all primarily overdeveloped in the last decade+.
Using SUHSD, GUSD and SUSHD for examples, the MR bonds collected in those districts appear to be used ONLY for infrastructure within the CFD’s. As you can see from the photos below, the PUSD’s multimillion dollar HQ is far more lavish than the HQ’s in these other local school school districts. In the SUHSD, older schools go wanting for pavement repairs, lockers, water fountains and the list goes on (in spite of Prop “O”). In my own kid’s school, the lockers have been rendered unusable so have been permanently caged, while the District’s *newer* schools have carpeted auditoriums and indoor pools, for starters.
As it should be. Those residents are paying through the nose for these perks for their kids.
[quote=bearishgurl on August 7, 2012 – 1:45 pm]I’m troubled by the PUSD’s all-brick facade multi-level HQ with its (very expensive) dbl-paned “Low E” windows.
[img_assist|nid=16542|title=PUSD HQ|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=66]
Why did they think they needed to build this “monument” and not tax its property owners to pay for it? I thought there was a “captive audience” of current and aspiring homeowners in the PUSD. Why wouldn’t they approve a new construction bond to build this monstrosity and upgrade its older schools … even if the bonds from 2000 were not yet paid off?
The SDUSD HQ with its 40-60 year-old trailers and add-ons was originally constructed in the ’30’s!
The GUSD HQ was actually built in the ’20’s, yet their taxpayers are currently funding Prop U (which they’re doing great things with, btw)!
[img_assist|nid=16543|title=GUSD HQ|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=100]
[/quote]http://piggington.com/powaythe_real_debt_bomb#comment-215909
Here’s a question for the PUSD Board: “If you purport to currently have a ~$168M “surplus” in MR bond revenue, then, pray tell, why aren’t you using most of it to pay down the ill-fated Prop C monies you borrowed at subprime interest rates??”
THIS ^^ is the time bomb that is going to cause the county assessor to eventually raise EVERY property owner taxes who owns within the PUSD.
“This is a perfect example of how something that’s done today can adversely affect the next generation and the generation after that.”
—Dan McAllister, San Diego County treasurer and tax collector.
Where Borrowing $105 Million Will Cost $1 Billion: Poway Schools
I did just listen to the sound bytes that ER provided and also visited the Adobe Bluffs Elem website. The truth is, if Willow Grove is truly FULL of students who reside WITHIN its attendance area (and has accepted no transfer students) then those SantaLuz residents who are complaining really don’t have a case. Adobe Bluffs, although much further away, DOES have a 917 API score and VERY LIKELY was ALSO built with MR bond money (circa 1992). The only difference is that AB Elem may not have as “homogenous” of a student population as does Willow Grove (read: AB may have some low-income students). This won’t affect the quality of education of any student but I agree that it is much more inconvenient for SantaLuz parents and therefore transportation to/from AB Elem should be provided by the District.
In any case, Superintendent Collins stated that at least one temporary building would be erected on Willow Grove’s campus by Spring 2014. It is only kindergarteners who are currently affected, no? When more room is made on the WG campus, then those resident-students can come back to their neighborhood school. It’s not the end of the world.
Contrary to the testimony of SantaLuz parents at the PUSD Board mtg, MR payments aren’t made to any one school or group of cluster schools. They are paid into a school district but I agree that they should not have been used to fund infrastructure in older schools or build a new HQ, as is apparently what happened in the PUSD.
There is NO GUARANTEE ANYWHERE in CA that your kid will be admitted to his/her neighborhood school. This decision is entirely up to your school district. If no room is available in your kid’s neighborhood school, the District should provide him/her transportation.
Participant[quote=CA renter]ER,
Thanks for following up on this, and for putting pressure on them to dig more deeply into the details of Mello-Roos.
IMO, there is no reason for Mello-Roos. It’s simply a way to direct more money into the pockets of long-time land owners and developers.
The developers should have to spend their own money to build the infrastructure necessary for their developments, and the costs of this should be fully included in the price of the houses. If they can’t make the numbers work, then they’re paying too much for the land.
By keeping these costs separate from the cost of the homes, gullible buyers won’t bother to look into the *total* price they’re paying for the houses. As always, they’re keeping people in the dark by focusing on payments instead of total cost.[/quote]
Wholeheartedly agree here, CAR. Prior to 1987, Developers in SD County DID use their own money to build the infrastructure needed for their residential developments. And those costs WERE factored into the price of a new-construction house or condo.
Part of the problem was that the concept of a “master-planned community” was successfully sold by Big Development to city and county officials of past decades who fell for it hook, like and sinker.
The MPC idea appealed to our elected officials because it took the pressure off them to find land for needed libraries, parks and fire stations (which wouldn’t have been needed if they hadn’t approved the subdivision permits in the first place). These developers “donated” the land for these public buildings (tiny pieces of large parcels, which they paid a mere song for back in 19xx) :=0
However, our short-sighted elected officials permitted all this stuff whilst having dollar signs in their eyes in anticipation of endless incoming property tax revenue. Of course, a good portion of their votes for what amounted to rampant urban sprawl occurred before the state decided to intercept it, confiscate some of it and return the balance back to the counties from whence it came, leaving CA cities and counties short of funds for needed services :=0
Now, all these affected CA jurisdictions (hundreds of them) are scrambling to figure out how they’re going to properly SERVICE all these outlying residents on into the future. It’s a comedy of errors which isn’t going to end well, folks.
Hence my impending “retirement” to a much lesser-populated county or out of state.
Participant[quote=6packscaredy]i forgot what the point of trying to look better is[/quote]
If you LOOK better, you generally FEEL better and more CONFIDENT 🙂
September 3, 2013 at 9:14 AM in reply to: OT: On the killing floor; immigrations impacts on wages #765056Participant[quote=SD Realtor]Just another union having fun in California.
Very interesting article, SDR.
If these employees hadn’t had a contract in ~20 years, and, in effect NEVER had a contract, I don’t understand why they didn’t attempt to decertify the UFW local long ago. It doesn’t make sense. There were PLENTY of years where these employees could have quietly gathered signatures on a decertification petition (before the union aggressively sought to deduct dues from them due to presumably losing 90% of its members).
I’m having trouble figuring out why this farm organized in the first place if the wages, benefits and working conditions were so great.
On the surface, some of the complaints behind the recent barrage of ULPs the union has filed *seem* frivolous, in light of this employer having better wages and benefits than the vast majority of CA farms. It will be interesting to hear which of these charges (if any) actually stick.
Participant[quote=EconProf]Wanna multitask by exercising and making money at the same time? Become a landlord and do your own work. Painting, scrubbing, landscaping, carpentry, etc. all works the main muscle groups. Skip the gym fees, go buy some fixer-upper units, and resolve to do as much of the work yourself. After a few years of that you can retire, sell the units, and do a 1031 into a gym.[/quote]
LOL, EconProf. I’ve tried a few of these tasks and don’t mind doing most of them but I’m a little afraid to run most power tools (especially the sharp ones) 🙂 However, I’m learning (slowly).
What I HATE, though, is cleaning up unit(s) that tenants left filthy, especially garbage strewn. It seems there are a lot of people out there that don’t mind living this way. No amount of security deposit is worth spending ~40 hrs in a “vacated” rental unit with a face mask on, rubber gloves to your armpits, and with scrapers in hand.
That’s SO not for me. Since I would only invest in SFR or duplexes (w/o HOA), I could only afford lower-end homes and/or lower-end areas which seem to attract tenants who live like this.
Actually, there is no guarantee that a mid-high tier rental home/condo won’t attract a filthy tenant.
Participant[quote=kev374]Zillow says my friend’s home in Aliso Viejo (Orange County) has gone up from a low of $273,000 over a year ago to it’s current ZEstimate of $406,000 LOL! and it’s still rising.. Good for him I guess…[/quote]
kev, I don’t know how long you’ve been shopping, but this is all the more reason why you should have bought a home in the OC in the last year-plus 🙂 Couldn’t you have afforded $273K, $300K or $350K?
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]I will get on my knees to clean the floor. Probably good exercise.
Incorporate daily work with excersiee. Remember karate kid? Wax on wax off.[/quote]Here’s a recommendation for you, FIH, for all the new tile you just laid.
http://miraclesealants.com/s_511_impregnator_nm.html
then:
http://miraclesealants.com/g_high_gloss_finish.html
or whatever kind of finish you like. They’re ALL awesome products (ESP the 511 Impregnator) … avail at Home Depot.
Break out the knee pads. And have clean sponges handy (preferably brand new).
And congrats for finishing that big job! I’ve been an “apprentice” on several tile jobs in my life but I am afraid to run a wet saw by myself :=0
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi] . . . I got vitamix and make lentil spinach soup. Pre boil the lentil and freeze it. Defrost and throw in vitamix with herb spices for soup. Good protein source and very filling. Combine with huge salad with fish or chicken. Organic of course.[/quote]
FIH, I’m going to have to look into this. It all sounds good! My mom used to make split pea soup, lentils or black-eyed peas, all with carrots, ham hock and cornbread sticks and I loved it and make it myself on occasion. However, your recipe sounds more nutritious.
I LOVE soup and HATE protein powder. Thanks for the suggestion!
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=6packscaredy]here is a fascinating bit of commercial history; the special k pinch an inch commercial from 1979:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9lTRfh0gcU
i remember this being a big joke in junior high–can you pinch more than an inch? and grabbing each others sides.
it’s hilarious! normal has moved wayyyy over.[/quote]
Haha. I love it. Now, 95% percent of the population?[/quote]
LOL, I used to dress almost every day like the lady in the commercial. Back then, skirts were lined with a back or side zipper and women’s jeans/pants did NOT stretch. In addition, we wore pantyhose and belts with almost everything.
I still have some clothes like this which I put on occasionally. My kids think I look like a dweeb in pleated Dockers or lined pants with a belt, shoulder pads and a pin on my lapel. “Yikes, mom, take that off! It’s so ’70’s/’80’s/’90’s.” They want me to have a “makeover” and get stretch pull-on pants/jeans, pullover dresses and flowy tops with big armholes and wear a tube top underneath (like they do), all the while they themselves can’t fit into my “vintage” clothing. I told them, “I’m a `tailored’ kind of gal.”
Go figure :=0
Participant[quote=zk][quote=bearishgurl]
I don’t think achieving a 13.5% body-fat composition is possible for an adult female … [/quote]
And it wouldn’t look good, either.
http://livelifeactive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/bfpercentage.jpg
Personally, I think 25-30% looks good on a woman. Even 35% looks better than 15% to me.
Although as a woman ages, maybe 30-35% is too much.[/quote]
zk, I saw your pics and they don’t take into account that weight is distributed differently on different women. For some it goes to the hips and thighs (pear shaped) and for others it goes to the waist, midriff, chest and arms (apple shaped). And the way the weight sits on the thighs makes a huge difference in aesthetics, IMHO. Of course, some of that is hereditary.
Correct me if I’m wrong, zk, but I thought ~25% body fat was considered “overweight” and ~30% was considered “obese” for the avg adult female. Even losing 5% of body fat can lower one’s blood pressure significantly.
Participant[quote=6packscaredy]middle age guide to buffness someday
[-snip-]
. . . the body changes very slowly. but ti will change, for better or worse. you need to push it up the hill….and make your workout more challenging each time, if you can. which ismuch easier said than done, cause most people just do the same thing over and over. it is very hard to improve, to do more, but, it must be done, or you’re not actually going anywhere. not sure that’s even enough to maintain, given the general way of things to deteriorate.[/quote]
All very good advice, scaredy. But I’m wondering about the 1-2 shots per day after your body finally gets in tip-top shape. If those 1-2 “shots” were not 100-proof spirits but instead equaled 8 oz wine or 12 oz beer, maybe… With seltzer and ice, 8 oz of wine is actually 3-4 glasses 🙂
Believe me when I tell you that I know how to stretch out a box of wine, folks :=]
scaredy, it is exactly the maintenance part that I think is the hardest. I was an amateur athlete from age 9-19 (at age 18-19, I no longer competed but primarily coached and judged). But after I left HS and went on to college, my fitness level was hard to maintain, due to my study/work schedule. By age 20, my leg muscles had significantly atrophied and I found myself having to spot reduce, which I did successfully in four months time by doing hundreds of reps per day on lightweight pulleys at a local gym. But I was young then.
For me, I found it is better not to develop significant muscle to begin with if I don’t know if I will be able to devote the time to maintain it. I would rather just get rid of as much fat as I can and develop a slight definition, if possible. I’ve seen young 20-something ladies work out at the gym with 45-lb kettleballs and they are very fit and buff, for sure. But I have to ask myself how they’re going to maintain those arms and legs 30 years from now after having sat in their worker-bee cubicle for decades while having 2-4 kids :=0
I don’t think achieving a 13.5% body-fat composition is possible for an adult female … at least not for one who isn’t a professional bodybuilder. I think 18.5% body fat is an admirable goal for Suzy Q. 6pack 🙂
I think some guys also just want to feel good and maintain a “good enough” level of fitness for their daily lives. And that’s okay. Not everyone can spend 30+ hrs per week at the gym.
You are fortunate that you have so much equipment at home, scaredy, and your kids are also interested in bodybuilding. It is nice to have company and also someone to help you with the bench press and “supervise” sometimes.
Most kids today are spread pretty thin and have zero interest in that kind of stuff.
Participant[quote=flyer]Flyer, it’s true that much of the wealth you see in property today (at least in SAN) was created by the foresight of previous generations. That’s why we’ve tried to keep most all of our properties over the years.
Our family has been around San Diego for about 100 years, and I could tell you great stories about the players in this city who were involved in everything from raw land deals to residential and commercial development. It’s really fascinating.
Long stories short–many kept their fortunes, some did not, but it has been very interesting to watch the evolution.[/quote]
Yes, flyer, I am aware and also acquainted with a handful of these “power brokers” who are all senior citizens now. They are early-rising, dapper, tireless octegenarians who answer SD city/county leaders’ calls to assist wherever and whenever they can, often at a moments notice. It is actually these folks who are the power-brokers behind your elected officials. In effect, they are running the city/county, running the show, literally and figurately speaking, from behind the veil of your elected official(s). Most of them are native San Diegans and the rest came here as children and they all care deeply about what happens in and to this region, having all been local government and local leading business leaders for well over 50 years.
Folks, just ask yourselves how this individual got this particular critical “impromptu” job and was able to successfully complete it in such a short time frame, obtaining a “win-win” situation for all parties.
http://m.utsandiego.com/news/2013/aug/20/filner-mediator-lawrence-irving/
http://m.utsandiego.com/news/2013/aug/22/man-with-velvet-gavel-j-lawrence-irving/
Barring any current health issues, who else would have gotten the job? When “mediation” was first mentioned by CA Goldsmith as a remedy to this unfortunate debacle, that was the FIRST name that ran through my head and I was not and am not the least bit surprised at the outcome.
Be grateful for these folks. They’re not going to live forever.
Participant[quote=flyer] . . . Everyone will get old, and the stats reveal that many people will never even make it to 50+,(and remain healthy, etc.) let alone have the resources to enjoy the balance of their lives, so, IMO, those of us in that category should be very grateful to have beat those very formidable odds.[/quote]
Yeah, I think about this all the time and feel eternally grateful for my health. I’m fully cognizant that I (or any of us) could get a “terminal” diagnosis or have a fatal accident at any time, through no fault of our own. I realize that a lot of people live for years, even decades with chronic disease and I am very grateful that I am not one of those people but have taken numerous steps over the years in an effort to prevent this from happening to me. I feel grateful that I will have the resources to live the life that I want to, however, the ability to obtain and hang onto those resources has taken a great deal of effort, patience and living within or below my means for many years.
I agree that lot of people out there within ten years of retirement age probably aren’t doing what it takes to become solvent (in the black) so they can remain solvent through their retirement years (barring any catastrophic inflation for commodities). It is likely that too many of them are still trying to give the impression that they are “keeping up the Joneses” but you can’t eat luxury vehicles, mcmansions, expensive vacations and bling. This “elephant in the room” is just really unpalatable for a lot of people so they bury their heads in the sand and hope for the best … personal responsibility be damned.
-
AuthorPosts
