[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor]pri
May I suggest the ignore user button for this particular bitter old bat….[/quote]

… yet ANOTHER insult??? Lol . . . sdr, since you are still tripping on yourself, why don’t you follow your own advice?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=pri_dk] . . . I want to discuss the issues.

I only care about, and comment on, the content of one’s arguments (which in your case are often incomprehensible, so I’ll pass on the proofreading offer.)[/quote]

Have at it, pri_dk. You can even start your own thread on how unconscionable public sector employer/employee contracts are. And while you’re at it, please take notice that the 25%+ of Piggs who are/were “public sector” are not bothering to contribute to these tirades because they are a fruitless waste of time (and most still actually “work” for a living and can’t sit blogging all day, like YOU can).

Or better yet, get to work setting up meetings with your representative(s) or writing them letters!

I’m a “professional” proofreader and my offer still stands :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=ucodegen][quote=bearishgurl][quote=sdrealtor] . . . CRazy huh?[/quote]

Not a psychologist but there is just one word (acronym) to describe this “phenomenon” . . . “NPD” (formerly DSM-IV-TR 301.81‎).[/quote]Actually, Narcissistic Personality Disorder does not fit. NPD people don’t compete, or have to win. They feel that they should win by default.. since they are so special. They don’t have to put out any effort. Excessive competitive can actually be the reverse of narcissism/NPD, in that they feel that they have to prove it continually. If you remember back to when this board first talked about NPD and about a certain individual, this individual didn’t feel they had to put forth an effort.. they were special, the ‘ideas’ person… and went promptly into a hole for over $1Mil, bringing the wife down with them.

The competitive, have to win, personality is a type-A.

NOTE: Narcissistic Personality Disorder is not equivalent to having some Narcissistic attributes. There are also two forms of ‘Narcissism’. ‘Compensatory Narcissistic Personality Disorder'(CNPD) could fit hyper competitive individuals.

PS: btw, the need to respond to sdrealtors post in this manner could mirror the need to put down others… also listed under NPD and CNPD. Kettle, pot…[/quote]

uco, if you have been paying attention here, you will realize that it is/was actually sdr who has taken every opportunity over the years to publicly insult me and put ME down, that is, until Rich (wisely) gave him the option of “ignoring me” late last year. It worked (for awhile) until he recently “fell off the wagon.”

As you know, one of THE main traits of NPD is:

“Reacts to criticism with anger, shame, or humiliation”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

I have never insulted sdr or called him names as he has repeatedly done to me. Knowing full well that he could not help himself due to NPD and that this “condition” is incurable, I am “okay with all of that” as this is an online blog. Having studied this phenomenon “in depth” due to having to deal with several persons in my lifetime who were and are textbook “N’s,” my skillset allows me to deal with them in an effective manner.

As you have previously posted, uco, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know when they are dealing with an “N.” It’s pretty self-explanatory.

[quote=bearishgurl on May 18, 2011 – 1:24 pm]…The study of NPD is indeed fascinating.[/quote]

see: http://piggington.com/totally_ot_governator_sires_child_with_home_worker?page=3

[bearishgurl]

[quote=pri_dk] . . .Do you have anything constructive to add? Or is this thread going to spiral into one of your bitter rationalizations for everything?

Your perpetual “we are better than everyone else” claim is childish, arrogant, and completely irrelevant to the issue.

Grow up.[/quote]

pri_dk, you and sdr are the ones that need to let go of your bitterness and “grow up.”

Why don’t you lobby your congressman or legislator to abolish the entire portion of the CA Government Code (and while you’re at it, the CA Education Code, too) that deals with “collective bargaining.” Maybe you two are collectively “smart enough” to line it out and write in new code, lol!

Look at the initial sentence of this thread here. What does it say?? “Okay time for some fun.” (sans punctuation)

pri_dk, did you ever consider that the entire premise of this thread was to give sdr a platform for attacking public-worker benefits and pensions??

Duh …..

sdr claims he went up there to view the “Miraval tract.” Have we been discussing that here???

NO! The discussion on this thread (entirely led and directed by the OP) devolved from the materials used to build a public building (that the workers using it had no part of choosing) back to . . . where else but public salaries and pensions?

Given this particular OP and main participant(s), should we be surprised??

Since you’re both so presumably “successful” and thus have a lot of time on your hands to “whine” about sh!t none of us has any control over, why don’t you begin writing your representatives right now about your plans to repeal (wholesale) the CA Government and Education Codes?

Break out your pens and word processors . . . drumbeat . . .

I can easily qualify for a “legislative analyst” position and will be happy to proofread your work :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SmellsFeeshy]Are there any other suggestions for bay area RE forums? I checked out patrick.net and the discussion seems to be a lot of BS and smack talking and low on quality content.[/quote]

SmellsFeeshy, I am a former Alameda County resident who left just as the tracks for the BART were being laid (eons ago). However, I drive there 4x per year to visit relatives and friends and have done so for the last 30+ years.

I was back perusing realtor.com last weekend to check out SFR’s in choice bay area zips in which I am interested in “retiring” myself – 3 in Contra Costa County (“Lamorinda,” as the OP stated here, as well as the Rheem Valley portion). These close-in areas are very, very desirable and stable (have very little “distress”). There is also VERY little current inventory available in them under $1M, ESP in one-story dwellings. The couple of short sales I DID find appeared to be <$70K short. I DID find one '50's and one '70's cosmetic-fixer (asking the low $600K range) which were situated on large (view) lots. As you may know, it is quite a bit warmer (and housing is generally less expensive) east of the Caldecott tunnel leading into Berkeley. Unlike SD County, I think you will find if you are able to obtain an older close-in east-bay property on a (low or high) view lot for a fair price that it will NOT lose value in the future as Walnut Creek and surrounds and Oakland and surrounds have huge local employment bases. In addition, there is a large contingent of very stable middle/higher income retirees who own there and are not going anywhere. SF, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties are becoming very expensive again. And houses and lots valued at under $1M in the peninsula are typically smaller, often MUCH smaller than what one can purchase in the east bay for the same (or less) price. Unless you are employed in SV need to avoid a bridge commute (or would prefer wind to sun), I no longer think it is worth it to retire on the peninsula at today's prices. However, SJ, Morgan Hill and even perhaps older stock out in Saratoga tend to be less expensive than properties located in the thick of SV. There is less wind in the eastern foothills of SJ. However semi-rural land overlooking SJ has the same inherent fire danger as the Oakland Hills (even less FF infrastructure). I think the "desirable" RE market in the bay area is more "locked-up" for moderate/middle/upper-middle income buyers than the "desirable" market in SD County. This is due to it encompassing six counties and a population of nearly 10M, causing massive commutes for those who choose to live in inferior locations (mostly 45 mi+ north, south or inland from SF) and the fact that there aren't anywhere near as many newer developments there near job centers as in SD County (where builders subsidized initial financing). My opinion is that if you are searching for a (under $700K) well-located property in the bay area that you be prepared to do some work on it and hopefully, you are handy so the work won’t cost as much. Keep and open mind and look for location and lot.

I haven’t tried to look for a forum but have you tried the City-Data forum? Just as in SD County, different parts of the bay area are night and day from one another.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor][quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor]I was hoping someone would notice that her argument rested on an assumption that SS was definitely going to be bailed out from a general fund. A complete guess with no basis which invalidated her entire case.[/quote]

I was hoping that someone would notice that Pri’s (and others’) arguments rest on an assumption that taxpayers will be fully responsible for shoring up the public pension shortfalls. So far, it’s the public employees who have been taking the hits to make up for the pension shortfalls.[/quote]

You killed your case again with the word fully. You are too prone to hyperbole. Taxpayers are already shoring up pension shortfalls from general funds. Also remind me where the funds to pay the public employees salaries come from?[/quote]

sdr, which retirement assns are you referring to here? And don’t you have some kind of “advanced degree” that isn’t “basket weaving?” Hopefully, if you still remember what you learned in school, you, too, can apply and possibly become one of these slothful opportunists and better secure your future! But I must warn you that if you take one of these “cushy positions” on the “taxpayer dole,” you will no longer be able to stumble downstairs to work in the morning at whatever hour you choose to and post on online blogs all day. You will instead say “hello” and “good morning/afternoon” to your new “supervisor” (whom you may or may not regard as “intelligent” as yourself).

GO for it!!!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor]I was hoping someone would notice that her argument rested on an assumption that SS was definitely going to be bailed out from a general fund. A complete guess with no basis which invalidated her entire case.[/quote]

I was hoping that someone would notice that Pri’s (and others’) arguments rest on an assumption that taxpayers will be fully responsible for shoring up the public pension shortfalls. So far, it’s the public employees who have been taking the hits to make up for the pension shortfalls.[/quote]

This is correct, and as I have posted here before, giving up “subsidized” healthcare and “subsidized” Medicare Part B and D coverage is one way they have doing it since the mid-late 90’s.

Yes, plans are OFFERED to (local) retirees under the age of 65 but they are so cost-prohibitive at COBRA rates, they can easily eat up 75-125% of a non-professional retiree’s monthly pension. So if the retiree is very sick and/or terminal and doesn’t qualify for Medicare, they will have no choice but to sign up for one of them, as they are NOT underwritten. If the retiree is relatively healthy, it doesn’t make sense to pay 75-125% of their mo pension out for a mo healthcare premium when they can obtain an (underwritten) HDHP on the open market for 1/4 the cost. Those who retired before 2002 receive an +/- $300 month healthcare allowance (depending on years of svc) to help pay their retiree healthcare premium but these retirees pension is figured on a formula giving them 1/3 to 1/2 the pension of a more recent retiree (who had MUCH larger payroll deductions). Those who do NOT elect to use the plans offered to them by their respective retirement assns do NOT receive the healthcare allowance.

About 73% of local pensioners retired in “non-professional” classifications (below the mid-management [MM] bargaining unit) . . . that is, the folks who DO THE WORK to keep the svcs running which we all enjoy.

Not familiar with the State formulas (PERS) but there is a LOT of misperception among the general public going on about this tired subject.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor] . . . CRazy huh?[/quote]

Not a psychologist but there is just one word (acronym) to describe this “phenomenon” . . . “NPD” (formerly DSM-IV-TR 301.81‎).

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Arraya]
http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/23/real_estate/million_dollar_foreclosures/index.htm

Five years after the housing bubble burst, America’s wealthiest families are now losing their homes to foreclosure at a faster rate than the rest of the country — and many of them are doing so voluntarily.

But with a recovery in the housing market still years away, foreclosure has turned out to be a worthwhile option after all. Saddled with bloated mortgages after a long run up in property values, many high-end homeowners have chosen to pursue a “strategic default.” Even though they can afford the monthly mortgage payments, they still decide to walk away from their home because they owe more on the property than it is worth.[/quote]

Arraya, I am hoping the IRS will bring back the requirement for issuing Form 1098 to reflect the amount of lender loss (upon resale of an REO) as “phantom income” to ALL defaulters beginning 2013. Since a good portion of them now appear to be the “well-employed” and “rich” “strategic defaulter,” they can think twice if they really want to be on the hook for income taxes on their lender’s losses of $300K+ incurred upon resale (as a direct result of the cash they already extracted from the property).

[bearishgurl]

The Ritters have kept the sheriff at bay by repeatedly filing for bankruptcy and by exploiting changes in Maryland’s laws designed to help delinquent homeowners avoid foreclosure.

Those efforts to protect homeowners have transformed Maryland’s foreclosure process from one of the country’s shortest to one of the longest. It now takes on average 634 days to complete a foreclosure in Maryland, compared with 132 days in Virginia.

(emphasis added)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/a-million-dollar-mortgage-goes-unpaid-for-years-while-couple-fights-foreclosure/2012/03/01/gIQAb4DBpR_story.html

Homedebtor deadbeats in CA are faring at least as well as those in MD. Even though the law in CA provides for a 111 or 141-day foreclosure from the first of the original month of default to trustee’s sale (plus a 3 business day perfection of a filed trustee’s deed), in more than a few instances I have seen lenders on CA properties take 900+ days to foreclose, allowing the delinquent trustor to squat all of that time … and then “pay” the homedebtor/squatter $3000 to leave the property free of debris and broom-swept after foreclosure!

Yes, 30 mos of free “squatting” and then walking $$ to boot! You may be asking, where do I sign up for that? Well, I can’t advise you except to forget the “MERS-lost-it” argument (tried, done and failed in CA). If your 1st TD and note alone renders you underwater and its current servicer is B of A, Chase or WF, you might give stiffing your lender a try!

Good luck, make sure you have storage units at the ready and keep your storage bill paid!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1]You may not like the situation, but it is what it is.

BG, here’s an article for you to get all riled-up about. Be careful because God is involved also.

5 years in a million dollar house without making a payment.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/a-million-dollar-mortgage-goes-unpaid-for-years-while-couple-fights-foreclosure/2012/03/01/gIQAb4DBpR_story.html

[/quote]

brian wouldn’t you agree that 99% of the 1350+ comments in the Washington Post online re: this article echo my sentiments? I’m not alone in how I feel about these types of “pea-brain” deadbeats who, ostensibly, never made a mortgage payment since day one.

I carefully noted the expensive furnishings inside their mcmansion and now understand why these home-debtors are in bankruptcy, lol …. they bought them with loose credit (likely no-payments until [insert year] store credit) in combination with their good looks and heavy prayer.

This only works for so long … I’m noticing also that it’s stressful for them to keep moving their sh!t in and out of storage whenever the threat of eviction looms.

Wonder if they’re paying their storage bill??

[bearishgurl]

To be frank, a couple of the most “employable” degrees right out of college are “human resources” and “labor relations” including the subjects of collective bargaining, grievance procedure, performance evaluation protocol and preparation of employment cases before the state’s tribunals.

You may laugh but it is what it is. CSU offers these programs but not sure about all campuses.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter][quote=bearishgurl]

Completely agree, flu. Being “well-rounded” thru being exposed to “Shakespeare” and “Greek Mythology” (at a cost of abt $3500+ for 6-8 units) does nothing to make one employable. Absolutely nothing.

Taxpayer funds should not be used in this day and age to make students “well-rounded,” either in public university operations or in issuing gov’t backed student loans. Students who want that kind of curriculum can go to private universities and pay the entire (non-subsidized) tuition/fee load from their families’ deep pockets, IMHO.

There are way too many “well-rounded” young people out there now who have no work skills or work experience.

An exception would be a student majoring in English and Literature with a HS teaching credential.[/quote]

A lot of English majors go on to law school. The ability to read, comprehend, interpret, and write about various written texts is critical when pursuing a career in law, as you know.

They can also become technical writers, journalists, editors, authors, script writers, etc.

Ultimately, it does benefit society to have a well-rounded population. It gives us the flexibility, ingenuity, and creativity to maintain a healthy society and economy.[/quote]

Working for a public agency, the vast majority of public attorneys I worked with had an undergraduate major in Political Science or History. I know of a couple of attys in the private sector who majored in accounting and finance.

CSU already has a journalism major, “Film and New Media Production” in which the student gets an apprenticeship (at a TV/film studio, if poss) in their senior year. This is a viable occupational track . . . however, the competition for the program on (all half dozen or so) campuses offering it (and jobs sweeping floors for the local news stn) is fierce.

Anyone can be an author. However, actually getting published is another matter entirely. Biz education/experience might help with this.

Having a “humanities” or literature degree standing on its own does not make a person employable in this day and age. Yes, lawyers need to know how to write and convey their ideas concisely but CA is w-a-a-ay too overlawyered. The majority of bar candidates who passed the CA bar within the last decade cannot land a gig as a lawyer in this state and their (often huge) student loan debt has come due and has been deferred. These newly-minted lawyers have to (re)take the bar exam in another state in which they may have contacts and believe they are more likely to find work.

This is due to the majority of CA private attorneys working in their firms until well past retirement age. Us boomers approaching the age to collect SS should be glad of this. I have known several of these (sr citizen) attorneys to die on the job without ever collecting a penny of SS :=[

[bearishgurl]

dupe

[bearishgurl]

[quote=pri_dk]. . . You are trying drag your personal spat with sdr into this thread. I’m quite certain most don’t want that (except perhaps for the comedy value that your posts provide once you get started…)[/quote]

pri_dk, your comment is ludicrous since I am presumably on sdr’s “ignore list,” lol. As it should be.

On occasion, I find the often sugar-coated BS that sdr puts out mildly entertaining. Of course, his “well-employed” clients (with cleaner sewers than the rest of us) have “nuanced” reasons for not paying their bills when they are so “well-positioned” to pay them. That is, after they’ve already extracted their downpayments and then some from their property (rendering it underwater thru their own actions). When that is successfully accomplished, a passel of “realtors” (such as sdr) show up at their door (invited) and save the day with a SS proposition! Realtors, new lenders and all other affiliated svc cos are the only persons making money off these “pea-brains” and the defaulted-upon lenders often go along with the program.

I totally blame the lenders for not foreclosing. The “pea-brains” and their “realtors” are simply “working the system” for their own enrichment until the lenders get wise to it and foreclose en masse.

Every Pigg has to admit that NONE of these lenders are “over a barrel.” In CA, they had the option to foreclose at the 111th day or 141st day of original default and they have that option now. Instead, they let the trustor squat and the debt grow month by month until it is insurmountable for all parties.

The above scenario is absolutely disgusting to honest homeowners who had a lot of “equity” until the opportunists were allowed to take over the direction of the market (in most markets) created mass undervaluation.

The problem affects millions of homeowners across the board, even those who own their properties free and clear.

[Author]

Posts