Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]Some people are rather adept at arguing with themselves even when no one else is paying attention to them.[/quote]
SOME people CLAIM they are IGNORING me but really can’t help themselves, lol.
…wait for it.
Participant[quote=SD Realtor]How about an auto_reject… If you are the author of a thread, you can specify users that get rejected if they respond to a thread.[/quote]
SDR, why don’t you create your own thread discussing your FAV subjects of the current price of food and commodities and how expensive tract homes are in your far-flung area of choice (that you haven’t purchased in yet).
You could always ask for “special permission” to bump any contributions I might choose to make :=]
ParticipantActually, in case you haven’t noticed, I love this state. The “whys” and “wherefores” of CA’s “impending Greek Tragedy” and the antithesis of this thread is one of my favorite areas of (civil) discourse and is a subject of which I am passionate about, that is … low and no-growth legislation :=]
I feel it’s never too late to become involved until a CFD formation is being considered for the shores (and islands) of Mono Lake, lol!
Instead of making snide remarks that serve no purpose, pri_dk, why don’t you instead change your tune and actually add something of value to the thread? If not just for the rest of us to understand why you feel as you do.
For starters, why don’t you tell us if YOU or any member of your immediate family has personally received any *free* or *low-cost* services from departments or agencies of this great state of ours (or its “subdivisions”) that would not have been available to you as a resident of other states?
And if you have, do you think the public employees who provided those services to you are undeserving of being able to “retire” after 30 years of service?
Participant[quote=jstoesz]The 2010 republican wave did not occur in CA. Quite the opposite in fact, granted Whitman was a loser robot. I just don’t see much appetite for reform among the state at large, too many people benefit from the free stuff to vote for reform of their benefits.[/quote]
jstoesz, if you are referring to “reform” as cutting public pensions and health benefits that were already promised to existing retirees, near (deferred) retirees and soon-to-be-retirees, this will never happen. There are too many voters in CA who have already served their time (many thousands for well over 30 years) and thus, devoted all their working lives to providing the services we all count on and use.
I’m noticing the main “public pension reform” advocates here on this forum have not and will never be in a position to become “vested” into a public pension plan themselves. The reason? All these jobs look “easy” and “cushy” from the outside looking in … that is, until one actually shows up to work and starts serving their “probationary period,” lol. Actually, a career “bureaucrat” serves multiple “probationary periods” in their “career.” Deep down, most “public-pension-reform-advocate Piggs” know this. It’s easier to sit at your computer/tablet/smartphone on the clock at your “civilian job” and blog about how “unfair” it all is.
Participant[quote=pri_dk]The history of California is the very definition of urban sprawl. The housing development, the planned community, the suburban neighborhood with two-car garages were essentially invented here. One of the icons of California, Hollywood, was a real-estate development.
It all started before any of us were even born.
But some people think it should have all suddenly stopped as soon as they got theirs….[/quote]
Here you go again, pri_dk …. making “quotes” that aren’t there and putting words in other people’s mouth.
Everyone knows America is a free country. Americans are free to move state to state and always have been. I’m simply stating that persons moving into CA are not entitled to buy or rent “new construction” and never have been.
For example, take CA’s Silicon Valley … or even SF. If a “new hire” or “new retiree” wants to buy or lease an SFR in SV or nearly ANY property in SF, it will NOT be even remotely “new.” Too bad, so sad … if you don’t like it, don’t move there.
As it should be. Infrastructure and public personnel to service “new” construction tracts all over CA only took from cities’ and counties’ ability to maintain their respective urban cores (yes, even with bond $$ to build it – which didn’t pay for servicing it in the long term).
For instance, if the City of SD hadn’t expanded the way it did in the last 30 years, annexing far-flung and disconnected (to themselves) portions of the county, they would have only had the original areas for newcomers to choose to buy and lease in. This didn’t stop newcomers from coming here in the seventies/early eighties. Why would SD be any less desirable because it has less housing areas to choose from? If newcomers don’t like the housing that is on offer in any given place, they are free not to take a position there or retire there. Actually, CA’s existing housing at the time of the passage of the Mello Roos Community Facilities District Act was more than enough to accommodate any newcomers that moved in to accept employment.
Another related subject is, why did CA companies feel they had to recruit out-of-state and out-of-country when CA had over 50 state-run universities at the time and numerous private universities churning out top graduates in every field? In-state college graduates already had family and somewhere to live (or at least to “launch their careers” from). They didn’t need new construction in the stix to flock to.
All the (unnecessary) urban sprawl (esp in the San Joaquin Valley and RIV/SB counties) only attracted (and brought in) multitudes of min-wage and other low-wage earners from neighboring desert states such as AZ and NV and even MX, most of whom don’t pay taxes of any kind. We didn’t need more min-wage households in CA. We have MX for a neighbor, remember?? And there aren’t even enough jobs available for our kids to assist them in getting thru college!
Any and all “bubbles” aside, how much do you think SD County properties built before, say ’87 (the “debut year” of CFD formation in the county) would be worth today if SD County’s elected officials had instead instituted no/low growth initiatives from the get go? And because public funds would have been diverted to the existing infrastructure from then forward, don’t you think SD County’s housing stock, in particular, would be better maintained as would its streets and other infrastructure? Their certainly would have been more incentive for owners to do so, don’t you think?
Likewise, for the schools. Do you actually think “Hoover” and “Crawford” HS’s were ALWAYS “low-performing?” You might be SHOCKED to know how many local officials, philanthropists and “celebrities” graduated from those two schools.
The housing stock around both of those schools is VERY well-built, well-located and even “prestigious.” Ask yourselves how these schools have become what they are now?
Using SD County for an example, how has having a (current) 3M population vs. 1M population (in 1982) made the county’s quality of life “better?” And if you think it IS better now, WHO is it better for?
For starters, the officials running the counties of Marin, Contra Costa (most cities), San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara (most cities), El Dorado, Mendocino and the cities within them had it right all along in imposing their no/low growth initiatives early on. Just compare the quality of life in these counties to the quality of life in CA counties whose officials have been “rolling in the sheets” with Big Development for the last 30 years. There lies your answer.
Participant[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.
Participant[quote=davelj]I’d guess $1850/month for the larger one, $1700/month for the smaller one. Might be able to get $50/month more for each. But that’s in the ballpark.[/quote]
Just saw this and I think your rent projections are a bit too high for these units, davelj. There is a lot of current vacancy down there and one can rent a 1500-1600 sf SFR in that area for about $1800-1900 mo.
ParticipantThe first property in 91914 has a $219,900 asking price. Its tax bill is stated on Redfin as being $2,829. In fact, the current tax bill (based upon a $385K assessment) is $4,671.80. In addition, Redfin states it has $170 mo in HOA dues.
The second property in 91915 has a $215,900 asking price. Redfin does not state its current tax bill. No tax bill is shown on the assessor’s website for this particular unit but three different comparable units in the same complex have current tax bills of $2630.02 (for a $157K assessed value), $3,018.32 (for a $202K assessed value) and $3,415.00 (for a $186K assessed value). All of these assessed values are lower than the current asking price of this unit. In addition, Redfin states it has $169 mo in HOA dues.
Monthly dues and real taxes would have to be factored in for investment purposes. The MR bonds in at least the first unit last for 40 years from the date the last unit in the CFD was sold.
The first unit (with a 2-car garage) should consistently rent for $1750. The second, smaller unit (with a carport) should rent for $1450 to $1500.
I don’t know if they are good investments at the current asking prices. It depends on how much of a downpayment the investor uses, if the stated HOA dues are accurate (and won’t rise soon) and how much the actual fixed MR obligations are on each of these properties, in addition to the ad valorem portion of the property tax bill.
Note: The lack of online tax bills does not bode well for the second complex. It is very possible that once a certain number of its units landed in the hands of FNMA, that they are either exempt from taxation during their period of “ownership” (being a quasi-govm’t entity) or the tax bills are held in suspense until FNMA resells the properties.
Participant[quote=briansd1]BG, the urban sprawl is due to the zoning restrictions and community activism that prevent higher density in the urban centers.
It’s either urban sprawl or more density in existing areas. Take your pick.
We can’t control population growth, but you can plan for it.[/quote]
Wrong, brian. Our elected officials had control over all of it and chose to sell out to the Big Developer “bribes.”
For instance, take a look at population centers in the State of Washington which is well-known for passing no-growth and low-growth initiatives.
Look at the difference of there and here (as it applies to urban sprawl). Do you know if any of these jurisdictions are experiencing financial problems today?
Participant[quote=sdduuuude]Why should elected officials decide how many houses get built ?…[/quote]
It is their job to vote in the formation of the CFD’s so that the Big Developer has somewhere to build. And they did in many CA jurisdictions … en masse.
Participant[quote=pri_dk]Amazing how people cannot see the bigotry and ignorance in their own words:
“They should have stopped letting people in right after I arrived.”
“They should have stopped building houses right after my neighborhood was built.”[/quote]
If you are referring here to me, pri_dk, then there (should) have been no new development in the last 65 years, lol….
In case I haven’t made myself clear here, I am against the massive urban sprawl that has occurred in CA chiefly and only because of the ability of local government (whilst sharing sleeping quarters with Big Developers) to be financially able to annex-in large portions of former wasteland to themselves to form massive CFD’s. This enabled Big Developers to promote (and successfully sell) the following to unwary and uneducated buyers (mostly “transplants”):
* oversized “mcmansions” on <=5000 sf lots * 400+ unit cardboard condo complexes in the stix * low-quality "starter homes" in the middle of nowhere and situated on minuscule lots * "planned communities" in which each of the properties which lie within are encumbered by two or more HOAs These are but just a few of the allowed projects which we know today caused (and will cause) repeated distress among their individual owners and consequently to the governments of the jurisdictions they are situated in. Accepting these "bribes" and later mismanaging the responsibility associated with acceptance of these "bribes" is and will continue to be THE major cause of city/county insolvency in this state, IMO.
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]classic! actually have a friend who lives in one of those far flung lizard infested suburbs (Snohomish) though visiting her is not in the plans.[/quote]
I would bet that not many lizards reside in the State of Washington.
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]I figured we could pollute this one and hopefully everyone would get it out of their systems. Hope people can resist the urge, follow “guidelines” and just leave the Take 3 version for the data.[/quote]
I will note that a “thread starter” cannot control what happens to “their” (lol) thread once they post it here.
You are free to impose your “guidelines” at your own peril …
Participant[quote=briansd1] . . . I don’t know BG, a (distressed) seller is just as “real” as any other seller. . .[/quote] (clarification added)
I beg to differ, brian.
A “distressed” seller does not have the authority to truly “accept” an offer and put “their” property into escrow.
A “real” seller does.
There is a vast difference here, not only in the probable condition of the property in question, but in the ease, timeliness and straightforwardness of the transaction itself.
-
AuthorPosts
