Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=SD Realtor]…Also no the sequester will not touch san diego re prices at all.[/quote]
Even if made in a facetious vein, I agree with this statement …
Participantflu, you are free to sit all day with your quickbooks acct up on your toolbar and the NASDAQ in “real-time” on another popup, managing your life with a fine toothed comb from an internet connection from “8 to 5” and beyond.
I just hope nothing “expensive” ever happens to you throughout life for which you have no control over :=0
Participant[quote=spdrun]Good. Should correct the recent insanity with R.E. prices, though unfortunately foreclosing on military people is hard even if they richly deserve it.[/quote]
spdrun, only a small fraction of active-duty enlisted military members currently stationed in SD own their own homes in SD County.
They get a HUGE housing allowance while stationed in SD to help them pay rent and utilities. And there are about a dozen military-owned housing complexes they can choose from if they choose to forego their housing allowance and have all utilities paid.
Retired personnel and officers O-5 and up DO own homes. But has been risky in the last decade for active-duty military of any rank to buy a house in SD, due to likely not being able to recover closing costs upon sale when they recieve their inevitable change-of-station orders. They’re almost always upside-down and don’t have the wherewithal to deal with the negative cash flow on a rental here should they move away without selling it.
Participant2 and 4 don’t make sense together. If one is “financially afraid” and wants to learn about how to invest their money, they would do well to use “qualified and vetted” professionals to help them invest properly. It’s not a sin to not know but it’s probably a sin to do nothing and thus make nothing due to fear (assuming growing your nest egg is important to you).
It also leaves out a few crucial “life events” which happen to everyone, at one time or another:
(1) death of a “breadwinner” spouse who could not get life insurance or could not get very much life insurance;
(2) having a “pre-existing condition” and thus be unable to secure an individual healthplan without being gouged;
(3) divorce, no matter who sued whom;
(4) having a child with special needs or one who is severely disabled from birth;
(5) having to support grandchildren into your old age due to their parent(s) being incompetent, indigent, incarcerated, addicted, critically ill or a combination of these factors exist;
(6) having an immediate family member who gets into a terrible accident and the other party at fault did not have insurance and the injured party’s UI/UIM coverage maxes out;
(7) having a family member get severely injured on the job and their employer’s worker’s comp coverage was insufficient to pay the lifetime medical bills of the injured worker;
(8) having a spouse who has a secret addiction and spends or gambles your assets away before you realize what happened;
(9) having a spouse who secretly converts joint-account proceeds to themselves or closes joint accounts and then can’t or refuses settle up with you when confronted;
(10) and, having an adult child who needs legal help and/or getting bailed out of jail, help obtaining necessary rehab for an addiction or help getting a divorce and/or child custody.
Believe it or not, a CA divorce judge isn’t going to give one whit about the damages one party suffered because 8 and/or 9 happened to them. This is a “community property” state and you are on your own. You should have left them sooner :-0
I could go on. There are SO MANY VARIABLES in life that if one does everything right and even keeps constant tabs on their finances, even just 1-3 of these events happening to a “millionaire” in their lifetime could wipe them out.
The article is a “pie-in-the-sky,” pollyanna, trite explanation for why people who “should be rich” are NOT rich.
Participant[quote=earlyretirement][quote=jstoesz]I rarely appreciate commentators on news articles. Actually, I never do. But this one at the top was actually cogent and is quoted in full below.
“Some questions left unanswered in that story:
– She had a “nine-year gambling spree” that started after the death of her hubby in 1994. So, that lasted until 2003! Why did the case go to court only now, in 2012?
– She sold a hotel for 7 millions in 2009. Why hasn’t she repaid the money to the charity?
– Since her gambling spree only lasted from 1994 to 2003, why should her brain surgery in 2011 be related to that at all?
– She left the charity broke. Why didn’t anybody notice this at once, and it had to be the IRS to uncover her gambling addiction?Only some of a lot of questions that the story leaves unanswered. All in all, yet another example of nowaday’s “journalism” that focusses on stenographing soundbites without much concern about the coherence of the report. Some actual thinking and investigating would be highly appreciated.”[/quote]
My guess is no one knows the true story except for her and maybe her lawyers. But maybe she even withheld things to them.
In this kind of situation, typically a gambler will always try to downplay how much they lost. Gamblers like to talk about how much they made and the hands they won but never the hands they lost. So my guess is this $2 million from the Foundation could be the tip of the iceberg.
Also, I would take a grain of salt with anything you hear/read with how long the addiction went on. It probably was even longer than what the stories are saying. And her lawyer’s estimate of her past net worth is probably understated as well. IMHO.
As far as the hotel she sold for $7.5 million. They never got that amount. “Mayor Mo” and her twin sister didn’t go through a traditional sale. You can read the details below:
http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2011/mar/23/citylights1-oconnor-sisters-german-bank-heritage/
[/quote]ER, there is no one more qualified to untangle this mess and get justice for the O’Connors than bulldog Mike Aguirre. This lawsuit, now going in its third year, will be settled or adjudicated.
That 37 AC parcel situated atop a very rugged and beautiful coastal cliff is worth MUCH MORE than $2M, even WITHOUT improvements. Believe me when I tell you that there is no other place like it in the world! The charity set up by Peterson will be paid back … eventually.
I agree with just a couple of things here.
a) that Mayor Mo’s family and friends were likely “enablers” or she hid her “addiction” extremely well; and
b) that (as I had stated before) I don’t believe an “addicted” gambler should be given credit for chips in ANY casino in which said gambler is well-known to them, whether US-based or situated on tribal lands. It may be “legal” but it is wrong and should be made “illegal.”
Bartenders and cocktail wait staff can be held liable for accidents if they serve visible drunks.
The author and moderator of your Reader article is Don Bauder, who was a well-known RE reporter for the SD Union (now U/T) for decades. He’s been around the block and his comments make a lot of sense.
Stay tuned. The “fat lady” has not yet sung on the Mendocino County case. Bulldog Aguirre will see that she not only gets her chance to sing, she will get to dance and perform several encores.
February 18, 2013 at 11:20 PM in reply to: People aren’t leaving CA in droves… at least according to the United Van Lines survey #759708Participant[quote=CA renter]BG, you’re more informed than I on the intricacies of CFDs and the cozy relationships between developers and city leaders, but Prop 13 has at least as much of an effect as the new developments. As you know, I fully support the notion that long-time residents not be taxed out of their homes, but why are taxpayers (and public sector workers who are being blamed for the mess) having to subsidize the profits of landlords, commercial property owners (especially those who’ve skirted reassessments on new purchases via LLC loopholes), and mega developers/owners of large tracts of land — all of whom are not paying market rate property taxes. We are losing billions of dollars every year because of these taxpayer subsidies; it’s a much bigger problem than the “pension crisis,” though nobody is addressing it. If we ever intend to fix our state’s finances, repealing Prop 13 protections for these parasites should be job #1.
Additionally, the land owners/developers should be the ones to DIRECTLY pay for the infrastructure (no Mello-Roos/CFDs to push payment into the future). If that means they have to pay less for the land, or charge more for the houses, so be it. The property taxes from these new developments should be more than sufficient enough to pay for the ongoing maintenance and services required by these new areas. If not, then the finances are not being managed properly.[/quote]
Yes, CAR, I completely understand the inequity of it all. Especially when the average 4-unit apt (flat) building in SF rakes in on avg over $140K annually in rents with a virtually zero percent vacancy rate.
Tenancy is longer on average in SF as well, as tenants fear they can’t give notice until they can firmly can secure another unit in the city. If this is not possible (as has been the situation for the last few years), they stay.
SF would be a “poster child” for repealing props 58 and 193 (the progeny of Prop 13) which provides for pre-April 1978 owners to pass ownership to their children (Prop 58) and grandchildren (Prop 193) upon their deaths free of reassessment. Title can be in the form of a trust, LLC or partnership as long as the principals of the LLC or partnership have filed their true names when obtaining a fictitious business name (FBN) with the county clerk/recorder of the county the subject property is situated in.. These “loopholes” in Prop 13 prevent many thousands of extremely valuable multifamily and commercial property owners in SF and throughout the state from being reassessed upon title transfer to a qualified family member into perpetuity as long as the “rules” are followed to the letter.
The average annual tax bill on such a 4-unit multifamily property in SF today (with a ~140K annual income) is approx $1400!
A 4-unit complex (my “example” here) is very typical on nearly EVERY block all over the city! The VAST MAJORITY of these complexes qualify for this “special” tax treatment because SF was primarily rebuilt between 1907 and 1917, after the fire which engulfed most of the city which was caused by its gas lines blowing up due to a massive earthquake. Only a small percentage of these parcels have changed hands (in an “arm’s length transaction”) since 1978 (for obvious reasons).
The descendants of those post-quake owners of the “rebuilds” are now the owners of these income and comm’l properties and these thousands of parcels in SF are among the most valuable in the state.
I believe that the repeal of Prop 58 and 193 will go a long way towards shoring up CA’s budget but I don’t see our Legislature enacting a voter-approved repeal retroactively. The current descendant-owners will have to die before their properties are reassessed.
Still, a good start would be putting a repeal of Props 58 and 193 before CA’s voters with a clear explanation in the Voter Guide of exactly who is benefiting from these laws and why.
Those still benefiting from an extremely low property tax due to the passage of Prop 13 (pre-April 1978 owners who still own the same property today) will eventually die. Without Props 58 and 193 on the books, their property will be reassessed upon their deaths (whether their “heirs” decide to keep it or not) if they do not sell it before they die.
I think the repeal of these laws would also have the side effect of bringing more RE inventory to market as the only reason many “heirs” are keeping their parents/grandparents property instead of selling it is not because they particularly “like it” or “want to live there” but because its taxes are only a few hundred per year (making it a cash cow for them) and for no other reason.
The passage of Props 58 and 193 was NOT in keeping with Prop 13’s original intent of “keeping seniors from being taxed out of their homes.” They are nothing but vehicles used for “unjust enrichment” of able-bodied young worker-heirs, enabling them to avoid tax of propertie(s) they inherited based upon their market value at the time of death of their parent/grandparent (plus 2% anually thereafter).
I completely agree that all the new infrastructure of new developments in CA should have been paid up front by the developers and then factored into the cost of the each home, instead of having a separate Mello Roos bond to pay (that many owners can and do default upon, anyway). The problem is in calculating forward the cost of rendering future public services accurately for each parcel in the development and also tacking that cost onto the cost of each property. This would be very difficult to calculate, IMHO, and would tend to discourage development, because developers would realize that they had to “charge too much” to the end user and fear they couldn’t compete with the resale market.
This is all fine with me but the “horse has already left the barn door” in this regard :=0
February 18, 2013 at 9:32 PM in reply to: People aren’t leaving CA in droves… at least according to the United Van Lines survey #759702Participant[quote=spdrun]It’s still relatively un-crowded if you think about it, especially if you go north of Santa Barbara.[/quote]
Yes, spdrun, I can think of MANY places left in CA which are still “relatively uncrowded.” Some of these areas have only grown a minuscule amount or not at all in the last 30 years. None are near major “job centers,” but retirees and entrepreneurs working from home on the internet don’t care about such things.
February 18, 2013 at 9:29 PM in reply to: People aren’t leaving CA in droves… at least according to the United Van Lines survey #759699ParticipantOh, and btw, nsr, SF has SEVERAL community and social services available for its residents for free or at low cost that are virtually unheard of in other CA populous counties (incl SD Co).
How do you think they’re able to do this when they’re not “growing?”
February 18, 2013 at 9:26 PM in reply to: People aren’t leaving CA in droves… at least according to the United Van Lines survey #759697ParticipantThe “sheen” has worn off California in recent years, once dubbed the “Golden State” (when its population was 20M less than it is now).
Ask yourselves how this happened :=0
February 18, 2013 at 9:22 PM in reply to: People aren’t leaving CA in droves… at least according to the United Van Lines survey #759695Participant[quote=no_such_reality][quote=bearishgurl][quote=no_such_reality]BG, any place that isn’t building, is dying.[/quote]
Except for “Foster City,” dredged out from SF Bay over 40 years ago and had CFD’s approved within it in 1983, there hasn’t been any SFR subdivision development in San Mateo County in that time span and beyond.
nsr, do you think SM County is “dying?”
LOL, its residents are actually one of the most prosperous, if not (collectively) THE most prosperous in the nation.
Go figure … :=0[/quote]
A single county is largely irrelevant. It’s the collective that drives it.
As for SF, they are chronically rebuilding.[/quote]
Yes, SF is “chronically (knocking down and) rebuilding.” They are NOT creating CFD’s to build subdivisions that are 30+ miles from job centers.
SF IS the state’s HQ’d “job center” so they don’t have to :=]
And SF residents ARE prosperous WITHOUT adding to their population and thus adding the attendant positions to their city/county departments.
February 18, 2013 at 5:12 PM in reply to: People aren’t leaving CA in droves… at least according to the United Van Lines survey #759682Participant[quote=no_such_reality]BG, any place that isn’t building, is dying.
It’s either, build on new land, or tear down and rebuild bigger on old land.
Those CFDs you dislike were a major driver in CA’s economy. Without he CFDs, CA would look very different and maybe not the way you think. The population would still come maybe, the jobs would be there, maybe. Those restaurants and shopping most like, those trendy clubs and bars? Doubtful.
The CFDs were mismanaged and pork lined up all sides of the trough, but without development, CA would shrivel and die. I suppose you could move the valley of the dirt people into the downtown condos, but that’s a very different experience, and frankly, California isn’t ready for the NYC micro-apartments.[/quote]
nsr, think about this. Most of those “trendy clubs and bars” you speak of here are located in urban cores, NOT in CFD’s. CA’s urban cores don’t get the use of any CFD bond money.
Adjacent to CFD’s are the home of Big Box stores and franchises. Most of those “dirt people” you speak of (the ones who flocked to the distant CFD’s due to “cheap” new construction and ended up “flittering” their way back “home” after foreclosure?) are originally FROM CA’s “urban cores!” They’re used to living “in the city.”
My premise is that CA gov’ts (incl the state gov’t) wouldn’t be “broke” had it not been for the “boom and bust” nature of the CFD’s. The reason these govm’ts would all be better off had they never approved any CFDs is because they wouldn’t have hired near the amount of employees they did (mainly since 2000) and some jurisdictions wouldn’t have hired any more at all but just filled vacant openings as they arose.
It is all the *new* salaries (mainly since 2000) and attendant benefits (that go along with those salaries) which are eroding the fiscal condition of local and state govm’t.
IOW, CA govm’t at all levels would have been much smaller without the CFDs.
The bonds issued by CFDs don’t pay for those salaries to service the residents within them. They only pay for infrastructure and sometimes maintenance on that infrastructure.
In the absence of all its lizardland and farmland CFD’s, CA’s urban cores would still have been improved over the years as one has nothing to do with the other, EXCEPT in the cases of maintaining and policing the urban cores in large cities which approved several large CFD’s.
For instance, the municipal services of tree-trimming and fixing cracked sidewalks is now stretched much thinner in the urban core of Chula Vista than it used to be. Why? Because ChulaV approved enough CFD’s to add approx 180,000 residents to it since 2000 (it went from 97K pop in 2000 to 277K now). There are many more medium-sized and large cities in CA who have these same or similar problems, all due to rampant CFD approvals in the past.
Greed and p!ss poor planning on behalf of CA cities and counties’ PTB has had far reaching affects to ALL their residents, not just those who reside within the CFD’s.
The CA “CFD experiment” has had the effect of raping our open space, destroying our watershed, using up our water allotment faster and has had an overall disastrous fiscal effect on every jurisdiction in the state who bought into the concept (the most populous ones).
The “MR CFD Act” was a ridiculous idea from the get go and I have no idea how CA’s Legislature passed it other than being completely asleep at the switch when the bill was passed around :=0
February 18, 2013 at 5:10 PM in reply to: People aren’t leaving CA in droves… at least according to the United Van Lines survey #759683Participant[quote=no_such_reality]BG, any place that isn’t building, is dying.[/quote]
Except for “Foster City,” dredged out from SF Bay over 40 years ago and had CFD’s approved within it in 1983, there hasn’t been any SFR subdivision development in San Mateo County in that time span and beyond.
nsr, do you think SM County is “dying?”
LOL, its residents are actually one of the most prosperous, if not (collectively) THE most prosperous in the nation.
Go figure … :=0
February 18, 2013 at 12:59 PM in reply to: Over 21% of homeowners in SD County have paid off houses #759671ParticipantHere’s another link in paramount’s article which depicts nationwide percentages of paid-off homes:
http://graphics.latimes.com/storyboard-free-and-clear/
Not surprisingly, the “flyover” states of TX, OK and NE top the list.
Not only are houses relatively “cheap” (by coastal stds) in these states, but the “culture” in these states encourages living within one’s means, being as debt-free as possible and giving your kids a “leg up” in housing by subdividing your own land for them and helping them to build their own home on it.
However, I also noticed from the map that TX’s highly-urbanized regions were heavily mortgaged.
February 18, 2013 at 12:12 PM in reply to: People aren’t leaving CA in droves… at least according to the United Van Lines survey #759669ParticipantHonestly, I know it won’t happen, but should CA have a major contraction in population and some of these distant CFD’s turned into “ghost towns” (which were boarded up and their utilities shut off), it would be better for the state’s environment and economy overall.
-
AuthorPosts
