[bearishgurl]

[quote=paramount]There is a back story to all of this:

In early July I decided to terminate the management contract on my property; for a number of reasons but mainly b/c I no longer trusted them.

Then I noticed the management company had not disbursed the rental income to my account. So I call them and they state that since I had cancelled my contract, they would need to hold the rent money until they determined that I did not owe them money.

Then that same day, I get the email notice from my tenant.

Specifically that the lease was being terminated under the SCRA (Service Members Relief Act).[/quote]

Under the SCRA, the tenant needs to show you one of three things in order to legally “jump” his/her lease and not be liable for the remainder of it:

1. Permanent Change of Station (PCS) orders which show the (imminent) reporting date to the new duty station which is more than 50 miles from your rental unit.

2. A Form DD-214 showing the tenant has separated from the service and thus is losing his/her housing allowance and moving/retiring elsewhere.

3. A processed and accepted military housing voucher from a Navy/MC Family Housing Office showing the move-in date of a servicemember and his/her family who have been wait-listed.

If he/she can’t come up with any of these, you have the right to the unpaid rental proceeds. Handle everything professionally like the other posters mentioned and then send your servicemember a letter detailing the disposition of their security deposit (and check, if applicable). You can’t take unpaid forward rent out of it. Then file a small claim for the duration of the lease and serve it on him or his local command if he is still stationed there. Meanwhile, clean it up and advertise it for rent again. If you re-rent it to a qualified tenant before the expiration of the servicemember’s lease, then you won’t be able to collect “double rent” for the weeks/months your new tenant is in there. But don’t dismiss the small claim. Go into court and reduce it by the amount collected (and to be collected) by the new tenant (who might be paying less rent). The judge will send you both outside to try to settle the case.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu]VAB’s are assessed as a percentage of assessed value, not as a fixed rate. So in your quoted example, $255 is NOT going to be the assessed value for a SFH… Those charges consistently the same percentage of assessed value. Afterall, they aren’t fixed charge…..Right????[/quote]

Right. The VAB’s are an ad valorem tax. HOWEVER, I believe there may be a ceiling on these VAB’s as it would seem to be unconscionable to tax a property owner of a multimillion-dollar property at an ad-valorem rate for voter-approved bonds.

This bears further research and I am very curious about this so will get to it ASAP.

[quote=flu]I’m making this argument in response to a few arguments before in which some folks said why would one want to live in north county where it predominately has MR, when they can live in the parts of the county (insert your favorite non-north county/older city) that has no MR…What wasn’t apparent to me is those parts of the county have VAB’s where my part of the county doesn’t. So it’s a near wash in terms of taxes paid for the prices of homes that I live in now..And if I ever live in a 2+million mcmansion, it actually works out better if the property is in CarmelV versus ChulaV or MM (if you just consider the property taxes alone, assuming you could even find a home worth 2+million in ChulaV or MM) because the VAB on a 2+million assessed home in ChulaV or MM would end up being more than the fixed MR in CarmelV and CarmelV would have no VAB.[/quote]

A few things, here, flu. No one here is touting metro over north county or south county over east county. MR is everywhere! And North County doesn’t isn’t predominately MR-encumbered. Only the planned communities in lizardland are MR encumbered. And CV (92130) could have VAB’s in the future. What is the ratio of rental units to owner occupied units in CV? Could tenants possibly be instrumental in voting in bond issues in CV in the future, to the detriment of owners? It’s not like an individual property owner has any control over this. If ever voted in, these VAB’s would be on top of your MR. And I don’t buy your argument that a property currently assessed at $2M in CV would have VAB’s on its tax bill which would exceed your MR, which you say is “fixed” in your CFD(s).

This warrants further research. Thanks for starting this interesting thread, flu.

And btw, there are several homes in 91910 (ChulaV) likely assessed at $2M (possibly a dozen). And another dozen (at least) which are assessed much lower (or even protected under the Mills Act or Prop 13) but would appraise today for $2M :=]

Not sure about the other four ChulaV zip codes but would guess 0-3 in 91911, 0 in 91913, 8 in 91914 and 0 in 91915. And not sure MM would have $2M properties (ask AN) but would have to say no. MM is entirely on tract.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=bearishgurl]flu, these “fixed charge assessments” (FCA’s) are charged to every parcel in the county. For the MM condo, they are $30.36 per yr. For a typical SFR assessed at about $300K, they are about $40 to $43 per yr.

FIXED CHARGE ASSMTS: PHONE
MOSQUITO SURVEILLANC 800-273-5167 3.00
CWA WTR AVAILABILITY 858-522-6900 10.00
MWD WTR STANDBY CHRG 866-807-6864 11.50
VECTOR DISEASE CTRL 800-273-5167 5.86

[/quote]

I stand corrected here. The universal FCA’s for SFR’s in SD Co appear to be $29.64. I just looked at my tax bill, then sdr’s sample, then AN’s SEH sample and a couple of other random samples. They’re all $29.64.

Not sure why the MM condo fixed charges are $30.36. This bears further research on condo tax bills.

flu, you are correct that these are “fixed” charges.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN][quote=flu]Yes, but does SEJ have bonds for the local schools and MR for the local schools at the same time?[/quote]
I think so…

1% TAX ON NET VALUE NET 1.00000 5,748.54
VOTER APPROVED BONDS:
UNIFIED BOND SAN MARCOS-SFID, 6/04/96, 2004-1 REF NET 0.01436 82.54
UNIFIED BOND SAN MARCOS-PROP K 11/02/10 SER 2010A NET 0.04400 252.93
PALOMAR COMMUNITY COLL PROP M 11/07/06, 2006A NET 0.00959 55.12
PALOMAR COMMUNITY COLL PROP M 11/07/06, 2006B NET 0.00425 24.43
MWD D/S REMAINDER OF SDCWA 15019999 NET 0.00370 21.26
TOTAL ON NET VALUE 1.07590 6184.82
FIXED CHARGE ASSMTS: PHONE
CFD 98-01 760-744-1050 Ext. 3127 279.18
MWD WTR STANDBY CHRG 866-807-6864 11.50
MOSQUITO SURVEILLANC 800-273-5167 2.28
CWA WTR AVAILABILITY 858-522-6900 10.00
CFD 98-02 IA #F-9 760-744-1050 Ext. 3127 108.68
CFD 99-01 IA #A1 760-744-1050 Ext. 3133 2193.84
CFD 98-02 760-744-1050 Ext. 3127 214.72
VECTOR DISEASE CTRL 800-273-5167 5.86
TOTAL AMOUNT 9010.90[/quote]

VAB’s = 436.28

FCA’s = $29.64

MR = $2796.42

Subject property or comparable assessed at $574,854 in SM/Palomar CC School Districts:

Without MR: $436.28 VAB’s + $29.64 FCA’s + $5,748.54 (1% tax) = $6214.46.

VAB’s + FCA’s = $465.92.

465.92/5748.54 = 8% (percentage of VAB’s + FCA’s to base tax)

********************************

With MR: $436.28 VAB’s + $29.64 FCA’s + $2796.42 + $5,748.54 = $9010.88

VAB’s + FCA’s + MR = $3,262.34

3262.34/5748.54 = 57% (percentage of MR + VAB’s + FCA’s to base tax)

[bearishgurl]

flu, these “fixed charge assessments” (FCA’s) are charged to every parcel in the county. For the MM condo, they are $30.36 per yr. For a typical SFR assessed at about $300K, they are about $40 to $43 per yr.

FIXED CHARGE ASSMTS: PHONE
MOSQUITO SURVEILLANC 800-273-5167 3.00
CWA WTR AVAILABILITY 858-522-6900 10.00
MWD WTR STANDBY CHRG 866-807-6864 11.50
VECTOR DISEASE CTRL 800-273-5167 5.86

The “Voter-Approved Bonds” (VAB’s) on the MM condo come to only $225.12 per yr.

VOTER APPROVED BONDS:
UNIFIED BOND SAN DIEGO 1999A NET 0.00809 16.15
UNIFIED BOND SAN DIEGO 2000B NET 0.00614 12.26
UNIFIED BOND SAN DIEGO 2001C NET 0.00766 15.29
UNIFIED BOND SAN DIEGO 2002D NET 0.00985 19.66
UNIFIED BOND SAN DIEGO 2003E NET 0.01420 28.35
UNIFIED BOND SAN DIEGO SERIES 1998F REFUNDING NET 0.00312 6.23
UNIFIED BOND SAN DIEGO SERIES 1998G REFUNDING NET 0.00429 8.56
UNIFIED BOND SAN DIEGO 2006 SERIES F-1 REFUNDING NET 0.00430 8.58
UNIFIED BOND SAN DIEGO 2005 SERIES G-1 REFUNDING NET 0.00353 7.04
UNIF BOND SAN DIEGO-PROP S 11/04/08, SERIES 2009A NET 0.00099 1.97
UNIF BOND SAN DIEGO-PROP S 11/04/08, SERIES 2009B NET 0.00453 9.04
UNIF BOND SAN DIEGO-PROP S 11/04/08, SERIES 2010C NET 0.00000 0.00
UNIF BOND SAN DIEGO-PROP S 11/04/08, 2010D QSCB NET 0.00000 0.00
SAN DIEGO COMM COLL-PROP S 11/05/02, SERIES 2003A NET 0.00117 2.33
SAN DIEGO COMM COLL-PROP S 11/05/02, SERIES 2003B NET 0.01033 20.62
SAN DIEGO COMM COLL-PROP N 11/07/06, SERIES 2006A NET 0.00944 18.84
SAN DIEGO COMM COLL-PROP S 11/05/02, SERIES 2009C NET 0.00397 7.92
SAN DIEGO COMM COLL-PROP S 11/05/02, SER 2011 REF NET 0.00089 1.77
SAN DIEGO COMM COLL-PROP N 11/07/06, SERIES 2011 NET 0.00679 13.55
SAN DIEGO COMM COLL-PROP S 11/05/02, SERIES 2011 NET 0.00481 9.60
SAN DIEGO CITY OPEN SPACE FACILITY DIST NO. 1 D/S NET 0.00000 0.00
SAN DIEGO CITY ZOOLOGICAL EXHIBITS – DEBT SERVICE NET 0.00500 9.98
SAN DIEGO CITY PUBLIC SAFETY COMM SYS – DEBT SERV NET 0.00000 0.00
MWD D/S REMAINDER OF SDCWA 15019999 NET 0.00370 7.38

The total of FCA’s and VAB’s is $255.48. Since the condo is only assessed at ~$200K, that is 13% of the base tax. But on a typical MM SFR assessed at $350K … it’s only 7.3% of the tax … and progressively less of a percentage the higher the assessed value of the property, assuming the same amount of MR is charged to every parcel in the CFD.

flu, this is not an apples to apples comparison of MR to base tax. For example, lets take a newer condo in ChulaV now reassessed at ~$202K which has MR. We’ll go back to a couple of them we discussed in a recent thread briansd1 posted in his OP. (btw, the thread was from March 2012 and neither of these two Fannie-owned REO condos have sold yet.)

http://piggington.com/cv_chula_vista_not_carmel_valley

[quote=bearishgurl on March 13, 2012 – 3:30pm.][quote=briansd1]BG, the tax amount will get reset to be based on the new purchase price. So that should not be a problem.[/quote]

I fully understand this and that is why I posted the current assessed values. HOWEVER, the portion of the tax bill for CFDs will be a set amount, over and above whatever the property is assessed at.

I switched a couple of figures on the comparable tax bills of the smaller condo.

It should should read “…$3,018.32 (for a $186K assessed value) and $3,415.00 (for a $202K assessed value).”

Sorry for any confusion.[/quote]

The larger condo (Cherry Blossom) now has a $2020 base tax. This means any VAB, FCA’s plus MR total $1395 (3415-2020). $1395/$2020 = 69% of the base tax!. The current asking price is $219,900.

The smaller condo (Barbados) now has an $1860 base tax. this means any VAB’s, FCA’s plus MR total $1158.32 (3018.32-1860). $1158.32/1860 = 62% of the base tax! The current asking price is $195K.

Of course, the percentage of MR/FCA’s/VAB’s to base tax is higher on lower-assessed properties such as these condos. I don’t know if the newest tracts in CVista price the MR acc to the sq footage of the house. I’ll have to do some research on a 4-5 bdrm tract I’m familiar with and repost my findings.

Conclusion: percentage of MR/FCA’s/VAB’s to base tax is far higher on MR-encumbered tracts.

MM condo assessed at ~$200K = 13%

Otay Ranch condo (Barbados) assessed at $186K = 62%

Otay Ranch condo (Cherry Blossom) assessed at $202K = 69%

I have no doubt that on some of the SFR’s in 91914 and 91915, the current MR + FCA’s + VAB’s + base tax (- HOEX) = MORE than the mo principal + interest + 1/12 of the annual homeowners ins premium! This doesn’t even include mo dues to the two HOA’s encumbering the tracts.

The reason for this is because many SFR’s which sold new at $530K to $730K at the peak down there have been recently sold short (or sold as REO’s) for $330K to $380K with 20% down with extremely low interest rate mortgages!!

Even if these savvy? (not so sure about that) new buyers decide to pay their properties off in a few years, they are STILL STUCK with the MR for 32 more years and two monthly HOA dues. This is over and above what a non-MR/non-HOA property owner just 2-3 mi away would pay if they decide to pay off their comparably-assessed SFR.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=LAAFTERHOURS]Thanks SDR. Off to another Firestorm state – Denver CO.[/quote]

Good choice, LA! I am very familiar with Denver, CO. I know some parts of it like the back of my hand. Here are some past threads I contributed to re: Denver.

http://www.piggington.com/the_new_style_of_single_family_house_what039s_your_thought

http://www.piggington.com/investment_propertycoastal_vs_escondido?page=1

http://www.piggington.com/another_san_diegan_moving_to_denver_me

If you have any questions, please feel free pm me.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu]Pull up your assessment, I’d be curious to see how things are broken down in your neck of the woods (removing the actual dollar amount if you so choose) or pick your neighbor house….[/quote]

I’d be a little hard-pressed to “pick” a neighbors house, flu. So many of them are protected by “Prop 13” and I would surmise their avg tax bills are $350-$800 annually :=[

[bearishgurl]

In Eastlake Hills (91913 – circa ’87-92), I believe the MR were apportioned acc to the sq footage of the home. Actually, most of these MR bonds were 20 yr and are now retired. These owners still have two HOA’s to pay mo dues to, however, or they can choose to pay the Master Assn annually.

In several tracts of Rancho Del Rey (91910 – circa ’91-92), this MR used for “street bonds” around the approx four mile circle was also for 20 years and I believe this MR was also apportioned to owners depending on their sq footage (not sure, going to check on this one).

flu, the MR in parts of 91914 and all of 91915 is HUGE. In many cases, it amounts to more than 2.73% of assessed value, when added into the Prop 13 portion of the tax! This is really wacky for those properties just 1400-1700 sf on a 3400 sf lot. The MR + taxes + 2 HOA dues are often MORE per month than the P&I + annual insurance premium. Remember that these areas ALSO pay all those “voter approved” school bonds you see on the tax bill + the MR for their *new* schools!

edit: I’ll provide a tax bill illustrating the extremely HIGH MR owners are paying in 91914/91915 (in relation to assessed value) when I return.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu] … Why are there all there all these assessments related to bonds in MM and ChulaV but not in CarmelV?[/quote]

flu, if you check “random” tax bills around the county closely, you will see that these bonds are for construction (or maintenance, in the case of special districts such as fire) which are “Voter Approved.”

The voters in that jurisdiction actually voted them in. Most construction/maintenance bonds usually last for 10+ years.

Aside from voter-approved bonds, if the property is adjacent to RR tracks, the owners will be charged for track maintenance. If the property is in a fire-prone area (ex: Julian and surrounds), the owners will be charged for a contract with fire-retardant helicopters for quick response. If the property is adjacent to a flood plain, the owners will be charged for keeping in shored up and flood-control measures and response. If the property is near drainage canals, the owners will be charged for rat, snake and ‘possum control. If the property is situated in an uninc area and has access to sewer, the owners will be charged for their annual sewer usage (usually $300+) on their tax bill.

And the list goes on. There is no free lunch.

All property owners should pay attn to the local Props on their ballots and determine what they are willing to pay for prior to voting. Unfortunately, renters can vote in (66.7% of vote) school construction bonds by themselves without even a quorum of surrounding property owners and they don’t have to pay them. :=[

So, for illustration purposes, about 1/3 of the voters in a jurisdiction are property owners with school-age children, 1/3 are property owners without school-age children and 1/3 are renters (with or w/o school-age children).

Only the 1% portion of the assessed value portion of the tax bill (minus any $7K HOEX taken by the owner) is the part that is raised 2% per year pursuant to Prop 13.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flyer] . . . but many are not according to the stats.[/quote]

This is no doubt due to the most “expensive” unexpected life events which happen to MANY PEOPLE: divorce, death of a spouse and catastrophic health issues. Bad business decisions comes in fourth.

It is hard to recover from these things when you are 50+.

[bearishgurl]

A lot of central LA County and inland Orange County seems like an “armpit” to me. And personal safety is spurious in most of these parts and also based upon luck, IMHO.

Give me Encanto (sd) at the 3-way at 69th and Lisbon any day of the week!

[bearishgurl]

I actually exited to buy gas once (cuz I needed it right then and there) at none other than a “Burbank” exit (which was much less than what I would consider a “stellar” area to exit in with a kid and dog in tow). I would have felt a bit more comfortable exiting the 5 in Downey or Hawaiian Gardens, just cuz I am more familiar with South LA Co. Or even Figueroa on the west side.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor]…In Logan Heights they would get directions….[/quote]

Yes, but likely in Spanish…

[bearishgurl]

[quote=pemeliza]BG may rub some people the wrong way but I believe that there is some truth in what she says.

However … BG you seem to be referring to an era in SD when housing close to downtown SD was much more affordable. When you could buy an old house close in to SD for 150k-200k that had good bones and a great location, that was certainly an attractive proposition for a middle class family. These days that same house is 600-700k and frankly for that kind of money most people are not looking for a “project”. BTW, those same families that bought when prices in SD were dirt cheap are also some of the main benefactors of prop 13 and have ridiculously low property tax bills now compared to what today’s family is looking at.[/quote]

I would say it was primarily the oldest set of boomers (over 60 today) who were able to avail themselves of Prop 13. And many of the ones that did and purchased a 1500 sf property in the best area they could afford in the ’70’s DIDN’T MOVE UP when their kids filled the house! They just added on or remodeled to fit their families and did so WHILE they occupied it. Often their lots were sufficient to do this for a one-story. Some even added second stories WHILE their families were living in a portion of it! And some, like myself, purchased another home instead, although I wouldn’t call what we did “moving up.” Except for maybe one property, they were “lateral moves” very close geographically to one another … to make small profits.

pem, I understand the price has gone up exponentially for a well-located, well-built older home in SD Co with “good bones.” HOWEVER, in this time period professional salaries have also gone up, vacation time has gone WAY up at most firms (which could be used for DIY, like we did) and, most importantly, mortgage interest rates have PLUMMETED in recent years.

Our conventional mtgs ranged from 7.25% to 11.5% (or T-Bill/COFI ARMS).

The properties we bought ranged from $73K to $267K and ALL were 4 bdrm w/garages, ranging from 3-16 mi from dtn SD. ALL needed some work but ALL were “livable” upon COE (most after haul-away trips to the dump).

Honestly, I don’t understand why a young family of today would prefer Stonebridge over Del Cerro or Fleetridge (both with many stunning-view properties at the same price point). In the big picture, who CARES if some still have Formica in the kitchens?? I’d move in and start cooking in my knotty-pine kitchen with Formica countertops (PL) and “vintage” built-ins if I could afford to buy a place there! It can all be fixed later. But that’s just me.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu]Not following something about Generation X and Y being in debt prison. Last time I checked, I’m pretty close to debt free. Well, actually, I have a loan balance, but that’s because interest is low so it doesn’t necessarily make sense (for my specific case) to own outright.

Not sure about the history… Time/things change.. Perhaps not necessarily applicable.. But I do like how seems like the school district is just doing swanky well in areas where people can afford the mello ruse (sic) while a good portion of the rest of the state is having issues with the state budget crisis.. Time to start going to my alumni meets so my kid has the option of going to ivy’s…At this rate, cost might not be any different..[/quote](italics added)

flu, you are clearly the exception here. And my understanding is that your tract’s MR is not very high. (Correct me if I’m wrong.) I’m aware that a HUGE portion of MR is allocated the respective public school districts. If a young family only has a baby or toddler or a buyer’s children have already finished school, why pay MR years before you have to or years after your family doesn’t use the schools anymore! For that matter, why pay it at all? Is the difference is school services the MR buys really WORTH $2500 to $5000+ annually? The reason I ask this is because MR is not typically used for teacher salaries. It is used for infrastructure, maintenance and possibly programs (not sure about this).

In almost all the CA districts, the most experienced teachers with the most seniority are granted the work assignments of their choice. More often than not, these choices are schools in the the most established areas where families have the resources for school lunches, school trips, extracurricular activities, etc. These schools very often are in older (expensive) coastal areas.

Buying a family home in a well-established, well-heeled older urban area in CA coastal counties all but assures your child of a good education, sans the MR and transiency of a large portion of the student body, IMHO.

Going to your college alumni meetups is a good idea, just to cultivate professional relationships for yourself. Obviously, if you are ever in a position to leave an endowment to your alma mater, that might very well “assist” your kid in getting accepted. I would do so no more than two years before your kid applies to said university, so the “admissions board” has a crystal clear memory of it.

But flu, isn’t your kid only about 5 yrs old? It’s a bit soon to know what she would even want to major in or where she would want to go.

[Author]

Posts