[bearishgurl]

[quote=birmingplumb]UPDATE . . . Gave the guy my attorney. God bless all here. Motown[/quote]

That was a very wise decision, birmingplumb. Sounds like this “prospective tenant” has a sense of entitlement with a capital “E.”

I wish you the very best of luck in getting a good tenant in the coming weeks!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=heywood]A prius is not a good example because of the batterys etc. so may have a large drop in value beyond a certain age.

Your calculation is no good for a general case though. Assume a car depreciates a constant percentage each year then apply that to the purchase price of new vs used and you will get a better idea of the real situation.

i.e.
13k @ 12% year = ~6k loss (sell for 7k)
24k @ 12% year = ~11k loss (sell for 13k)[/quote]

heywood, the highest percentage of depreciation comes off the first 3-6 years of life, depending on the vehicle.

And once a vehicle is officially “old” (15 yrs?), its market value remains pretty constant, say …. $1500 – $4000 for typical mass-produced Japanese models … higher for well-maintained “Limited Edition” vehicles.

So your “constant depreciation” calculations are in error.

UCGal is correct. The “branded” dealers have a $3K+ (per vehicle) used-vehicle markup over the KBB Private Party value on their “Certified Used” vehicles. These “mainstream” dealers do not usually keep trade-ins that don’t qualify for their Certified Used programs unless they are extremely well-maintained. (The buyer won’t get the CU warranty with them, however.) With these rare finds, a buyer can score a great deal at a branded dealer if paying all cash. The same is true if a buyer is purchasing from a 2nd or 3rd tier dealer (of older used vehicles of various makes) who offers financing to the less-than-creditworthy where they carry the notes themselves. Trade-ins are normally taken in by dealers at $7K+ less than the KBB Private Party value.

The lesson here is to sell private-party and then buy private-party (in that order). To obtain the maximum-value replacement vehicle for your money, it involves paying all cash for a 6+ yo vehicle or have your own pre-approval from your bank/CU waiting and taking the seller with his/her title or registration/lien note (if a PP) in there with you to complete the transaction in front of a bank officer.

As everyone knows, in order for a PP seller to obtain the highest price for their vehicle, they must thoroughly clean, detail, possibly make repairs, advertise and show their own vehicle until it sells for a price they will accept. MOST people don’t want to bother with all of this. That’s why the masses get ripped off royally on trade-ins, new vehicles and in dealer “certified used” programs repeatedly throughout life, ESP if they let the dealer finance them or locate financing for them, IMHO.

edit: the above post assumes the vehicle traded in or sold is 6-8 years old and has a KBB PP value of $17K – $25K.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=spdrun]I paid $2500 for a car that has had under $1000 in repairs over the past two years, and which I can easily re-sell for same price. Hwy mpg is in the mid to high 30s if you drive judiciously.

CL and the local papers are where it’s at. Besides, not supporting Detroit and dealer parasites is fun!![/quote]

Agree, spdrun, that once a vehicle gets to the $2500 PP value, then if well maintained, it could stay in the $1500 – $3500 value-range for the next decade or beyond, ESP if it has been garaged most of its life.

Many, many people want and need good running vehicles in this price range.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=spdrun]

Except by definition all housing purchases are public records.

Technically, but no need to make names so easy to get. You want price and mortgage records? You should be able to get them on the Internet. Full names? You should have to schlepp to the county clerk’s office.[/quote]

Agree with this, spdrun.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=birmingplumb] . . . p.s There are still properties in north suburbs for sale sfr for 40 to 50k that are great blue ribbon schools and rent for 1000-1250 per month. Type in “Lake Orion Mi, to see geographic area.[/quote]

This might sound awesome to Piggs looking for cash flow, even if they have to hire a local property mgr. The high-vacancy rate of the overall area is troubling, though, and could a HUGE dent in annual cash flow. Perhaps some micro-areas have less rental vacancies than others.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=birmingplumb]Guy is mail carrier 16 yrs, 52k per year 58k with overtime, wife just got full time at 28k as per letter from employer. I can ask my “tom cruise” lawyer to draft a special lease tailored to this Guy. He was late 3 weeks all the time @1900 per month but did pay up with late fee according to landlords wife. But it is the deceitfulness that I find here that leads me to keep quiet about what I found out and insist on a letter signed by the owner. Then , if it is true that he was late, they should go away quietly or they could send the new letter. They won’t due to wife of owner statement on always late. The wild card is the human element, we have his innocent 15 year old daughter probably attending high school in a safe upscale (Detroit Lions, Pistons , ect live nearby )North suburban neighborhood and the Dad is pulling out all stops to ensure it happens even fraud. I am asking 2.2k and they offered 2k subject approval. My heart wants to help but my mind and helpers here seem to say move on. I will also pray about this and wait until tomorrow. God bless this forum and it’s members. Motown[/quote]

birmingplumb, having seen this piece this morning when I logged in, I understand your situation:

http://realestate.yahoo.com/news/america-s-emptiest-cities–2012.html

The Detroit area is apparently the “4th emptiest city” in the US with a 16.9% rental vacancy rate.

My advice is still don’t let your heart rule your head. I would take a pass on this applicant simply because three weeks late is simply TOO LATE if you have a mortgage to pay on the property. Receiving rent this late will undoubtedly cause YOU late charges and dings to your credit. Even if you own the property free and clear, receiving the rent this late every month would be a tremendous hassle that I wouldn’t put up with. Now that all this couple’s consumer debt is wiped clean, you have to ask yourself why they STILL haven’t been able to make rent on time. Are they accumulating MORE debt (that they won’t be able to “discharge” this time)?

Don’t feel sorry for the daughter. I realize many parents will do ANYTHING to get their kid enrolled in their “school of choice.” It is commonplace in SD County for parents (ESP those who live in MX) to use the addresses of friends, relatives, current vacant REO’s, comm’l properties and even longtime boarded-up residences for school-attendance purposes! Is this fraud? Yes, but the districts don’t have the resources to check. It’s really not your problem. No matter where their daughter goes to HS, she will graduate and get accepted into college if she is a good student.

Ask for the letter from the legitimate fmr landlord like you mentioned and when your prospective tenant produces it (or decides not to because they don’t like what it says), you can then turn him down on that basis. Then he will have no cause for filing a discrimination complaint. Meanwhile, keep advertising for a tenant. If the local school(s) are as good as you say they are, you will get a better applicant soon, likely before school starts.

btw: $86K gross income for this hshld is likely $66K net. You are asking $24K to $26,400 annually in rent which is 36% – 40% of their net income, not incl utils. Your rental might be too expensive for them, considering they still have to pay for heat in winter, etc. Remember that they don’t have any assets so likely have few tax deductions to take.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Brutus] . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_City_Hall

An example of the “Brutalist” style! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! As in “Imagine a boot stomping on a human face, forever.”[/quote]

That kind of looks like it was transplanted to the US from Russia :=0

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN][quote=bearishgurl]Uhh, Fairbanks shares the same CC&R’s as RSF. Any Piggs correct me here if I am in error.[/quote]
Here’s the map from their website: http://www.rsfassociation.org/pages/map.html.

More info about RSF, Fairbanks, Covenant, etc: http://piggington.com/rsf_kicking_out_fairbanks_ranch_cielo_crosby_bridges_whispering_
[/quote]

My question is DID IT REALLY HAPPEN?

Did RSF actually “kick out” FR from the “Covenant,” and if so, did it amend its CC&R’s to reflect this and did FR adopt its own CC&R’s? Or was each subdivision’s CC&R’s in place at the time of their respective build-outs with the RSF Assn (Covenant) acting as the Master Assn?

Just because a few Piggs were “discussing” this on a blog 4.5 years ago does not make it so.

The Assn’s legal expenses in the Dolan-King trial in the lower court alone were $318,293.50. They obtained an atty fee award judgment, both in trial and on appeal, but we don’t know if they have yet been paid any of it.

Why would the Covenant purposely reduce their amount of members when they had legal expenses of this magnitude? This is NOT the only court case they’ve litigated, just the longest-running one.

AN, the map you posted appears to be inconclusive as to the answer to this question.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor]Just to be clear the only one mentioning public sector employees and pensions on this thread was CAR. The boots on the ground were not vilified here so stop being so defensive. It’s a horribly corrupt and inefficient public sector. All the issues are systemic. I have never seen enraged citizens protesting outside fire stations or hurling tomatoes at firemen. I don’t see individuals getting vilified. It’s the system that gets vilified and the boots on the ground whining why are you picking on me when we question the system.[/quote]

Isn’t it this very “system” that you alone are vilifying here which (presumably) draws buyers like moths to a flame to Gridlocked Nirvana (east of I-5) and surrounds simply because they want *newer* construction with restrictive CC&R’s?? Don’t you make your living selling properties in this area … some to well-qualified “public sector” employees?

These same buyers could very likely get a better-built (poss custom) “luxury” LARGER HOME with better appts (ex. floor to ceiling rock FP) with WIDE RV access on a MUCH LARGER lot for the same or LESS money in 91902, 92019, 92028, 92084, 92001, etc. Instead they are flocking to CC&R/MR encumbered properties in and adjacent to your stomping grounds, many with small lots. Isn’t it these very CC&R’s that your clients are paying for because they supposedly “desire” them??

Your memory seems to be failing you. You’re biting the hand that feeds you.

Twice here, I’ve offered you, NSR and “harvey” your chance to work on changing “the system” many weeks ago by rewriting legislation for your representatives and even offered to proofread your work. So far, no one has taken me up on that offer.

It seems that now you must accept the things for which you cannot change. The Covenant is entitled to set their own design standards, change them on a majority vote of the Board and enforce their *latest* standards (even unrecorded) upon the property owners within it as long as they adhere to the notice requirements of the *new* guidelines and the enforcement of such passes the “reasonableness” test.

The justices have spoken.

When you pick up your kid from critter camp today, why don’t you take some more pics of the new RSF fire stn so the Piggs can enjoy viewing it from different angles? :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor]CE
That fire station is in Fairbanks far outside the view of the covenant and it’s keepers. Nothing in the area looks anything like it. There are fruit stands around the corner operating like my daughters occasional forray into lemonade sales.

I’m not calling out union corruption on this. I have no idea whether there was any or if union labor was even involved. This is an obscene waste of public monies. It’s not just the tax dollars either. The developer fees could have been used for a lot of things other than ornate stone work that adds nothing other than making the building stand out as a monument to excess.[/quote]

Uhh, Fairbanks shares the same CC&R’s as RSF. Any Piggs correct me here if I am in error.

A “fruit stand” is not a permanent building. Did you ever consider that the “fruit stand operators” might have a county-issued permit to sell their produce?

sdr, why don’t you step outside your brokerage in the morning and wake up one of those shopping-cart-toting individuals under your eaves and pay him/her a small pittance to clean your windows. Maybe then the passers-by will be able to see the RE listing ads better that you placed on them and you’ll eventually get enough “walk-in biz” to keep you occupied so as not to be as “bothered” by the “crown jewel” of RSF.

Wha-a-a-at? You’re saying you don’t get up that early?? Well then, why don’t you give “Ms Caymus” a rain-check tonight (if you are still able to) so you can stumble down the stairs a couple of hours earlier!!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=HLS][quote=lpjohnso] we decided to do the entire $40,000+ remodel on our credit cards. They are low interest, but still, none-the-less, a terrible decision, but we knew that when we did it. We are claiming ‘0’ on our taxes, so we are on the 5 year plan to pay the cards off with each tax refund (last year’s refund was $10,000)..[/quote]

I would suggest raising your exemptions and getting more money in every paycheck and pay down credit cards as quickly as possible. Forget about the $10K check once a year.

I see no benefit to loaning the govt your money at 0% while you are paying daily interest on your credit cards. It is really silly to wait until next year to get a big check.

Did you max out credit cards with low rates for the life of the balance… Does the low rate apply for 4-5 years ?
You may have a way out of this sooner than you think.[/quote]

Very good advice, HLS.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=HLS] . . . With FHA loans it is possible that MIP payments will go up, making a refi less attractive, even at a lower interest rate.

I believe FHA is a problem, not a solution.[/quote]

Yes, HLS, the already-exorbitant FHA MIP just went up this past April 1 and it very well could go up again, since these loans are losing more money every month that goes by.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=21593

I predict the program will be insolvent within two years from today as there is not enough of an insurance “cushion” combined on all the recent high-ceiling loans they made in recent years.

FHA IS the problem. The officials running the program are rock-dumb. In the last decade its ceiling has exploded into levels sufficient to buy a “luxury home” in SD County with a 3.5% downpayment! This is NOT what the FHA 203b program was put in place for! Its lending limit should be no higher than $300K in SD County and that is really pushing it. The program was orginally put in place in 1934 to give first-time and/or moderate income buyers a “leg up” in a home purchase for a principal residence. Here are some examples of properties (and the homebuyers who will purchase them) for which the program was intended to serve:

http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-110058443-2730_Bonita_St_Lemon_Grove_CA_91945

http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-110067477-2621_Calle_Tres_Lomas_San_Diego_CA_92139

http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-120007011-1634_Portola_Ave_Spring_Valley_CA_91977

http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-120016884-1310_L_Ave_National_City_CA_91950

http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-110048073-5976_Fennell_Ave_San_Diego_CA_92114

http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-110066308-4917_Magnus_Way_San_Diego_CA_92113

[bearishgurl]

HLS, I wasn’t thinking Mark was trying to get another FHA loan. I figured he may have spent the last few mos cleaning and fixing so he could possibly obtain an appraisal high enough to get OUT of his FHA purchase money (pm) mtg.

btw, you bring up a good point about subsequent mortgages (taken out after his pm mtg) being “recourse” and I agree that it is important for the borrower to understand that the lender of his refi mtg (even if for the same or lower amt than his pm mtg) could later come after him for the difference between what they could net in an REO sale and how much his delinquent loan balance was (in the event of foreclosure) vs whatever their pm lender could recover from an REO sale would have to satisfy them.

I don’t think too many borrowers really pay attn to this.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor]So the argument we often hear why these public sector palaces are so….well…palacial is that they need to match the community character and design standards. So lets play the old Sesame Street game of “One of these things is not like the others”

Helen Woodward directly across from fire station

[img_assist|nid=16480|title=Helen Woodward|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=316]

…

Barn just up the road

[img_assist|nid=16483|title=Barn|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=358]

…[/quote]

The Rancho Santa Fe Protective Covenant was assembled in 1928, to help preserve and maintain the character of the community and unique land features, as well as establish architectural guidelines to restrict the type of homes and amenities to be built in the area…

The Covenant CC&R’s have been amended many times since then.

http://activerain.com/blogsview/2291910/what-is-the-covenant-of-rancho-santa-fe-san-diego-county-

I’ve left Photos #1 and #4 up because of the age of the buildings. The barn is likely 60-80 yrs old. The Helen Woodward Animal Shelter was built in stages between 1972 and 1983.

http://www.animalcenter.org/about_hwac/history.aspx

I do not have a copy of the Covenant’s CC&R’s (flyer, can you assist us here?) but the buildings depicted above likely predate the RSF “Architectural Committee” or “Art Jury” amendment(s) by decades.

For the sake of illustration, let us compare a South County uninc area (“Sunnyside” 91902) small spec-built infill tract of about 14 “luxury” homes. “Ames Ranch” was completed in 2004 (all but 2 lots) with CC&R’s encumbering. It encompassed only one cul-de-sac, created by the developer. Next to this tract was a dog kennel on 2-3 AC which had been in operation since the early 60’s. It boarded dogs which barked night and day which bothered the new neighbors in the new tract, esp those whose backyards backed into the kennel property. These new owners filed many complaints with the Assn and the county, which went nowhere. The dog kennel had all the necessary permits to operate and was situated in a semi-rural area at least 100 feet from the neighbor on the west and 500 feet from the easterly neighbor … that is, until new owners began moving into Ames Ranch.

Another slightly-newer 9-home spec development situated about 3 mi northwest of Ames Ranch in the South County uninc area of “Bonita Mesa” (91902) is “Vista Pointe,” an infill development of large luxury homes. It had the same fact pattern as Ames Ranch except I don’t believe VP has an HOA. On the southwest corner of this developer-built cul-de-sac, there existed a family-owned chicken ranch on an approx 1 AC parcel which had been in existence for at least 55 years. The *new* VP neighbors complained to the county about the odor of the chicken ranch to no avail.

In the mid-late ’80’s, an “upscale” (for the era) medium-sized tract with dramatic facades (for the era) went up just west of the master-planned community of “Cottonwood” <100 yards south/southeast of an existing commercial egg ranch. Here is a recently closed listing on one of the sts which were most affected by the sulfur odor.

http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-110065824-11741_Calle_Albara_El_Cajon_CA_92019

The new owners complained vociferously of the strong sulfur odors after moving in and the Assn/County could do nothing. I do not know if the egg ranch is still in operation today.

In my third example, the egg ranch was a "stone's throw" to three sts in the tract, but was actually situated on a long private gravel drive not reachable directly from that tract. One would have to drive all the way around an adjacent county park and circle around to the north and back south again to reach the egg ranch (3.5+ mi). Nevertheless, the odors were there intermittently when viewing the builder models and should have been noticed by potential buyers. In all of these cases, the new owners had the oppt'y to notice and should have noticed what was on the adjacent properties PRIOR to going under contract in a new development.

Compare the above scenarios to a new owner moving in under the jet-rising path in 92106 and then complaining to the City about the noise! I'm sure there are many other areas of the county which have infill and tract development adjacent to these pre-existing issues.

Here, there was nothing the RSF Assn could do about the animal shelter or old barn. The other properties in photos #2 and #3 look as if they could be newer and thus went thru some sort of "vetting" by the RSF Assn. Remember that the "amendments" to the CC&R's were a "work in progress" all during this time.

A civil action was filed in 1996 by a new RSF homeowner who sought a judicial determination of the validity and enforceability of certain unrecorded (RSF Assn) guidelines. Later the Assn filed a writ of injunctive and declaratory relief against her (to have her seek the proper permits or tear down her newly-erected wrought-iron fence). The case is interesting but has a bit of convoluted fact pattern. The Assn ended up prevailing eight years later. In part, the 4th DCA found that the challenged (by Dolan-King) RSF Regulatory Code provisions were valid concerning the definition of the terms "major" and "minor" construction.

See https://www.davis-stirling.com/CaseLaw/RanchoSantaFevDolanKing/tabid/845/Default.aspx

Between 1-22-04 (when RSF v Dolan-King was finally published) and July 2006, there were five legislative changes that directly impact CA Architectural Review Committees within HOA’s. Those changes are:

1) Effective July 1, 2006, architectural committees are required to keep meeting minutes. (Civil Code section 1365.2(a)(1)(H).) These minutes must be made available to members, upon request. (Civil Code section 1365.2(b)(1).) The association may withhold or redact information because of privacy, privilege under law, or if the information may lead to fraud in connection with the association. (Civil Code section 1365.2(d).)

2) Architectural committee decisions must be in writing. (Civil Code section 1378(4).)

3) If the proposed change is disapproved, the notice of the decision sent to the homeowner must include an explanation of why the proposed change was not approved and provide a description of the procedure for reconsideration of the decision by the board. (Civil Code section 1378(a)(4).)

4) If an application is denied, associations are required to have a procedure in place to allow homeowners to appeal the architectural committee’s decision to the board. (Civil Code section 1378(a)(4).)

5) Associations are required to annually mail a notice to all homeowners describing the association’s application process. The notice must describe the common changes that require association approval and include a copy of the procedure used to review and approve or deny a proposed change. (Civil Code section 1378(c).)

The above “landmark” published version of this opinion can be cited as Rancho Santa Fe Association v. Patricia Dolan-King (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 28 and has been affirmatively cited throughout CA courts many times since then.

The likely reason for the RSF Fire District’s heavy compliance with the Board’s Architectural Committee or “Art Jury” is due to the fact that, if sued by the Assn to be “out of compliance” after they had already built part or all of the fire stn, they would very likely lose. The District was looking out for its own self-interests (and those of their taxpayers) when they brought all their plans for the new station to the Committee first. It’s really as simple as that and had NOTHING to do with those who work in the building, “public sector porn,” or the “system.”

[bearishgurl]

[quote=lpjohnso]… As far as I understand, the $2000 is a refund from our existing escrow account that will be due to us within 30 days after closing.[/quote]

lp, will the “refund” be due to your property being reassessed downward by the assessor or due to elimination of MIP and thus the advanced MIP premiums you had sitting in the impound acct of your previous FHA loan?

If you will actually be getting rid of your FHA MIP’s, then this (conv?) refi so soon after you purchased is probably worth it, IMHO.

[Author]

Posts