Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=spdrun]Bearishgurl reminds me of a cantankerous old broad from the Upper West Side that I know. Smart, opinionated, obnoxious, yet somehow endearing all the same.[/quote]
I’m going to take this as a compliment, spdrun :=]
Participant[quote=EconProf]BearishGirl: Please reread and take to heart Ren’s comments about your posts. Your responses showed it had no impact on you. But it was constructive criticism and probably represents the feelings of many Piggs.
Anyone else agree?[/quote]EconProf, Ren essentially stated here that he thought the monthly income from out-of-state rentals which he intended to buy with mortgages were going to pay for all his current and future personal expenses.
I stated at the end of my post that it was nothing personal. I was discussing that I felt that a family with minor children who are W-2 earner(s) could be voluntarily putting themselves in a position of potential hardship if they do this.
No insult was intended towards Ren. He has also repeatedly stated on here that he would like to move to SD County.
Who knows? Maybe Ren won the lottery and has a mil in cash stashed away to “play with.”
In recent years, too many families with minor children overextended themselves in many ways, many lost the homes their children lived in and now we are all now having to pay for this in one way or another. Some (previously, before 2000) “prominent” families here in South County bought up to five local rental houses (for the “monthly income”) with “funny money” during the millenium boom and ended up losing everything … even their longtime family residence bought long ago and later mortgaged to help with downpayments on rental properties! And these are families who KNEW their rental areas intimately and managed them themselves. A couple of them possessed CA RE Salesperson or Broker licenses and were actively working in the field. Of course, their downfall was that they purchased investment properties with NINA mortgages, which doesn’t apply here. But they were VERY knowledgeable about their rental market and still lost it all.
The two states Ren and others mentioned are trying to climb out of a VERY deep depression (FL especially, which went down in value 60-75% in most areas). The steady-paying, reliable and trustworthy tenants one (who is considering investing there) THINKS they will be able to repeatedly obtain are just not there, at least not consistently, IMHO. Ask yourselves, if a “rental grade” condo currently costs $20K to $70K in or near Orlando, FL and a “rental grade” house currently costs $70K to $220K in same location, why the locals who are currently renting there aren’t buying them. The REASON, IMO is because they have no credit established, they have credit issues AND/OR they don’t even have the necessary ~680ish FICO score and 3.5% FHA downpayment + closing costs with which to buy these low-priced properties.
Those are your available “prospective tenants” in that location.
Property mgrs just rent the easiest properties to rent every month and keep trying to rent the harder ones (ones with LL’s who are more “picky”). It’s no skin off their backs if a property remains unrented for a period of time. They’re not the ones covering the carrying costs. Everything can be rented for a price, no matter WHERE its location. But very picky LL’s are going to have a hard time renting their houses/units if they are too picky in locales where nearly every prospective tenant is undoubtedly going to have a hardship due to credit issues and possibly being previously evicted from their own home or another rental, etc.
I feel that a family with minor children whose breadwinner(s) work in SD County and live in RIV County do so for a REASON. A family who has car payments has those payments for a REASON. 99% of the time, those reasons are financial. I don’t care how HOW MUCH their gross or net income from wages are. I just feel that this is NOT the type of individual who should be taking chances with their hard-earned cash buying out-of-state rental property.
Call it “paternal” if you will but it is my opinion that persons in the same station in life as Ren shouldn’t be doing this unless they are VERY deep-pocketed (read: don’t derive their primary income from wages). It’s a recipe for disaster. It’s better left to persons who don’t have the responsibility of a FT job and supporting multiple other people (minor children and possibly spouse) in case the sh!t hits the fan. And it can, very easily, for owners of two or more out-of-state rentals. I’m entitled to my opinion and so are you, Ren and every other Pigg. If the buyer or his/her family member hold a RE license in said other state or the buyer has reliable and trustworthy friends or relatives in said state to manage rental(s) for him, then perhaps 1-2 rentals would be okay … not more, unless the friend/relative is a licensed professional property mgr or is willing to be a “resident mgr” indefinitely for the investor.
OTOH, a 60 yo single or couple who just lost $20K in rent, damage to their property and legal fees for eviction on their rental property in AZ (which they bought with cash) can just pack up their RV in the middle of the school year and park it in an RV park in PHX or even plug it into their rental home and get to work on cleaning up and repairing it for the next tenant. They won’t have to pay all the exorbitantly-priced licensed contractors that their property mgr will hire to do this job, and they don’t have any mtg payments due on the property.
If Ren or any other Pigg thinks I’m talking out my ass or giving bad advice, then they are free not to take it or post what they think is better advice. The OP here is asking why everyone who can is not buying out-of-state rentals in areas of the country where RE values were deeply depressed.
Want_to_Retire stated that he/she tried to get colleagues interested in investing in PHX, like he was and they replied that they didn’t want to “hassle” with it. There is a REASON people (who have the ability to invest) feel this way.
WTR ALSO stated that having (two?) rentals in PHX were not EASY for him and that they involved WORK.
[quote=Ren] . . . You’re ignoring the enormous number of people who have been successful at rental investments, including those I know personally who did so in a variety of markets over the past 40 years. So they all just got lucky, and there’s no level of intelligence, knowledge, or income available that can give an advantage? That’s essentially what you’re saying, right? It’s a good thing we have you here to stop us from trying.[/quote]
I’m ingoring no one, Ren. In CA, those `successful LL’s in a variety of markets over the past 40 years’ you speak of here bought their (SFR) rental properties for $20K to $90K and are currently paying $300 to $750 annual property taxes on them. Some inherited their rental properties, complete with low property taxes appurtenant thereto. They bought properties within 25 miles of their residence or the residence or business of a relative or longtime biz partner who is managing some or all of them. Except for receiving CA real property as an inheritance, this cannot be done today. A good portion of these LL’s are now over 75 years old, have always resided in the area of most of their rentals and still do and still maintain their own rental properties when tenants call with a problem and clean them up and perform repairs on them between tenants by themselves or with the help of grown children. This includes more difficult repairs such as windows, plumbing, roofing and concrete (where equipment must be rented). They bought their first rentals close to where they were raising their families and it was hard for many of them to pay their $160 PITI per month on their rental house when they only received $150 in monthly rent!
Yes, this is/was in SD County.
Many of these “experienced LL’s” didn’t see their way clear to pay the balance of their remaining mortgages off until after they retired, when they had access to retirement funds.
These were “local” LL’s who had full control over every aspect of their rental properties for the life of their ownership, NOT “absentee owners.”
***********************************
I’m not opposed to families with minor children buying rentals in or near the area of their residences and managing them themselves.
All I’m saying is KNOW the fundamental issues with the particular rental population you are dealing with, NOT the “pie-in-the-sky perfect tenant” you THINK you might get and realize that your property mgr likely has SEVERAL properties to rent which appeal to the type of tenants you want and they will rent them whatever property they apply for if they are qualified for it. That may not necessarily be your property.
I never intended to stop anyone from trying to be an out-of-state landlord. I wish Ren or any other Pigg all the luck in the world in their current and future out-of-state landlording endeavors.
ParticipantIf PHX and its surrounding areas continue to have new construction units come on board at the rate they are today, this building boom could very well leave 1-6 month … or even longer rental vacancies in many areas, IMHO (yes, “humble”).
It won’t matter if it’s a “nice unit” in a “nice area.” They will undoubtedly take longer to fill again, especially if the owner is “picky.”
These PHX builders (and the PTB who approved the permits/subdivisions) are obviously assuming that there will be buyers/tenants for every one of the units that are currently being built and slated to be built.
PHX was “grossly overbuilt” when builders returned to that market in the last ~year. What if a large percentage of the buyers of new construction coming online there are actually locals? If so, they will vacate the home they sold or rented when they close escrow on their new home. If they were tenants, one more rental unit is added to the mix. If they rented their previous home out instead of sold it, one more rental home is added to the mix.
This “displacement” of population from existing housing to new housing is creating vacancy, the same as it did all over CA during its “building boom” of 2000-2007. This would be a long-term concern of mine if I were thinking of investing in rental property in the PHX area.
SK, if you are around, can you tell us if you think Phoenix’s growth rate will be high enough in the coming years to absorb all that is currently being built and slated to be built there, as well as a good portion of the current resale inventory and rental vacancies?
Your opn would be appreciated.
Participant[quote=Ren] . . . It isn’t about appreciation or selling – it’s about having the available income and cash to put a lot down on a lot of property (we do), cash flowing well beyond PITI, maintenance, vacancies, and management (if applicable), being smart about what, where, and when we buy, being smart about renting those properties, and living below our means. Selling property in 30 years won’t make a student loan or car payment when it’s needed, but cash flow will, if the numbers make sense before we buy. We also have no intention of buying when we move back to the coast. . . .[/quote]
Ren, you were talking about purchasing several investment properties with mortgages to eventually pay off your residence, vehicles, children’s education and retirement. Since you will supposedly never sell them, you won’t be able to get the kind of cash flow you’re thinking of to do all of these things, IMHO. And if you DO sell properties in those areas you mentioned even after holding them for 15+ years, you may or may not make a profit. A typical profit from sale of residential RE in those states isn’t what it is here …. and buying in “better” areas is more expensive. And you won’t be able to buy as many properties in “better areas” (to attract your “better tenant”) as you could in mostly rental areas.
Of course, you “know all this” and have already figured everything out.
There are GOOD REASONS why residential RE is so much cheaper to buy and also rent in AZ, FL and even RIV County than it is in SD County. If one is thinking investing in rental properties out of state and doesn’t understand the fundamental reasons why the RE sales/rental markets are as they are in those states, then they don’t understand these markets well enough to invest in them, IMHO.
I’m not saying that’s you. Only that investing in distant rental RE can be perilous for someone simultaneously trying to raise a family and hold down a FT job 500 or 3000 miles away from it. It’s better suited to folks who have deep pockets, less daily responsibilities and perhaps be self-employed or retired so they could easily make an impromptu trip to the locale if needed.
I also don’t think it’s that easy for an inexperienced investor (even with good credit) to get repeated non-owner occupied mortgages … at acceptable terms, anyway.
I’ve never had any problems here telling it like it is. If you personally don’t wish to read my posts, feel free to “ignore me.” It won’t bother me a bit.
Participant[quote=spdrun] . . . i.e., as a mortgage broker told me, if the deal makes sense — income less vacancy rate is 1.25x expenses at prevailing mortgage rates, then he’ll find someone to finance the deal.[/quote]
I don’t doubt that an individual non-resident investor shopping in AZ or FL can find financing for a 1-4 unit property or even a small apt complex. But if I wanted to buy another personal residence for my family in the coming years, I would be concerned about my out-of-state rental unit(s) being dinged as “negative cash flow” by my lender which I showed as “depreciating” on my tax return, even if they actually had a net positive cash flow.
Can you rephrase your statement which I bolded, spdrun? And by “prevailing mortgage rate,” do you mean the actual mtg rate of the mtg currently encumbering the rental OR the current prevailing rate on another mtg the investor is trying to take out? I don’t fully understand what you’re trying to say here.
Participant[quote=spdrun]By the time it’s fully depreciated, it’s almost paid off. Why not borrow against it (assuming favorable rates) and buy another property? As Angelo Sangiacomo (infamous landlord of SF said) “never sell.”[/quote]
spdrun, your “friend and mentor” Angelo S. can say that, as can the rest of his brethren in SF whose taxes on multiple income properties have been set artificially low by Prop 13. They would all be fools to sell under current CA law.
HOWEVER, SF is NOT the “AZ” and “FL” we have been discussing here. SF has a never-ending “captive audience” of both prospective buyers and tenants and this will never change. Yes, I meant “never.”
It is what it is.
spdrun, even though you are likely Gen Y and are trying to purchase investment property with a mtg, you fall into my “over-55 prospective all-cash investment-buyer” category. Correct me if I”m wrong here, but based upon your posts, you are single, don’t have children and don’t have a large monthly overhead of “living expenses.”
Not only do you have the “flexibility” that the “Rens of the world” don’t, you have plenty of time to recover from evicting non-paying tenants and tenants who trashed your units more than their deposit could ever cover and then fled, never to be found. You are also far more open-minded than most Piggs and will shop for and make offers on investment properties in any area that makes financial sense.
I see you getting lucky in closing at least 1-2 “distress sales” is SD in the coming year and using them to build a portfolio of rental properties for your eventual “retirement.”
You seem realistic and practical and VERY persistent to me. In the current market, the early, quick and persistent offeror who refrains from “overthinking” eventually gets a worm :=]
Participant[quote=Ren] . . . Of course I look at the rate of return, but never count on appreciation. That’s just not the point – income is. I like to view the entire rent as adding to it. Someone else will buy me multiple properties – paying the PITI and maintenance for 30 years and then funding my retirement (not to mention my primary residence, the kids’ college, and all our car payments). . . [/quote]
I have to question a few things mentioned here. Firstly, Ren lives in Riverside County, CA, no? If he is considering buying investment properties in these rather lower-end, “investor-type” areas in the (transient) cities of FL and AZ that he mentioned, he will attract marginal tenants, IMHO. He will also likely need to pay a local property mgr (10%?) of the rental proceeds on top of PITI for each property. If he gets 30-yr mortgages on them (at non-owner-occupied rates, no less) and he is currently past 30 years old, he will be 60 or older before these loans are presumably paid off by tenants, assuming he never refies them back to 30 years. This is true only IF they are all actually occupied each and every month and don’t end up vacant 1-6 months per year awaiting qualified tenants.
If I read his post right, he will then expect to send his kids to college, pay off his cars, his primary residence and retire on the proceeds from sale of these properties, lol. IOW, even though he stated otherwise, he is obviously expecting not only to hold them past 30 years but make substantial profits upon their sale in order to accomplish these goals.
Sorry, but I just don’t see this constellation. PHX and Orlando really haven’t gone up that much in the last 20 years. Especially Orlando. I have relatives who purchased in both Orlando and nearby Vero Beach over 20 years ago and neither of their properties are worth today what they paid for them … and both of them have been owner-occupied the whole time and NOT rentals! My Vero Beach relative even installed a pool with waterfall which added virtually zero value to their property.
Ren seems to be forgetting that if his kids are already born, they will have long finished college in 30 years and his cars might still be running but will have long been paid off by then.
Perhaps the proceeds from the sale his rental properties could be deployed for retirement purposes, but like SDR said, he will need to allow for “recapture upon sale” at that time. If he 1031’s his rental properties at the time of or past the time of his retirement, he won’t be able to later “retire” in one of his 1031’d properties without paying the capital gains tax on it as it has to be traded “like for like.” For AZ and FL properties, I just don’t see much of a “profit” after taxes, if any, even if a profit was made upon sale …. sorry.
Also, if Ren is currently in “family raising mode” and still wants to move to SD County, as he has stated before here, I wouldn’t get more than ONE rental property if I was him because his lender for the residence he buys in SD is not going to count more than nine months of annual rental income even on a “seasoned” rental. This “artificial deficit” applied to his “Schedule C biz income” will be magnified with each additional rental property he buys with a mortgage.
I don’t know if I believe it, but my RE newsletter subscription “First Tuesday,” predicted this week that prime 30 yr-fixed mortgage rates will go up to 4.5% in SoCal by October/November 2013.
Practically speaking, and knowing how much it costs to raise kids these days, I just think Ren’s rosy prediction is a bit over-the-top and doesn’t take into account all that can happen to him and his family members here in CA between now and then, while his cash is deployed elsewhere and he undoubtedly finds himself robbing Peter to pay Paul for carrying costs on multiple properties and “between-tenant” fix-up expenses.
Now, if Ren was currently an able-bodied 55-65 yr-old cash-paying investment property shopper, that is a completely different story. I’d then tell him to pack up his pickup/SUV/RV with his ladders and diagnostic tools and head east with his clipboard and blank “earnest-money (cashier’s) checks” made out in $5K increments and get back to me in 2-4 weeks with his “results” :=]
Nothing personal, Ren. I’m just using the scenario you described as an example here … for discussion purposes 😉
March 4, 2013 at 8:44 AM in reply to: OT: Public Employee Unions Attack the City of San Diego/Prop B #760279Participant[quote=ctr70]Done, over, end of story.[/quote]
ctr, you KNOW it’s not “done” and “over.”
You can assist paramount (remotely) in his gargantuan effort to be an “agent of change.”
I’ll be standing by to proofread both of your “redrafts” before you send your work to paramount’s PTB (since you don’t live here anymore) :=]
And, paramount, while ctr gets his pencils sharpened, why don’t you get a head start and go on up there and “introduce yourself” to your “receptive” Republican legislators …. just to break the ice?
March 4, 2013 at 8:35 AM in reply to: OT: Public Employee Unions Attack the City of San Diego/Prop B #760278Participant[quote=paramount]The entitlement culture of public employee unions and their members is absolutely unreal.[/quote]
Again, paramount, you’re taking your frustration out on the wrong people. I’ll make the same offer to you that I did to pri_dk/Harvey and NSR while back.
http://piggington.com/surreal_state_of_the_state_speech#comment-177669
or: http://piggington.com/surreal_state_of_the_state_speech?page=2
http://piggington.com/more_public_pension_loony_tunes_now_providence_ri_is_in_trouble#comment-209643
. . . ad nauseam.
To help you get started, paramount, I’ll loan you my crank pencil sharpener. You’ll just have to mount it on the wall in a convenient place cuz you’ll be using it a lot 🙂
March 4, 2013 at 6:22 AM in reply to: OT: Public Employee Unions Attack the City of San Diego/Prop B #760275ParticipantThe entitlement culture of Big, BIG Development is unreal. In the case of Mr Williams of the Lincoln Club and his brethren, acting as occasional “strawpersons” for the Mayor and select councilmembers is a VERY small price to pay to all their “entitlements,” IMHO.
March 3, 2013 at 12:11 PM in reply to: OT: Public Employee Unions Attack the City of San Diego/Prop B #760261ParticipantHere is the link I discussed in my last post of yesterday but forgot to put in.
http://fox5sandiego.com/2013/02/13/city-to-appeal-ruling-against-pension-initiative/
I was able to do a little more research this morning and came up with DCAA’s explanation of my rather “disjointed” post of what happened leading up to the ill-fated Prop B election. This explains the history better than I ever could (since they were THERE) and also in a layperson’s terms:
City should be worried about a “McCarthy-era trial” before PERB, lol. They put themselves in that position. I don’t understand how Sanders, acting as Mayor of SD and “private citizen” simultaneously during the gathering of support for Prop B and also in the “back room” (with City’s shills, of course, and no doubt using his staff for the supervising and verifications of the gathering of signatures), was able to “stick to his story” with a straight face in the PERB v. City case and claim he was a acting ONLY as a “private citizen,” lol.
Sanders would be just one of several witnesses called in the event of a trial in this case. I can name off a few more at the top of my head, but I’ll just leave it to the Piggs to figure out who :=]
Although it could become quite ugly, it would be a trial worth watching, that is, IF it happens and you could get a seat in there!
Unfortunately, for City, all their “sheet-rolling-partner” witnesses waiting in the hallway to be called to testify would likely be supervised by a deputy out there. And they won’t be able to listen the testimony of their brethren inside in order to preplan how to testify. It will be every man/woman for themselves, as it was in the criminal prosecutions of the SDCERS pension board a decade-plus back.
Here are some more recent links of commentary on the recent PERB decision:
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/feb/12/sd-pension-ruling-perb/?print&page=all
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/government/article_aa3fe0f0-764e-11e2-85f3-001a4bcf887a.html
http://www.10news.com/news/city-attorney-pension-ruling-places-obstacles-on-initiatives
This one is an excellent local Op-Ed piece by longtime attorney for the MEA, Ann Smith, who hails from THE top labor law firm in SD, IMO. I couldn’t have said it any better myself:
….If the PERB board upholds the [administrative law judge’s] decision, the same appellate court will decide whether to grant any petition for review because the city has no automatic right of appeal. If review takes place, the court will defer to the findings of fact the administrative law judge already made based on the overwhelming evidence about the city’s role in Prop. B as employer…
(emphasis added)
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/feb/27/perb-prop-b-san-diego/
Here is a very informative analysis of the recent Proposed PERB Decision, written by a CA firm representing public entities, aptly describing how the ALJ came to his conclusion.
. . . Analysis
As discussed above, the ALJ was asked to determine if the City, through its agents including Mayor Sanders, violated the MMBA by failing to meet and confer with the unions about the pension reform ballot initiative. The ALJ noted that the third scenario outlined by City Attorney Aguirre, as discussed above, was directly applicable in this case. The unions argued that Mayor Sanders developed and promoted a campaign that was designed to avoid the City’s obligation to meet and confer. Further, the unions contended that the City could not avoid its duty to meet and confer on the basis that the Mayor acted as a private citizen, because the City is liable for the acts of the Mayor through the law of agency. In response, the City argued that the Mayor was acting as a private citizen and he was lawfully entitled to pursue the citizen’s initiative strategy. Therefore, according to the City, it was not required to meet and confer.The ALJ first analyzed whether a unilateral change in the terms of employment had occurred. He concluded that a unilateral change occurred because the Mayor acted on his intention to pursue pension reform, satisfying the requirement for taking concrete steps towards implementation of a new policy.
Next, the ALJ analyzed whether the City had a duty to meet and confer because of the Mayor’s sponsorship of the ballot initiative. First, the ALJ determined that by virtue of the MMBA the City and its representatives are required to meet and confer with unions. The ALJ concluded that the Mayor is unquestionably such a representative because he acts as the City’s chief negotiator. Moreover, based on the legal principle of agency liability, the Mayor was acting with actual and apparent authority on behalf of the City. In reaching this conclusion, the ALJ determined that the Mayor was acting within the scope of his employment with the goal of improving the City’s financial health and the City Council ratified the Mayor’s actions by consenting to the initiative and placing it on the ballot. In addition, the ALJ made a finding of apparent authority based on the Mayor’s numerous public pronouncements in support of the ballot initiative, and also found ratification because of the City’s failure to repudiate the Mayor’s actions.
Significance
. . . “As the case is litigated, it will present fascinating and novel issues arising out of the tension between the duty to bargain and the constitutional initiative process.”March 3, 2013 at 10:32 AM in reply to: OT: Public Employee Unions Attack the City of San Diego/Prop B #760260Participant[quote=EconProf]What these comments ignor is that the will of San Diego voters has been thwarted.
-snip-
That’s why San Diego voters voted as they did.[/quote]
The reality, EconProf, is that SD voters were, in effect, lied to during the City’s (yes, it WAS the City’s) campaign for Prop B. They were also (purposely) NOT told that the campaign, as it stood, was against the law and not only did City already know that and had been litigating thusly for years and lost, they knew it would invite future litigation … and rightly so.
The campaign for Prop B was a desperate attempt by City to circumvent contracts they already agreed to and get some new hires off DB pension plans … even those hired in a particular “window.”
However, practically speaking, this issue is really moot as any City “new hires” have to make it at least five years on the job (to vest). Since between ~now, when they are hired and five years from now they won’t get any credit for retirement purposes (it will all be thrown on their books at the five-year point or longer, taking into account any LWOP the employee takes), City and unions have enough time to litigate the outcome of Prop B.
If Prop B is struck down as unlawful by a CA court, those employees in the “window” who make it to vesting will undoubtedly sue City (likely through their union[s]) for their DB pension plans if City doesn’t voluntarily restore them for this group.
SD Taxpayers should actually be outraged that City chose to dupe them into voting for the Prop so they could spend taxpayer money in this way. State law allows City to get fee waivers for court costs, but they will undoubtedly have travel costs to OAK, SFO and SAC. They will also have to contract appellate work out to outside attorneys (ESP at the Supreme Court level), IMO. This is due to a blatant conflict of interest the City Attorney’s Office has in this case, as they are actually an original charging party to one of the underlying ULP’s.
City well knew how this “comedy of errors” would play out long ago and consciously chose to spend future taxpayer dollars in this way instead of fixing potholes, trimming trees, and setting up “meet and confer” meetings with their unions, as they were required to by law.
This whole debacle is just another egregious example of your elected officials and tax dollars at work, folks. Public-official arrogance and politics rule the day in SD and always have.
March 2, 2013 at 12:14 PM in reply to: OT: Public Employee Unions Attack the City of San Diego/Prop B #760254ParticipantHere is a snapshot of the City and unions’ litigation leading up to the gathering of signatures to put Prop B on the ballot and subsequent PERB decision:
Ahem, nice try, City, but unfortunately, a “collective grass roots movement” isn’t the same as placing same issue on the ballot and getting said “grass roots petitioners” to vote for it and thus form the “majority” at the ballot box.
And it’s also not the same as the CA Supreme Court deciding to actually hear the matter, lol.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/D058225.PDF
It appears that SD’s own attorneys were the chief defendants here, lol. The opinion was “Certified for Publication” and (wisely, for once) City decided not to appeal it.
Strike one …
http://www.dcaasandiego.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Boling-Pet.-for-Review-to-Cal.-S.Ct_1.pdf
And, as of 2/11/13:
http://www.dcaasandiego.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/PERB-Decision.pdf
Strike two … plus City has to now fight PERB ruling … an arduous uphill climb.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/D061724.PDF
Strike three … City is … OUT.
I just saw this Fox5 News piece.
Goldsmith and other backers of the proposition have characterized PERB as an agency biased in favor of public employee unions. The city attorney said the ruling was expected.
“I view this with the fact that PERB acted so quickly last February in suing the city, I look at it as somebody at PERB or some group got together and said, `My God, the floodgates are beginning to open,”’ Goldsmith said.
“I think what they look at in this case is an effort to close the floodgates and to not allow citizens initiatives in the future — at least put so many roadblocks in front of it that they’re going to be less likely to happen,” he said. “I think that’s been what this is about since day one.”
. . . It was fiercely contested legally and during the election campaign by unions and a handful of City Council members. Current Mayor Bob Filner criticized the measure.
It was supported by former Mayor Jerry Sanders, Councilman Kevin Faulconer, ex-Councilman Carl DeMaio, the pro-business Lincoln Club of San Diego County and the San Diego County Taxpayers Association.
DeMaio, the Lincoln Club’s T.J. Zane and SDCTA Executive Director Lani Lutar said in a joint statement they will fight for the ballot measure.
Goldsmith is such a political animal. I guess we can’t blame him considering his position with the city frequently puts him between a “rock and a hard place” :=0
He’s clearly missing the reason for the ruling here (or at least “stoically” appearing that he is). Prop B was not actually a “citizen initiative.” It did not originate from the “citizenry” It may have appeared on the surface to have been but the proponents of it (SCTPA and the “Lincoln Club”) have always been well-known shills and strawpeople for City’s mayor and select councilmembers, lol.
City better hope this Decision on their unions’ ULPs never goes to trial in any “real” court of law. It might be better left to die in PERB while City sets up a special room just for “meet and confer” activities.
Even though they later dismissed it in light of finally hearing City’s unions’ ULP’s, PERB was correct to sue City over Prop B. The way that it was put before the voters was a violation of well-settled state law.
http://www.kpbs.org/news/2012/oct/25/perb-dismisses-its-lawsuit-against-san-diego-over-/
LOL. Maybe Goldsmith will be able to talk some sense into city officials.
Thank you for posting this thread, paramount. The City of SD has now been returned to my “lawsuit entertainment watch list” for the most time-and-money-wasting public entity.
***********
But . . . I’m still in a bit of a quandary here, however :=0.
Shouldn’t Real-Party-in-Interest/straw-plaintiff “April Boling” (on PERB v. City case) be content with her “infamous” unwavering support for Poway Prop C … which will end up bankrupting her beloved City and school district? Why didn’t she just decide to “rest on her laurels” and call it a day after that debacle? :=D
http://piggington.com/powaythe_real_debt_bomb#comment-217279
March 2, 2013 at 10:56 AM in reply to: OT: Public Employee Unions Attack the City of San Diego/Prop B #760252ParticipantI’m in receipt of the 63 pg PERB decision of 2/11/13, but I haven’t had a chance to go over it with a fined-toothed comb.
But I will. This is my field of expertise.
Essentially, City put Prop B on the ballot without meeting and conferring with its unions first which is a violation of the MMBA (Cal. Gov Code sec 3500 et seq).
http://www.dcaasandiego.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/PERB-Decision.pdf
Essentially, this Decision and the certain litigation stemming from it will have the effect of holding Prop B in abeyance. And it has a better chance of striking it down through the courts than not.
Due to unlawfully jumping the gun, City has an arduous uphill climb in this case, IMO.
The employees City has hired since Prop B took effect (1/1/13?) may very well retroactively get DB plans after the “fat lady” finally sings her encores in this case.
City had until yesterday (3/1) to file objections to PERB’s Statement of Decision and request an oral argument of their objections to PERB.
Your “Cal Watchdog” commentator essentially claimed PERB is in the unions’ pockets. Nothing could be further from the truth. In disciplinary cases, PERB usually sides with the employer. PERB is simply following the law here. City of SD didn’t. It’s as simple as that.
Perhaps if the City hadn’t taken a “wild west” approach in putting poorly worded and too-far-reaching Prop B on the ballot without first meeting and conferring with its unions, they wouldn’t be in this mess to begin with. Now they’re no doubt wasting a whole team of attorneys at the City Attorney’s Office to fight the decision that they actually fought to get before themselves, lol.
Love it.
That’s your SD tax dollars at work, folks. In SD, politics ALWAYS wins out over potholes.
What I don’t understand is why City Attorney Jan Goldsmith didn’t advise those within the City supporting the Prop B pension reform initiative that they were going about it improperly and thus would never stick.
He’s smarter than this. Maybe he just figured he couldn’t change some of the mindsets of the council, mayor and city administration so they would just have to end up “learning the hard way.” After all, he and the attorneys in his office (one of the four “charging parties” in this case, lol) work 8 am to 5 pm regardless if they have six cases each or 60 cases each!
I noticed Goldsmith is not promising any particular outcome on the Cal Watchdog video.
Carry on, City. This “oral argument,” IF it happens, might be just juicy enough for me to trek on up to Oakland to watch it. WTH, I could take some city attorney employee friends along and visit some old haunts while we’re up there :=]
paramount, I’m not quite sure what your “Cal Watchdog” video was intended to accomplish.
-
AuthorPosts
