Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 23, 2013 at 11:27 PM in reply to: Another excellent Economist Mag article on the terrible state pension issues #763161
bearishgurl
Participantpatb, this can’t happen in nonjudicial foreclosure states, such as CA. The foreclosure process here has to satisfy the lien being foreclosed upon. Otherwise, the lender was presumed “stupid” for lending as much as they did at the time that they did.
ParticipantFair enough, flu. I haven’t contacted jimmy to find out any info on his nefarious (actual-but-hidden-to-the-public SS) escrow. I wasn’t really interested in the minute details because the premise is the same . . . Holmes rules the day and that is all there is to it.
However, I think the Piggs would be interested to learn if you obtained your RE Salesperson license … or not by now. That seemed to be one of your goals at the end of 2012 as you seemed very tired of the 8-5 grind. You posted repeatedly here that you wanted to create a reliable income stream which was not “W-2 income” and wanted to create a stream of “passive income” for you and your family.
Participant[quote=flu][quote=ltsdd]
We all know that if flu showed up, AN will surely to follow.[/quote]Don’t get too comfortable with it 🙂 I’m just shamelessly trying to poach off of any potential folks …So if any of you got a pending short sales that they might be thinking of back out of, PM me.. Very unlikely they would be @ great deals these days , but hey, begging/borrowing/asking doesn’t hurt just in case..Peace.[/quote]
Well, flu, without revealing too much, can you tell us if you know the address of jimmy’s short sale listing and if so, if you thought it was “great deal?”
Just wondering . . . and hey, it’s great to hear that you’re still out there looking for opportunities 🙂
Did you ever get your own RE license?
[quote=bearishgurl on June 12, 2013 – 10:41am.][quote=flu on June 11, 2013 – 7:54 pm.][quote=jimmy1977 on June 10, 2013 – 7:37 pm.]Update on the situation
We heard back from the selling agent. They told us now the house is a short sell. But they claim the bank is ready to close within 14 days. I don’t trust this anymore – we are going to follow bearishgurl’s advice and jump out as soon as our rate lock expires.[/quote]Hi Jimmy…. I just sent you a PM. Can you check it ?
Thanks.[/quote]Hello out there, flu . . . ;-]Why don’t you come out of the shadows and tell the Piggs how you’ve been doing?
Why the cryptic msg after all these months? Did you finally get your RE license after you posted here a while back that you wanted to pursue one?
Or . . . shilling for someone??
Just wondering . . .[/quote]
June 19, 2013 at 5:31 PM in reply to: San Diego City Council passes prevailing wage ordinance for city contractors #763045Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]BG: This is a pretty knee-jerk response on your part. It isn’t as though there are only two choices here: “Living wage” or “undocumented illegals”.
I’ve been doing Military/Federal construction since the late 1980s and I can tell you that Prevailing Wage (Public Works projects) and Union Scale (Commercial/Metro projects) are some of the most overpriced, poorly done and corrupt projects going – the SF Bay Bridge “retrofit” following the Loma Prieta quake being Exhibit A.
These projects are larded with pork, kickbacks and all sorts of “giveaways” to family members, political supporters, etc.
As to “living wage”, well you haven’t lived till you’ve spent $125/hr on a union welder (+ fringes!), whom you don’t even get for a full eight hour work day (due to union work rules, union-mandated breaks and safety meetings).
Costs here, like Chicago and NYC, will skyrocket.[/quote]
So, what is the solution, Allan? Is there a happy medium? I’ve searched many local contractors’ licenses on the CSLB. It seems to be a struggle for a lot of them to keep up their worker’s comp premiums and minimum bond … even if they’ve been licensed for many years. Should the ROP programs just continue to train and turn out students for the trades only to have them compete with unlicensed “contractors” and undocumented immigrants?
In the absence of a prevailing minimum wage for each trade, it becomes a race to the bottom to see who is willing to work cheapest.
Participant[quote=ocrenter]http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-130030902-13073_Papago_Dr_Poway_CA_92064
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-130030658-8730_Bennington_St_San_Diego_CA_92126
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-130012366-11456_Cesped_Dr_San_Diego_CA_92124
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-130028736-3203_Neosho_Pl_San_Diego_CA_92117
PQ and UTC are out of his range. But everything else is within his criteria.[/quote]
OC, they’re all too expensive. Your lowest-priced listing is $449K. If he could afford to make an acceptable offer on these properties, he may as well keep looking in the OC. I don’t see him successfully making deals on any of these.
And, Yikes, that one in Tierrasanta is butt-ugly :=0
June 19, 2013 at 4:58 PM in reply to: San Diego City Council passes prevailing wage ordinance for city contractors #763041ParticipantTom Lemmon of the San Diego County Building and Construction Trades Council said costs will be held down because the pool of bidders will increase. He said 500 to 1,000 contractors won’t bid on city work now because they pay prevailing wages and don’t want to be undercut by companies that give less money to employees…
SD Squatter, it this actually newsworthy or is it an attempt to incite folks to jump on the bandwagon in the race to the bottom?
As it should be. Are these reputable licensed contractors all bad because they pay a “living wage” in a town where there is are undocumented immigrants available everywhere to undercut them who have NO workers comp insurance, little to no tools of the their own and no formal training whatsoever? How is a well-trained Joe6P American Journeyman supposed to make a living? They have rent/mortgage to pay and have to eat and put gas in their truck, just like YOU!
Participantocrenter, I’m sure you noticed that kev is in the $400K range. I don’t think that leaves him a lot of choice in SD County today’s market. He’s probably looking at a condo in most areas you mentioned and likely not one 1800 sf. In addition, he doesn’t know where he’ll be working so it isn’t easy except to say that the cities he mentioned are all probably good. The only one I haven’t been in is the City of Orange and I think Yorba Linda is the prettiest.
The reason he probably hasn’t found anything in the OC that he likes is because he his criteria is 1800 sf and $400K. Most of the housing stock in his price range is undoubtedly older and isn’t 1800 sf.
And as you mentioned, I’m not sure he could get a better job here than what he already has and the pay here could be quite a bit less, leaving him in the same (or worse) position, qualification-wise.
Participant[quote=livinincali]Schools in this area are below average. Tons of ESL students that close to the border which will tend to bring the numbers down. Based on your lack of knowledge about San Diego I’d recommend renting somewhere at least a year to get a feel for where you might want to be. Most of the IT work is around sorrento valley and rancho bernardo so you’d probably be better off with something a little closer to those job centers, 92126 or 92071 will have stuff in your price range with a shorter commute and better schools.[/quote]
livinincali, not only are you misinformed, you’re jumping the gun a little, don’t you think? kev isn’t even married yet and doesn’t have any kids. In any case, it will likely be at least six years before he has to think about schools.
kev, I think you would do well to look at the API scores of South County schools.
http://api.cde.ca.gov/Acnt2013/2012Base_DstApi.aspx?cYear=&allcds=3768023&cChoice=2012ApiD
http://api.cde.ca.gov/Acnt2013/2012Base_DstApi.aspx?cYear=&allcds=3768411&cChoice=2012ApiD
Unlike other county districts, South County teachers don’t cater to one race or nationality of student at the expense of the others. Thus, ALL of the students show better performance. Many of the South County school scores rival and exceed the scores of Mira Mesa and Santee schools. “ESL students” are present in EVERY county school and they aren’t all “border crossers” or even Mexican. You will likely overpay for a dump in MM because of its current “hot market” status. It isn’t necessarily families who are currently flocking there. It’s a lot of singles as well who want to be close to tech centers without having to use the freeway. MM has doubled in population in the last ten years and is EXTREMELY congested now and still growing! A couple of large multifamily projects are in the pipeline and/or being constructed there NOW. MM makes Fullerton and Brea look like towns straight out of the Stepford Wives.
Yes, you can get more for your money in South County because it is further from North City job centers. But all things being equal, that is the only drawback. Beginning with Chula Vista, it is 9-22 miles to downtown SD, which can be reached by surface street and Eastlake in Chula Vista also has a pretty large commercial/industrial complex housing a few companies. Mello Roos is prevalent in 91913 (partial) 91914 (most) and 91915 (entirely made up of CFDs).
Your link is just east of Ocean View Hills and that entire area lies within 3 CFD’s. It is also downwind from the county dump and situated RIGHT OVER Cricket Ampitheatre and the water park. If you don’t mind listening to concerts for free 🙂 and people cheering and filing in and out below you thru lengthy traffic jams lasting into the middle of the night 2x per week or more, it would be perfect for you as it’s like living over a stadium. Between its two listings, Fannie has lowered its price by $154,900 and omitted the comment section. This is a red flag because they are not that ignorant when it comes to pricing and neither is their broker. Ask yourself why this happened. This is the elem school district serving this listing:
http://api.cde.ca.gov/Acnt2013/2012Base_DstApi.aspx?cYear=&allcds=1263032&cChoice=2012ApiD
Chula Vista would be far preferable to Otay Mesa, IMO.
Santee is much more peaceful than MM and you might find something there in your price range. However, it can be very, very hot and several of its neighborhoods suffer from high power lines. As a plus, it has good schools and is located on SR-52, which will get you to North City tech centers in 10-15 mins (for reals, folks) :=]
kev, let me know if you have any other questions about South County RE.
June 19, 2013 at 10:39 AM in reply to: Another excellent Economist Mag article on the terrible state pension issues #763025Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]The use of services doesn’t correlate to taxes. Arguing it’s a subsidy makes little sense. I don’t have kids so am I subsidizing other people’s kids’ public education?
If we are going to tie taxes to services, then why not do away with taxes and charge fee for service so nobody is “subsidized”.
Why do you make a distinction for “need based”? And why draw a distinction between senior or not senior? Under your definition anyone who uses a service and not paying the full cost is getting a subsidy.
Young 20 somethings hardly use any services. Why should they “subsidize” seniors?[/quote]
Of course, Flyer, we all know that everyone uses different services and some residents might not use any but I think the ones who “don’t use any services” would be rare due to the plethora of “invisible govm’t services” we don’t realize we are using frequently. It is likely that more renters use public and social services than homeowners and they don’t (directly) pay property taxes. How do you think all these school construction bonds get passed? Do you think the majority of property-owner voters in a given school district are always in favor of taxing themselves?
The Prop 13 initiative was brought forward due to perceived “need” for it by senior citizens complaining to their representatives that their taxes were getting too high to remain in their homes until they died or became incapacitated. Many had worked hard all their lives and paid off their homes only to have their taxes spike due being assessed annually on swiftly rising values. The initiative was marketed to voters as such. But the text of the law was broadly written to include ALL landowners and did NOT require occupancy.
http://www.sonomanews.com/News-2011/Time-to-restore-Proposition-13s-original-intent/
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_13A
The (fraudulent) marketing of Prop 13 before CA voters had the same outcome as the (fraudulent) marketing of Prop B did in 2012 before SD voters. However, Prop 13 survived its subsequent legal challenges and Prop B will not.
Most voters don’t read the fine print. They vote for or against an initiative based upon what the ads are telling them or based upon whether they perceive they themselves might benefit from its enactment.
June 19, 2013 at 9:51 AM in reply to: Another excellent Economist Mag article on the terrible state pension issues #763019Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]BG, I’m not taking issue with what you wrote.
Strictly for financial management, it’s irrelevant what the intent of prop 13 was. It is the law now. Deal with it.
Maybe prop 13 is unfair and poorly written. That’s could be reason to change the law. I can accept that argument.[/quote]
My point was that Props 13, 58 and 193 are all SUBSIDIES to a vast number of Californians who are NOT senior citizens on fixed incomes or necessarily unable to pay market rate taxes. Since these benefits are not “need-based,” they amount to SUBSIDIES or have the effect of being SUBSIDIES. These SUBSIDIES, for which CA governments receive nothing in return amounts to unjust enrichment for some taxpayers at the expense of the rest of the taxpayers … in CA coastal counties, often grossly so.
June 19, 2013 at 9:31 AM in reply to: Another excellent Economist Mag article on the terrible state pension issues #763017ParticipantFlyerInHi, the original intent of Prop 13 was to keep senior citizens who could take care of themselves in their homes until they die. It was intended to be a “tax break” for this subset of owners. But because of the 2% annual appreciation cap set since then and no limitations on age of buyers who qualified for this break beginning FY ’76/77, MY OWN (YOUNG and ABLE-BODIED at the time) generation bought properties with this permanently low assessment in place. Not only did they buy properties with the 2% appreciation cap in place, beginning in 1986, persons of all ages later INHERITED their parents’ properties with their assessment in place and their grandparents’ properties beginning in 1996 with their assessment in place. In fact, property owners who have these artificially-low assessments don’t even have to be dead to pass their properties, along with these low assessments to their children and grandchildren. This had, has and will have the effect of creating generations into infinity who are YOUNG, ABLE-BODIED and now have one or more extremely valuable “subsidies” that their similarly-situated neighbors don’t.
http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/faqs/propositions58.htm
The law was poorly written in that it included RE of all stripes, including huge swaths of vacant land, large multifamily dwellings, agricultural land, commercial buildings and land, waterfront plots, land bordering National forests and everything else in between and did not require the owner’s residency in or on said property. This had the effect of making average Joes and Janes with limited educations and means property RICH, along with their heirs, because they could hang onto whatever they could buy up in the seventies (or already bought during or prior to that) INDEFINITELY whether they elected to use or rent out the property … or not. Carrying costs, aside from minimal taxes, fire insurance and occasional weed mowing and possibly erecting a chain link fence around the perimeter, were vitually nil. These owners don’t even have to maintain these (sometimes vacant) properties if they don’t wish to, aside from complying with city/county ordinances on the exterior. I currently have SIX of these properties (all fairly decent-sized SFRs) around me within a five minute walk. One of them has been “vacant” for nearly 15 years. A $385 annual tax bill and $420 annual insurance bill is a LOT cheaper than renting several storage units, btw, for an owner who is currently living with a relative or new spouse and/or living out of the country. And it doesn’t even need to be remodeled for tenant occupancy!
A 30 or 40-something owner of a 70-unit apartment building in West LA that his parents (who purchased it in 1971) left him doesn’t have to worry about a lot of vagaries of the local rental market in order to keep it. Even if he mortgages it, his taxes are likely only ~$7500 versus the $85,000++ that they would be if he was paying market-rate taxes. If vacancies happen to be higher one year or a few units are currently out of commission because of a water leak, so what! He/she can afford to give one or more resident managers nice salaries and premium units into oblivion so he can avoid all the common management headaches and freely travel. He can also afford to engage in “rent control” if local ordinances dictate he must.
Flyer, if you think all the CA property owners benefiting from extraordinarily low assessments pursuant to Prop 13 and its progeny don’t use as many services as folks who pay market-rate property taxes, you are mistaken. In fact, the opposite is generally true. Most of these folks aren’t residents who are necessarily “educated,” had or have “careers” and thus pensions or planned their lives out in detail in order to be worry free. The vast majority of them simply were in the right place at the right time to buy a $4K to $100K (YES, I said four-thousand to one hundred-thousand) single-family home in CA … OR had parents or grandparents who did and deeded it to them or left it to them upon their deaths. It’s not uncommon at all to find a single age 50+ homeowner in Mission Hills or Pt Loma who has lived in the same house nearly all of their lives or inherited their childhood home and possess a GED or less. They’re paying $680 year in property tax and might use lifeline utilities, meals on wheels, Medi-Cal or CMS, community clinics, an EBT card, a “disabled” bus pass or placard, shop in 99-cent and thrift stores, etc. You can’t eat your house.
Only a small fraction of these properties ever hit the market and those are the ones whose heir(s) have permanently left the county it is situated in and want it sold. The rest will be handed down into oblivion and we are talking about hundreds of thousands of properties here, many of which are situated in the very best streets in the very best locales in the state. You can’t blame parents or grandparents for taking advantage of Props 58 and 193. How else will many of their (renter) children and grandchildren be able to afford to live near them without moving whenever the rent is raised? They want them to have stable homes.
I believe Prop 13’s progeny is THE major reason why residential RE listings will remain tight (and thus very valuable) in CA coastal counties, especially in the most coveted areas.
June 19, 2013 at 1:15 AM in reply to: Another excellent Economist Mag article on the terrible state pension issues #763008ParticipantBecause of Prop 13’s progeny, Props 58 and 193, Prop 13 benefits will eternally live on through the original Prop 13’s heirs. Because of the passing of these two later initiatives, Prop 13 benefits will live on into perpetuity, regardless of each property’s original owners ability or its 1st or 2nd generation (or beyond) “heir’s” ability to pay market-rate tax.
Prop 13 created a culture of those resident-owners (on behalf of their eventual heirs) present at the time of its inception as being the “winners” in this game. Every homebuyer who came after that is supporting their state and local gov’mt’s operations to varying degrees but FAR BEYOND any contribution made by their predecessor homewowners.
No one can fix this now. The CA legislature in place at that time did it to themselves (and to this great state that they served).
June 19, 2013 at 12:46 AM in reply to: Another excellent Economist Mag article on the terrible state pension issues #763007Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]CAR, I belong to a union and I know how contracts work.
Focus on the problem to be solved and stop bringing unrelated issues into the picture.
If a municipality in CA has financial problems, how does that warrant a state wide repeal of prop 13? That municipality has to manage its own affairs. It cannot control what voters in the whole state would do with regard to prop 13.
Crying foul about financial greed and parasites makes you sound unhinged.
I’m not blaming public employees nor am i scapegoating them. I’m saying that local governments need to mange their finances with the recources they currently have.
No, we are not subsidizing anyone’s profits by not taxing them. We just choose not to tax them. Simple as that. You are the one who lacks financial knowledge.[/quote]
Actually, FlyerInHi, practically speaking, no CA elected offical has ever tried to touch the “sacred cow” that is Prop 13. Why? Because THERE ARE SO MANY CA VOTERS BENEFITTING FROM IT, that it would be folly to try to bring forth a ballot initiative to either piecemeal-gut it or to repeal it in its entirety.
Since the damage is already long past “done” with the first initiative, CA residents can only hope that counties and municipalities can now deliver a level of service that they can accept with the limited resources available to them. There’s no turning back the clock. Things are as they are and there’s not a damn thing anyone can do about it.
WHY? Because voter-beneficiaries of Prop 13 outnumber or nearly outnumber the voters who would vote for its (entire or piecemeal) repeal. Aside from the required 66.67% vote necessary to pass or repeal a CA initiative, ask yourselves how this phenomenon came to pass and y’all wiil have your answer.
Participant[quote=jimmy1977]Hi BearishGurl
Thanks for your comments, after reading through you comments I am starting to think back of the sequence of events
1. We asked for the title report immediately after our offer was accepted, We asked for it three times (me, wife and agent) they sent one after 10 days which was for another property. Makes me wonder if this was on purpose. We finally got the actual one for the property after 20 days.
2. When I called the escrow company to put my good faith money, the escrow company didn’t seem very interested.
3. When we asked the agent how many months the seller was behind, after a week or so they said 6 months.
4. When we were waiting for the loan pay off paper work. We had to send an extension, the sellers never signed and returned that document.
All these makes me wonder. Anyway I cannot fire anyone 🙂 just my issues. So I asked my real estate agent if we can keep looking at properties. I am glad to announce our offer got accepted for another property.
It has been three days, I checked the San diego county tax offices to be sure the taxes were paid – they are. The seller sent us the termite report immediately on acceptance of our offer. The escrow also sent us the title report (for the right house :)) no liens at initial glance. So went ahead and cancelled our contract with the previous house. Too bad we couldn’t get our 3.63% interest rate.
This property feels right to me, no weird liens or tax issues.
Thanks again everyone for your answers. I really appreciate the help.
—
Jimmy[/quote]Jimmy, the fact that you obtained a termite report AND your PTR in a very timely manner after your current accepted offer speaks volumes as to how your new sellers have their sh!t together and to the degree of their seriousness and motivation to sell. Finally, your agent saw the light and realized you wouldn’t put up with any BS and being made to feel like a second-class citizen. (Buyers are fully one-half of the equation of a transaction, btw, for the benefit of any seller-oriented Piggs reading this). Any serious seller worth their salt in CA will have all their termite work COMPLETED prior to listing their property for sale and their pest-control report and/or guarantee available for viewing by prospective buyers.
I wish you the best of luck on your current escrow, Jimmy, and I am surmising you received your earnest-money check back in full from the listing broker of your last (nefarious) escrow. Keep up your due-diligence mindset and don’t let ANYONE (not even your own agent) pull the wool over your eyes.
-
AuthorPosts
