[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1]pri-dk pointed out before that California is about land development and urban sprawl.

In America, cities and neighborhoods are constantly rising and decaying. Lifestyles change and houses become functionally obsolete.

BG, you’re old already and you want everything to remain the same until you die. But remember, the world goes on without you. Population will grow and people will want to live in houses that are functionally appealing to them.[/quote]

brian, your “urban-village” concept may very well become a reality in the next 10-20 years on and in close proximity to major thoroughfares in cities. But your “pie-in-the-sky” ideas that all residential housing should be fresh, new and built densely or heavily modernized flies in the face of reality. That reality is that individual property rights prevail and the decision-makers currently running the show are, for the most part, baby boomers and older. The youngest “boomer” is now about 47.5 yrs old and the oldest “boomer” is now about 64.5 yrs old. This vast demographic spanning nearly two generations isn’t kicking the bucket anytime soon. They represent your elected officials, your appointed officials and your never-ending supply of NIMBY’s up and down the coast of CA. The few Gen-Xers filling these official seats are mentored by …. you guessed it, boomers!

Get used to it. You will likely be very old by the time you see your long wished-for monorail leaving your downtown condo and speeding thru Balboa Park before stopping in front of your doctor’s appt at Mercy Medical Group in Hillcrest in 2.5 mins flat :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=bobby]a little update.
this time I will use concrete numbers as this will be more illustrative.

wife and I dutifully go to open houses every Sunday 1-4pm.
we had originally budgeted $900-950K and below (in order to go under the conforming amount of $625K) and get the best mortgage rates. We could borrow more but don’t want to.
we found out that we don’t like anything at this price range.
So we started checking out pricier houses a couple of weeks ago.

We had been going without an agent but met one who is very eager to show us some local properties. He showed us properties running about $1 to 1.1 million. My wife love them. This agent asked us to place bid of $25-50K over asking price. He thinks this will give us the best chance.
I am reluctant to do this b/c this sounds like a game. Also this requires stretching the budget.

Wife and I decided to wait b/c we saw how crowded the open houses are – market is likely very heated.

To confirm our suspicion, our agent let us know the result of the properties we are interested in.

property 1. Asking $1055K. Sold in 4 days after accepting bid (we drove by and verified this. Likely all cash and no contigency)
property 2. Asking $1050K. Sold in 6 days at $1062 (seller agent is partner of our RE agent so he got the scoop).
property 3. Asking $975. In escrow after 3 days. not sure of amount.

we think we are better of waiting till fall. We will still be searching but it’s looking like 2005 all over again.[/quote]

bobby, I am in agreement with SDR that you take a short break to reassess your wants. It sounds like your spouse’s wants trump yours. In the meantime, find out exactly what properties 1 and 3 actually sold for. You need to have a very candid discussion with your spouse about her continuing to be employed FT into oblivion (children or no children), IMHO (taking 6 to 10-week paid maternity leaves). This is the reality. You need to discuss with her in detail why she thinks she needs more square footage or a more modernized house than what is available in your price range. You need to discuss your ability to remodel a property room by room, even if you have to have the work contracted and if this will leave you feeling more comfortable than taking on a jumbo conforming mtg.

Your mutual housing decisions are a two-way street. If you wish to ride a bike to work and save gas, your wants should also be considered by your spouse, IMO.

Your spouse needs to understand exactly what your life will be like if you and she have to commute over a bridge or down to SJ/Morgan Hill every day and also possibly pick up kids after work (in order for her to get what she wants in your price range).

You don’t really sound like you are comfortable paying $1M for a house and your preferred area (peninsula) will NOT become cheaper, IMO. The “season” you’re shopping in makes no difference. I would not take out a mortgage for $100-$200K more than I was comfortable with, even if my spouse wanted to. It is a sure recipe for marital strife down the road and could put your family home at risk for foreclosure if you (likely) find yourself having to borrow (from your “downpayment equity”) in the future to survive.

Sometimes it takes a little break from “shopping” while you gather information in order to come back in as a RE buyer with a little more reasonable expectations.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=The-Shoveler]There is plenty of land especially in North county, they just don’t want YOU living on it!!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303302504577323353434618474.html
Job centers change, once far off bedroom communities become new hi Tech Job centers all the time.
Irvine, Valencia, Carlsbad, ….. Next !!

I could add Simi Valley, Arcadia, even Ausaz & Chino hills these days, all it takes is a few enginerds and some office space.[/quote]

I read Cox’ article, above. He’s been around a long time but has it all wrong, IMO. He seems to think that people will want to forever commute from further and further out of job centers to their employers (assuming any land is even available for development outside of the fringes).

I realize that reducing greenhouse gases (and even water usage) is a priority among CA regional public officials but I don’t think they are actually wanting to build “massive high-rises” or “30 units per AC” in the entirety of CA’s urban cores. In many, many of these coastal urban cities, the people who bought into some of these “enclaves” inside or adjacent to an “urban core” over the last six decades did so for the express reason of its “downzoned” status and that no apts/condos would ever be built there. 92106, 92118 and 92037 are examples in SD County where multifamily units are highly segregated from SFR neighborhoods by wide commercial thoroughfares. There would be much too much opposition from residents in these areas who paid a lot of money and spent a lot of money on their properties to get any hairbrained idea such as this to even make it on a ballot.

In SD, I could see massive upzoning happening along SD’s commercial thoroughfares such as EC Blvd and University Ave but I don’t see it happening along side streets which are not thoroughfares. Scattered mid-rise apts/condos will likely be built in smaller cities in the future. We’ve had one large parcel cordoned off for several years now in the middle of dtn Chula Vista for this purpose and the opposition to it has been monumental. I don’t see it like Cox sees it. If I’m reading his prediction right, I don’t understand what incentive developers have to build highrise apt/condos in Tracy, CA, so these poor fools who live in them can commute 70+ miles one way to work. There are plenty of cheap SFR’s already there and many are currently sitting vacant! When a developer decides to build a project, he/she has to consider if there will even be a market for it.

I just don’t see a looming terrible “housing shortage” in CA, not even 20 years from now. At present, nearly all areas of the state are grossly overbuilt and SFR vacancies are very high.

Cox also talks about homes in CA being “twice the price” of the rest of the country. Wrong again. He needs to compare apples to apples. The best, most convenient, prestigious and and close-in addresses in ALL major US cities are not “cheap” today and never will be. Except for oceanfront property, the prices of SD’s best addresses are in line with the best addresses of Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Tulsa, Denver, MD/VA/Wash DC area and likely a lot of other major cities that I’m unfamiliar with.

Cox is of the opinion that if only infill is built in CA urban areas from here on out that it will cause prices to rise substantially and cause people and biz to flee CA (as in the nineties – btw at least half of those who fled have come back, lol). I don’t agree with this. Lots of choices exist in CA in every price range.

CA doesn’t owe everyone (from lesser expensive areas in the nation’s midsection) who wants to live here “cheap” housing. Just like in Houston, if you came from a suburban area 60 miles out, you will have to buy the same here unless you have a lot of cash put away earmarked for a downpayment. The place you will buy here might be 2000-3000 sf for the same price you paid for your 4500 sf mcmansion outside of Houston’s beltway.

When comparing density and prices of housing markets in the US, I think you need to compare urban with urban, suburban with suburban, exurban with exurban and rural with rural.

I am in hopes that rampant urban sprawl is gone in CA for good. We don’t need any more tract developments built, the cities/counties will not have enough funds and CA will not have enough natural resources (namely water) to service the areas we already have.

I want to add that people who moved coastal CA counties from out of state before about 1990 did NOT expect to buy or rent a mcmansion in exurbia. They were happy with a WWII box in the city, a 50’s rancher or ranchette, or an 1800-2500 sf Mediterranean in the suburbs on a 10K – 20K lot. Why should it be any different now?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdsurfer]…Worst investement? Even if it cash flows and is in a great area where the rents tend to stay high and most people do not ever want to leave?

Monthly fee will never go down…I know that, but would’nt rent go up…increasing my cash flow or increasing my own reserves toward future mainteinance of the property?

Special Assessment…would’nt that be a write off?

Ticking time bombs…Are they all inexperienced? I’ll agree that some boards are sub-par, but I believe 4 out of 5 board members in the community I’m thinking of live in the community and have for over 10 years. I would think that qualifies them.

Only a small group to pay the fees…would’nt spreading the cost of a new roof over a number or owners be better than having to pay the entire expense yourself?

I really just like the idea of critically thinking for yourself to make your own decisions…[/quote]

sdsurfer, unless the roof leaks and is beyond repair, it likely doesn’t need replacement. I don’t currently own any rentals but have in the past and would prefer to “critically think for myself” whether my propertie(s) actually need new roofs (or not). The same can be said for any other repair/replacements that condo associations specially-assess their owners for.

My posted opinion was based upon the presumption of a property owner’s right to control all aspects of his or her property. This is impossible (and also illegal) with the presence of an HOA in the mix.

As a landlord, I wouldn’t want to be told what to do (within reason) and/or how to manage my property. I wouldn’t want to be fined for the children of my tenant repeatedly chasing a ball through a garden on assn land. I realize a city/county has the right to zone the use of my property and could cite me for high weeds, excessive “storage” of junk visible on my property (both visible from the street) or failure to evict well-known local narcotics dealers. But as a landlord, that’s all the “control” I’m willing to concede to someone else. It’s hard enough managing one’s own rental property without another layer of bureaucracy in the way costing a fortune and untold headaches for a LL.

If my smallish rental SFR needs a roof, I am free to critically think for myself to choose T-lock shingles and have the entire job done for =<$5K in the absence of a HOA. I am free to use cheaper landscaping and fencing than a typical HOA would use. I am free to hire my bro-in-law to roof the place or even do the job myself. I am free to cut a deal with a tenant to maintain the landscaping for a rent credit. The law and local custom does not require or force me (due to what tenants expect in the local SFR rental market) to pay ANY utilities for them, have ANY personal utility accounts open for that property in my name or even have them turned on prior to a tenant's occupancy! Not so with condo rental properties. As an "investment owner," many of these freedoms are taken away from you and relegated to the condo assn board (who often have wildly diverging levels from one another of expertise, knowledge of property mgmt law and motives for choosing to be board members). Unlike a detached SFR, when in escrow for the purchase of a condo property with shared walls, a buyer's inspector is often only able to do a limited inspection of the areas he/she can access and issue a limited report as it applies to the inside of an individual dwelling unit. If you, as a buyer, haven't done extensive due diligence on a complex, you can easily get stuck with one which has litigated over construction defects in the past or even distant past, its assn prevailed in suit and those defect(s) are still present today. Just because each owner at one time received lawsuit proceeds to fix the defects in their individual unit/PUD, this in no way means that they used these funds for that purpose or even made any repair(s) at all! There are many, many complexes around the county which have prevailed in construction defect lawsuits even 25-40 yrs ago where only a fraction of the units were actually fixed.

No matter where its locale, the value of a condo owner’s property is entirely dependent upon the quality of each owner’s current and future tenants, the decisions of their current and future board members, how economically the assn’s management company is able to get the required and necessarily regular and periodic maintenance done and keep ALL the dues collected and how well the original developer’s construction methods hold up over time. Condo-unit occupancy (both owners and tenants) turns over faster than SFR occupancy but I don’t know by how much.

You state you have a rental unit in Encinitas and that “everybody wants to live there.” Even if a tenant is living exactly where they want and need to (for work commute purposes), they often move next door or down the street for a better rent deal or upon notice of a rent hike. They do this because they CAN, far more easily than an owner-resident. IMO, it doesn’t matter where the rental property is, whether Del Mar or Lomita Village, tenants will always periodically price what they are renting against similar rentals in the same area and adjacent areas. When rents get too high for them in one area, they often move to an adjacent area with lesser rents. In small condos, tenants usually don’t have much to move or as many utility accounts so moving isn’t such a big deal. As a LL, you must be intimately familiar with your own rental market, i.e. what tenants expect to live in there for the price they’re willing to pay for it. Proximity to the beach is only so desirable for most tenants until the rent level is no longer sustainable.

Any monthly fee hikes or special assessments a HOA imposes on an investment owner has nothing to do with the desirability of their unit to prospective tenants OR the monthly rental amount they’re willing to pay.

For $300 month (typical HOA dues amt), I could get load up nearly an entire pickup bed at Home Depot or from a craiglist ad with all kinds of things to make my rental SFR more marketable to tenants and do the work myself or have it done cheaply. But I would only have to do this periodically between tenants or when something critical breaks, not every month!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=HLS]If the HOA had raised your monthly fee instead of adding submeters do you think that you would be entitled to raise the rent for that reason alone ? (answer is NO unless it was in the lease)

What part of “water is included in the rent” that you put in to the rental agreement is confusing ?

It sounds like you bought a condo as a rental property, which is the worst type of property anyone can buy as a rental, and an even worse decision for a first time investor.

I can almost guarantee you that your monthly fee will never go down, and it will not stay the same, it will only go up.

Wait until you get a $500 or $1000 assessment for an HOA deficiency that you cannot dispute.
You cannot pass these on to your tenant.

HOA’s are ticking time bombs, often run by inexperienced people who think they know what they are doing, but really don’t.

If they had not done the submeters, they would have raised your monthly fee.

ALL HOA’s need money to maintain the complex and reserves and there are only a small group of people who MUST pay that money.[/quote]

Again, excellent post, HLS. I wanted to add that a condo owner can be subject to special assessments at the whim of a majority vote of its’ assn’s board members. For example, the Board might think the roof needs replacement (maybe it does and maybe it only needs repair). They could levy a $3K to $7K assessment for each condo owner … yes, even if it is a multi-story complex (NOT a “townhome” where each unit has its own roof). They are more likely to do this for a needed expensive repair/replacement if they have many (uncollectable) small claims’ judgments for delinquent dues and they don’t wish to foreclose their liens.

Unfortunately, most people who buy condos do so because the price “seems” better than a SFR and do not and will never have the money to pay a “potential special assessment” sitting in their bank accounts with 60-90 days notice.

Liens are placed by a condo assn on units in which those special assessments are not paid. Assns do NOT have to get a court judgment to place these liens! They can simply specially-assess the units within the assn and wait a period of time to be paid by the owner before filing a lien for nonpayment. As these liens sit filed for years unpaid and unreleased, their face value accrues 10% per annum interest.

Slightly OT: The ROI is NOT better on lower-priced condo-rental investments vs lower-priced SFR rental investments, nor do they necessarily have less closing costs, IMO. I think the reason they are preferred by some for rental investments (over SFR’s) is because most SFR’s in the same price range as a nearby condo need a little work on them before placing tenants in them at optimal market rent. Putting $2 to $8K into a recently purchased rental SFR and doing most or all the work yourself in order to place a market-rate tenant in it is a far wiser decision than buying a condo, IMHO. Those who have claimed it takes $25-$40K to fix up a <1600 sf rental house for future tenancy are quoting from what THEY would prefer it have if THEY lived in it. All tenants know what they can rent for their price point and preferred location. What tenants are used to for their rental price range and what owners prefer to live in are often two different animals.

Obviously, if a potential investor only wants to invest in "professional white-collar areas," then he/she will likely not be able to get an ROI on a SFR in those areas. Those owners who have a portfolio of well-acquired rental houses in working class and retired areas are the ones whose net worth will continue to increase in the long haul throughout their working and retirement years, IMHO.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1]Congrats to Ron Paul. All the more power to him.
Hope he gets a big role at the convention in Tampa.

I will be visiting my friend in Tampa so I can mingle with he Republican delegates when they run about town. Maybe I’ll be invited to a party.[/quote]

Sounds like fun, brian!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FormerSanDiegan]Maybe you can donate to the Tax Assessor.

It seems to work in LA County

http://www.laweekly.com/2012-04-19/news/john-noguez-los-angeles-county-assessor-scandal/
[/quote]

Absolutely fascinating story (of which I am still in progress of reading/dissecting) but not surprising, FSD! It’s almost akin to the rocks I seem to be turning up in a smallish city in Solano County, CA, which has experienced insolvency problems, lol …..

[bearishgurl]

[quote=HLS]Did you buy a brand new house OR an older home ?
The taxes are too high according to who ?

If you bought an older home:
The current property tax bill is based on the assessed property value in 2011, which had a basis of the previous owners cost + adjustments.

The 2011-2012 bill was sent out in October 2011 with the first half due by Dec 2011 and the 2nd half due by April 2012.
Property taxes on that bill cover from July 1st 2011 to June 30th 2012
That is the amount that MUST be paid to the assessor.

Through escrow, you would have been charged the old owners property tax based on the number of days that you owned the property after July 1st 2011.
If your basis is lower, you could eventually get a supplemental bill with a credit/refund.

Your new property taxes will be based on your purchase price, but it could take the assessor a while to catch up to this.

2012-2013 bills will not be sent out until Sept/Oct
and will probably reflect the value on January 1st 2012, which still could be more than you paid.
This bill will cover the period July 1st 2012-June 30th 2013.

1. Exactly what date did you close on the house
2. How much did you pay
3. Is there Mello-Roos on this property
4. How much are the current taxes

Call the county assessors office for an explanation of what you can expect in the way of a refund, if any.[/quote]

HLS, thanks for explaining this “new-owner tax-assessor procedure” in laypiggs’ terms. I’ve tried to in the past but you have done a much better job here than I was able to :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SD Realtor] . . . The hours you post on Piggington can go towards your hourly total as a real estate professional.

Presto![/quote]

LOL!

[bearishgurl]

For the past few weeks, I’ve been working on a fascinating “civics lesson” (in my “spare” time, lol) detailing the “real” reasons why the City of Vallejo had to file for BK. It’s enlightening, to say the least. Not finished yet (will post it when I am) but you need to ask yourselves just one question here. WHY did Vallejo’s personnel costs go up so much since the late nineties/early 2000’s?

Hint: the answer is not exactly what you may be thinking.

It’s a relatively small city (pop 116760 in 2000 to 117798 in 2010).

http://www.ci.vallejo.ca.us/GovSite/default.asp?serviceID1=174&Frame=L1

That’s approx 43% of the size of Chula Vista and it only grew by 1038 residents during the millenium boom (Chula grew by 250% during the same time frame). Vallejo has plenty of jobs and industry, bridge access and a bayfront presence (location, location, location). What more could a bay area city ask for??

Food for thought: Doesn’t EVERY CA City have the SAME problem (Props 13 and 58)??

[bearishgurl]

The “11A” toner for my longtime trusty heavy ($1500 retail) HP Laser B/W printer (with memory, networking and legal-size drawer) has gone up to over $150 + tax at Office Depot (for abt 7 reams worth of printing). I’m also a “heavy user” so if any Pigg knows where I can get this cheaper, please let me know as the “low toner” msg is back up again :=0

I can’t use “recycled” toner with it as this causes error messages. It needs to be “Genuine HP.” It’s a workhorse and I need to keep it. I’ve owned it about 9 years and have had no problems except with “recycled” toner.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor] . . . You take pleasure in trying to put me down and in trying to be funny . . . [/quote]

No, that “pleasure” is mine. Since my “putdowns” are always after-the-fact (after you put me down either overtly or with a veiled attempt), I wish they WERE funny :=0 …. I do what I can here to keep the Piggs entertained … I CAN cuz you leave yourself so wide open here that you make it easy for me!

I can’t even count how many “veiled attempts” at putting me down that were posted by you that I have just ignored.

btw, I’ve done what MM33 is trying to do here … for local candidates. It’s not easy. And this was before the internet. It is VERY hard to educate voters. The vast majority of them are apathetic.

And since you’re presently “ignoring me,” you won’t even see this.

As is should be ….. [img_assist|nid=13925|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=46|height=46]

[bearishgurl]

I’d like to see how scaredy voir dires and panders to a jury of Joe and Sue 6P’s :=D

[bearishgurl]

I’m not a tax expert.

Did you receive a 1099 from the builder for any seller concessions? If so, you probably DO need to claim these “concessions” as income.

On your settlement statement at closing, are these concessions shown to be paid by the buyer or seller?

In case of an audit, you probably can’t prove YOU paid the up-front PMI premium. It all depends on how the HUD-1 is worded.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=The-Shoveler]Thanks for the feedback BG,

I guess sometimes it works sometimes it don’t[/quote]

You have nothing to lose by trying. My friend’s photo was blurry also but he was found guilty anyway.

[Author]

Posts