Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
ParticipantWould the five “affordable units” in the complex be set aside for rent … or for sale at a lower price to qualified individuals/families?
And is the complex brand new construction or a condo conversion from a former apartment building?
ParticipantLOL ….. wonder if 125% LTV will come back into “vogue” by 2014 …
Participant[quote=UCGal]All I can say is on the Russ V BG discussion – I’m in the Russ camp.
And I’m glad BG isn’t in my neighborhood – since we have several partially completed projects. After contractors burned us we are strictly DIY and stuff gets done as we have time. Progress is being made – but not on the pace it would be made if we’d hired someone.
Thankfully – we have neighbors who like us and are fine with our pace of progress. Even if we are DIY – even for stucco.[/quote]
I wouldn’t mind long-term “partially completed projects” and gaping holes in stucco in my midst either if I wasn’t considering putting my place on the market in ~18 months.
UCGal, you’ve stated here a few times before that you will never sell. And you shouldn’t, IMHO, for obvious reasons. If I was in your shoes, I wouldn’t give a whit about what the neighbors did (or didn’t) do to their properties. I would enjoy the h@ll out of my low tax rate and just “retire.” And if I chose to move somewhere else for awhile, I would just lease the unit(s) out. If your property had been reassessed after the completion of your granny flat to, say $550-650K, you might have a completely different opinion on the matter 🙂
Where we stand depends on where we sit.
Participant[quote=Diego Mamani][quote=bearishgurl]I’ve been trying to interest my youngest to attend college out of state in any of three “flyover” states where they are either eligible for in-state tuition or nearly a “full-ride” scholarship for all four years.[/quote]BG, it looks like you’ve done your homework. Would you mind sharing a few school names that you particularly like?[/quote]
Diego, I can’t at this time because the scholarships have to do with my kid’s heritage. These schools would be prohibitively expensive for all other out-of-state applicants.
Participant[quote=desmond]Just got back from a road trip to Houston to deliver some furniture, etc. to my two kids living there. (btw, u-haul is $1600 to Houston but I went with Penske, 16′ for $983). Both are doing well (son was salesman of the 3rd and maybe 4th quarter for his company)daughter also working and dating $$$ texas boy. Anyway, much better quality of life for them out there. Gas was $2.97/gal, rent cheaper, better roads, rest stops, etc. Getting started is crucial in life, saving money and getting ahead for them far outway any petty weather or other concerns. The writing is on the wall here in CA and now has turned to permanent paint.[/quote]
I couldn’t agree more, desmond. A former CA resident who is a college graduate can always return to Cali if they wish to accept a job there.
I’ve been trying to interest my youngest to attend college out of state in any of three “flyover” states where they are either eligible for in-state tuition or nearly a “full-ride” scholarship for all four years. In those colleges, lower-level (GE) classes are actually taught by FULL PROFESSORS (avg 25-30 yrs tenure) and the class sizes are 19-35 students (avg 23 students) as opposed to 514 students in Cali taught by an “underpaid” grad student and where the student is just a “number” getting lost in the shuffle. In addition, the student in these OOS schools gets an academic advisor chained to their ankle (who calls them periodically) so they don’t make any (expensive) class-selection mistakes and are able to graduate in four years. Free tutoring in all subjects is also available in two of the schools.
And best of all, students actually graduate in four years!
In one of the colleges, my kid can qualify for a 2br on-campus apt (sm LR/KIT and one bath) with only ONE roommate. Cost to me? $181.50 per mo (incl all utils, cable and wireless internet).
fwiw, I just saw on the UCLA website last month that for the Fall 2012 semester, just 19% of the freshmen they admitted were actually in-state residents. 34% were foreign students and the rest were from out of state.
I would surmise the percentages are similar for UCB, UCSB, UCD, UCSD, etc.
So much for CA’s “flagship schools” (that its “resident” taxpayers are supporting) offering priority admission to its in-state HS grads over outsiders.
I think CA’s public universities have a “duty” to educate “qualified” CA residents first over other applicants. Other states surely do. But it looks like those days are gone forever. Why is this so? It’s simple …. $$$$$ :=0
Participant[quote=CA renter]BG,
Haven’t you noticed that many of the people who buy those flips let them go once they move in? I’ve lived in working class neighborhoods before, and the typical FHA 3.5% buyer does not maintain the house once they move in, whether it was flipped or not. Within 3 years or so, it’s back to the overgrown landscaping or dirt lot with 5 cars parked in the yard, trash everywhere, dirty, falling fences, etc. These flipped homes are often the first to be foreclosed on, too.
The very WORST were the absentee landlords who would literally let the homes rot.
I’d still rather have affordable housing for owner occupants. That should be the priority. Of course, I agree that people should at least maintain their properties — and the standard for that varies from person to person, of course. You and I both like neighborhoods without HOAs specifically because the Nazi HOA rulers cannot tell us what plants to plant, or what color paints to use, etc.; but that also means we have to put up with some neighbors whose homes will be eyesores. I don’t like it either, but still prefer it to flippers infesting the neighborhood and pushing up prices beyond what owner-occupiers can truly and easily afford.[/quote]
CAR, the “flips” in my area haven’t been resold for quite three years, so I don’t know the outcome yet. But I do feel it is not worth it to take out an owner-occupied FHA loan today. Most FHA buyers (usually first-timers) are ignorant of all the commitment that homeownership entails and most of their DP is now applied to up-front MIP and is NOT used to reduce the mortgage they will take out. Due to the now VERY high MIP, a prospective FHA buyer would be better off renting, IMHO, while they save more $ to purchase conventional. Honestly, I don’t think the FHA 203(b) program is viable anymore and I think it should be abolished. The agency screwed itself royally in recent years by insuring mortgages over ~$300K. Even that amount is high for its target borrower in SD and VERY HIGH for other, inland locales. Back in the 80’s, there were even weekly lists published in the SD Union of local FHA foreclosures being offered to the public through a sealed-bid system (avg of about $77K back then). Now, FHA’s default rate is SO MUCH HIGHER than it was back then at FAR higher loan amounts.
The typical FHA borrower (then and now) can barely score a used lawnmower after closing without quickly running up their CC debt to an unsustainable level, making it impossible to pay their new mortgage AND service their CC debt.
The only people who should be buying “fixers” should be those putting 20%-100% down with liquid cash reserves of at least $80K (in case something goes wrong with the rehab). That brings us back to the flipper teams, gen’l contractors and VERY experienced carpenters/handymen.
I have come to the conclusion that a typical 40-hr per wk “wage earner” with a family who is taking out a >80% mortgage is a bad buying candidate for a “fixer property.” It will likely take this type of owner-occupant buyer too long to complete the needed repairs without additional help, causing them to have to carry the mortgage without use of all or part of the property for many months or even years. And unless they have purchased for a VERY low price on cash terms, the potential “equity” isn’t usually there to contract out all the needed repairs and replacements.
There are no doubt thousands of first-time FHA homeowners who never should have been homeowners to begin with as they’re not (fiscally or psychologically) prepared to regularly maintain real property.
I believe “affordable housing” should be strictly rentals to the extent that local laws and local funding provides for them. If some locales (more desirable and/or coastal) don’t have enough of this type of housing to offer all the residents who want it and can qualify for it, that’s the way life is. The most desirable portions of coastal counties have never been “set up” to house the masses of poor and working poor. I realize that every locale needs its service workers and they have to live somewhere but everyone has to live where they can afford to. For San Diego County, if that is TJ, a long commute inland from their coastal job, a subsidized apt, living with parents/other relatives or renting a room close to work, so be it.
Participant[quote=Blogstar]Sorry bg, it’s their business. I have a neighbor who inherited his mothers house.It is ramshackle to say the least. He admits to me that if he were half as ambitious as his parents or me his property would be nice.He pays very low property taxes ;). None of my business.He is one of my favorite neighbors. Same if I lived in Chula Vista, North Park, or Del Mar.
I understand feeling like it is unfortunate when it goes one way and fortunate when something nice looking gets done.
Agree to disagree.[/quote]
I understand, Russ. I have several of those similarly-situated “heir” neighbors. In a couple of cases, their parent died since I have lived here and the property’s condition has gone significantly downhill since the “heir” took it over.
Ask yourself how it is that an 86-yo can maintain their property (occasional gardening with the weekly help of a gardener) when their survivor, a presumably “able bodied” 60-something can do absolutely NOTHING for years … not even pick up their pennysavers from the driveway!
It’s not like they have HUGE property tax bills, HOA and MR to pay and thus can’t afford to make any repairs. They SHOULD be able to take care of the property but are just too lazy and also often packrats. These people have NO IDEA how fortunate they are! Most of them live very close to FREE except for utilities yet can’t even paint their peeling fence.
My experience with this subset of owners is that they act like entitled losers.
Participant[quote=Blogstar]….If people didn’t let their houses go down hill what would fixer flippers buy? Or fixer rental owners? It all works together.[/quote]
Absolutely true, Russ. But joe6P FHA buyer who will move into the place after closing is NOT THE SAME ANIMAL as “fixer flippers” and “fixer rental owners.”
The latter two types of owners frequently bought much cheaper than the surrounding owners who bought in the last ~9 years. They immediately improve the property to sell or rent out, thus IMPROVING surrounding values.
Joe6p may have bought at a little higher price than Buyer FF and Buyer FRO because he likely did not pay all cash. But his property was likely in no better condition upon closing those that BFF and BFRO bought. However, joe6p and his family, who moved in with all of their things (they can’t afford a storage unit), will need to live in the property “as is” for awhile and fix as they can afford to. Whether or not they actually know what they have really gotten into and/or have the skills and motivation to even complete the most simple chores after move in (ex: tidy up landscaping) is anyone’s guess. Years later, it is still in same or similar condition and isn’t worth more (and might be worth less) than he actually paid for it.
If the joe6P FTBs of today were as hardworking and motivated as the FTBs of yesteryear who bought “fixers,” then I wouldn’t be discussing them here.
Participant[quote=Blogstar]”But the joe6p family of five I just described isn’t helping their surrounding values”
That’s it, it is not there problem to help surrounding values. I lived in Normal Heights and owned two houses there, both purchased as fixers. The people who couldn’t fix their houses up and there were plenty, never had anything but sympathy from me as long as they were nice people, which very many of them were. Mine were always very tidy but that did not change my views.[/quote]
I have many senior citizen neighbors on fixed incomes who cannot do major repairs but are nevertheless, “tidy.” This isn’t who I am referring to.
I’m referring to the new FTB “joe6p” who has attempted many projects on his property visible from the street and many months later has appeared to have given up on them. It’s not always about money. If one has painted half of his/her house, they already have the paint. Stucco patch, ESP the kind you mix yourself, is CHEAP. Digging out bermuda by the root if you don’t want it is FREE. This particular property is just a comedy of errors …. typical with a resident FTB who doesn’t really know what they’re doing … and isn’t very motivated to complete the many projects they started.
There are more out there just like him.
Had a “flipper” purchased this place instead, it would have been brought up to “neighborhood standards” (and even perhaps a bit beyond) within 60 days of closing and promptly listed for ~170K more than they paid for it.
That’s the difference.
Participant[quote=Blogstar]There is a lot of validity to what you are saying BG, but when flippers come out looking like civic minded saints that’s too much! Average people with average business ethics AT BEST. That’s all I’m saying. No need for extremes.
I have never looked down on my neighbors who don’t have the means, or maybe just don’t prioritize to make and keep a property looking “turnkey”. That sounds like lets play “Ken and Barbie” with our shelter. I don’t get that? It’s not my business as long as they aren’t robbing me,or disturbing the peace or something. If you want someone to play God that’s what gated/HOA communities are for. Our neighbors don’t owe us anything but to let us live and let live.[/quote]
Russ, I don’t think flippers are “saints.” But they ARE improving property values street by street and so in my mind are providing a “community service” at the same time they are making a profit. Why should they NOT make a profit? A lot of the work they typically do is neither “cheap” nor for the fainthearted.
I agree with you about individual property rights and the right of quiet enjoyment. But the joe6p family of five I just described isn’t helping their surrounding values …. not any moreso than before they became the owners … when their property was a scraggly REO. With six or more of these properties on a long block, it DOES affect the neighbors’ values (who keep their properties maintained) and causes potential buyers who go through the area to drive by ANY listing to ultimately decide they don’t want to make an appointment to see it due to the “overall feel” of the neighborhood.
These properties are VERY detrimental to the values of of adjoining neighbors.
Out where you are, you don’t have to worry about such things. Your property will sell based on its land mass and zoning alone and its value is less influenced by what your neighbors do or don’t do because the dwellings in your area aren’t ~8` apart.
Simply put, the people who buy these “flippers” today for a personal residence (whether not yet flipped or already flipped) are doing so because it is all they can afford at the time. So since, in any case, they’re typically “broke” at the time of closing (and possibly lacking in wherewithal/skills to make the needed repairs), it is better for ALL concerned if the property is already flipped at the time of sale to joe6p..
Participant[quote=CA renter]. . . BG, it would be far better to have affordable housing available to owner-occupants than artificially fancied-up houses with cheap granite counter tops and a coat of paint. Our concern should not be for the hopeful sellers, but for those who are looking to buy an affordable roof over their heads. The notion that your primary residence is an “investment” needs to go. It is a consumption item, and there is no guarantee that a buyer will make money on a home purchase. Maybe, if we teach young people to think logically about housing, they might be less inclined to eagerly overpay and cause the bubbles that are so prolific in California (and other places).[/quote]
CAR, “affordable housing” IS available to purchase in the form of all the distressed “starter” and “lower-mid-grade” homes in the SD County SFR market. But “short sellers” or institutional sellers of these types of properties can rarely get a serious offer from a FTB (usually Gen Y or youngest Gen X). Why is this? Because, today’s typical FTB can’t envision themselves using THAT kitchen or THOSE bathrooms. The “curb appeal” sucks (due to weeds, trash, broken concrete, wildly overgrown gardens, etc). And the WORST part is … there’s a HOLE where the dishwasher is supposed to be! (“Is that a mousetrap under there?”) They just can’t see the forest for the trees … and can’t POSSIBLY imagine what the property would look like cleaned up, with the needed repairs and replacements. And they have NO IDEA how much it would all cost and CAN’T IMAGINE doing any of the manual labor themselves. It’s completely overwhelming, that is, for the prospective buyers that ACTUALLY MAKE AN APPT to see the inside. If it is tenant occupied, the problems with the listing are all the more daunting for them. And the bigger the lot (for their kids/dog to play), the MORE BACKBREAKING WORK the property appears to need.
There has been a “sea change” in the values of the “=<38 yo homebuyer" since about 2000. This buyer is a typical a FT buyer or is still shopping in that market or slightly above (the typical "flipper" market) due to having to deed away or sell their former property in a divorce action. Even if just ONE of two buyers (wanting to take title as joint tenants or tenants in common) can't stomach the distressed "fixer listing," the couple WON'T BUY IT.
It didn't used to be like this in SD. It wasn't uncommon at all for buyers aged 21-35 to buy even heavy fixers, move mattresses in on the floor, a portable radio with speakers, a portable TV with a dairy crate to sit in on, a ladder and all kinds of tools (and baby/child stuff if they had kids)! If they had more stuff than that, they stored it in the garage or in outbuilding(s) in the backyard for a few months and got to work ... yes females and new moms, too :) The lucky ones called in relatives to help.
These talented and deep-pocketed flipper-teams are providing buyers inventory to consider and are helping to raise potential nearby sellers' property values which have been unfairly undervalued in recent years (so they will eventually be more inclined to list). Without them, these properties would continue to be eyesores, even if all the Joe6p-buyers in the county bought them all up.
There is a fmr REO near me, bought over two years ago by a family of 5 (for half the price it sold for in 2006). The new owners have since managed to replace just half of the leaky windows (and half of the window frames of the ones they did replace), put sheets in all of them, douse the front yard several times with gasoline (in attempt to clean up the straggling bermuda, lol), stack all their broken concrete on the side of the driveway, plant two 3′ (now dead) trees (“growing” in gasoline, lol), perform half the needed stucco repair, contract half the needed concrete work, paint half the house (currently, 2 sides are one color and 2 sides are another color). I can’t even list here all the stuff that still needs to be done to it … and this is only on the outside!
Hence …. the flipper teams you’re seeing today … who promptly grind all the dead stumps the day after closing and then throw up plastic picket fences and “substandard” sod the next weekend. When they are done ~30 days later, the property looks “charming,” clean and useful enough for today’s FTB (without much cash) to buy and begin living in right away.
Participant[quote=no_such_reality]How bad was it last year? I haven’t a challenge finding parking at any mall or store we’ve gone to yesterday or today.
The big ticket sale items are still in stock in many stores.
I have noticed the more upper middle income the store complex, the busier it is. The lower the income target, the lighter it is…[/quote]
I had to go after a small gift last night which was on special yesterday only and had no trouble finding a parking space close to the store’s side door. In past holiday seasons, this mall was so full on weekends that there is no parking avail anywhere.
Even though this store is a “mainstream” higher-end dept store and not a discount store, its patrons drive from a wide radius of adjacent lower-income areas which don’t have dept stores. I think the problem we are seeing of a little less people at the mall this season or less people at the mall actually buying something is due to less credit floating around the system. Lower-income households have been more prone to filing for BK protection in recent years … even over as little as $10K of debt that they would never be able to pay back. This has taken a good amount of credit out of the system.
A shopper who uses cash typically shops an entirely different way than a shopper who uses credit (the majority of dept store shoppers). The typical “cash-only shopper” buys in swap meets, flea markets, thrift stores, craigslist and uses paypal to order from e-bay (Mexican shoppers excepted).
Participant[quote=ocrenter][quote=moneymaker]Health care is more readily available to the “more statused” however I seem to recall quit a few well to do dying lately at relatively young ages, David Copley, Steve Jobs, pick anyone in Hollywood that has died young lately. So in my opinion being statused may actually make one more unhealthy due to obesity/drug use(yes even the legal kind) and bad habits such as drinking and smoking. Of course I could be wrong as I recall seeing a lot of obese people last time I was at Walmart.[/quote]
Status and health are related, but access the health care plays a minor role.
Just as scaredy’s kid learned in school with apes, it is ultimately access to resources.
The higher status apes have access to plenty of food and the best shelter. This improves their health. For us, it is the access to healthy food that set the upper class apart from the lower class. For the higher class, you have the jimbos and the sprouts and the trader joes where whole wheat bread and brown rice and low salt items and fresh lean meat are the rule. For the lower class you have 99cent stores with white bread and high salt processed meat items and high fat snacks that are filling, cheap, and more addictive.
The lower class usually do not have leasure time to exercise as many have 2 jobs or multiple part time job, while the upper class do have more ability to manage their own time and find time to exercise. To the working poor, exercise seems foolish after 16 hours of cleaning toilets and mopping the floor. Replenishing the caloric supply, actually over replenishing with a meal at over 2000 calories all at less than $5 seem like the logical thing to do.
The dietary differences and approach to exercise ultimately is the difference between the various status groups.
As for access to health care, please remember Steve Jobs managed to survive for 3 years AFTER the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, that itself is a feat related to access to health care. Your average Jose would be lucky to survive 3 months from the diagnosis if he was even diagnosed at all.[/quote]
Excellent post, ocrenter. However, I think these subjects are a little “murkier” than your explanation so I’d like to add a few points to it.
Jobs had a slower growing pancreatic cancer than the typical patient (who lasts 0-10 months after diagnosis). He was first diagnosed in 2004 and died in 2011.
He lived 2+ additional years after his cancer metastasized and enveloped his liver because he obtained a liver transplant in 2009.
He did not “move to the top of any transplant lists” by making donations to hospitals or the donor registry (at least not while he was waiting for an available liver). He almost died waiting for a match and never would have gotten a liver in CA, due to the sheer amount of very sick patients on the waiting list for one.
http://gizmodo.com/5497696/steve-jobs-on-organ-transplant-lists-i-almost-died-waiting
National transplant rules make the organs available to the sickest patients who match the available organs. These patients must reside 4 or less hrs from the transplant center and be able to come to follow-up appts nearby for at least four months AFTER the transplant. Residing in Palo Alto, CA and owning a private jet, Jobs was able to travel to several US transplant centers to get a physical workup and get on each list. When there was a match in TN, he was immediately on his plane to Memphis and had his people secure him a property to stay there after he was released from the hospital:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10271526-37.html
How Steve Jobs Got His 2009 Liver Transplant So Quickly
Some would argue that Jobs got a liver yet had cancer which was terminal and that was a “waste of an organ.” His transplant “bought” him 27.5 months (with some of it a good quality of life) which he used to wrap up his affairs and introduce new products.
Everything he did to “buy time” was perfectly legal but could only be done by someone with vast resources.
Of course, pancreatic cancer of any kind is extremely deadly and always wins in the end. It doesn’t matter whether one has $6 or $6B in assets. A pancreatic cancer patient will eventually die, usually sooner than later. No amount of money can fix this.
Pancreatic cancer is primarily caused from damage to DNA (mutuations). It is inherited.
http://pathology.jhu.edu/pc/BasicCauses.php
Jobs was a strict vegan most of his life and was never anywhere close to being “obese.” Nor did he smoke. Contrary to what MM posted earlier, not EVERYONE who gets a deadly cancer (“celebrities” incl) “did it to themselves.” Most are simply unlucky.
***********************************
Re: shopping habits of “poor people,” I took a neighbor whose car was broken down to a large 99 cent store in National City this week. I had not been there since it was a “Food Basket” (decades ago). It was very LARGE inside and had a LOT of good-quality produce for .99 (incl large Boston bibb or butter lettuce that would have cost ~$5 at Vons). It also had fresh med eggs and fresh 1/2 gal milk for .99. There was plenty of whole grain cereals and bread and it had brown rice, also. Most of the clientele were senior citizens and very few were anywhere close to being “obese.” It is located on the bus line so some patrons had their own rolling grocery carts which they could take on the bus (and some probably walked home). And I don’t see all these people going home and consuming 2500 calories in one sitting.
I was impressed with the variety of goods and quality of the available fresh items there. I saw nothing wrong with anything there and even bought a dozen eggs (which I’ve already used) and, of course, no one knew the difference between .99 dozen eggs and more expensive eggs.
I think people from all walks of life are just trying to get by …. or spend less on food so they can provide gifts for grandchildren at b-days and x-mas or make some repairs to their home. Even if one can afford it, why pay MORE if the same or similar item is cheaper in a store that is easy to get to?
I don’t think we can “pigeonhole” all people who shop in certain establishments (ie 99 cent store, Walmart) as being “poor, ignorant or in bad health.” In many smaller towns in those dreaded “flyover states,” Walmart “supercenter” (with food) is often the only place residents from a 30+ mile radius have to shop for food! This doesn’t make them all “ignorant,” in “poor health” or “obese.”
If anything, “poor people” walk more and often have to run (to catch a bus or trolley which is early) than people who back their bimmers out of their garages to go to the corner store. And remember that “rural people” (even if “poor”) don’t have a fast food joint and/or Starbucks on every corner to choose from like city-dwellers do.
Participant[quote=CA renter]Yet, some have argued that flippers don’t push up prices or cause any problems for real buyers.
I’ve argued forever that flippers are a HUGE problem. It would be best if we could enact a windfall profit tax that would make flipping totally unprofitable.[/quote]
I for one appreciate the work that these flippers do. Especially the work that shows from the street (ie landscaping, fencing, concrete work, roof, etc).
Flippers improve the “eyesore on the block” and in doing so, lift ALL boats. We aren’t going to see any inventory to speak of UNLESS at least some of these boats are “lifted.”
The avg Joe6p that is able to buy that same property (at the lower “fixer” price) as a personal residence can often barely afford to cover the (often old and stuck) windows with something other than a sheet or towel after closing and scare up a used lawnmower from CL to mow down the weeds (several weeks after moving in).
Flippers buy and quickly rehab run down properties (usually fmr rentals) that would not otherwise sell to Gen X and Y UNLESS the typical improvements flippers make are already done. These buyers have neither the time, money or skills (and if they do, they lack the desire) to make the needed improvements themselves.
It’s so much easier for the young buyers to get an FHA loan, put 3.5% down and overpay for the “already flipped” house without having to put any additional cash in it to live in it.
Flippers provide a service to buyers and sellers alike. We can’t assume that some of these rundown properties would sell to ANYONE but an experienced flipper team and/or gen’l contractor or lifetime handyman/carpenter.
-
AuthorPosts
