[bearishgurl]

Oh, and uh, HELLO? EVERYONE has the choice of moving into a “coastal” (read: <=7 miles from the ocean) neighborhood and reaping the benefits of much lower utilities. Will most homebuyers/prospective renters with minor kids attempt this? Uhhh, no. They want a "mcmansion" in lizardland, with all its attendant pest control problems and necessity of A/C a good part of the year. Now the PUC wants to make this group's (wasteful) utility bill more "fair" for them (and successfully did so) on the backs of the more well-established coastal (and, more often than not, thrifty) ratepayers. EXACTLY HOW IS THE PROBLEM THE LIZARDLAND INHABITANTS GOT THEMSELVES INTO THE REST OF SD'S PROBLEM, FOLKS. Uhhh, it isn't. It's a matter of personal choice and the ones who are paying several hundred dollars per month to SDG&E made their choices. The rest of the ratepayors (the more prudent group) should not be penalized for this phenonemnon.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=livinincali][quote=bearishgurl]
Yeah, I got that e-mail as well. Since my last kid left a year ago, I’ve always been in Tier 1 and my bills have been only $33 to $66 mo for a 4/2/2 SFR. I’m going to get slammed by next spring when there are only two tiers.

So much for being an energy conservationist. I feel the two-tiered system will be very unfair to single-person households with no A/C or pool. We will undoubtedly end up subsidizing energy-hog households and they shouldn’t be my problem …. at all.[/quote]

Actually bigger users have been subsidizing your lower cost for a long time. A lot of energy cost is sunk costs like the infrastructure to deliver it and produce it. The fuel itself is relatively cheap all things considered. Solar with net metering has the same advantage where they win while they’re neighbors pick up the tab. Granted I don’t use a lot of power so I’ll get hit too but I’m not surprised by the change.[/quote]

I disagree, Livinincali. My neighborhood is over 65 years old and thus, we were “here first.” as were the rest of our “brethren” neighborhoods. Existing unburied overhead lines or no, it is what it is and we are frequently/likely “coastal” in location. We should not have to subsidize the Lizardland inhabitant hshld (more often with A/C as well as backyard pool). IT’S NOT OUR PROBLEM that other ratepayers chose to live in lizardland. Many of us ALREADY PAID OUR DUES IN THIS LIFE and wish to retire with utility bills reflective of OUR OWN USE USAGE ONLY, NOT that of subsidizing a family of five who can’t manage to turn off their lights or TV’s they aren’t using.

In other words, the “infrastructure” was always there for ME. Why should I pay for it over again when my infrastructure was paid off in 1962?? What about YOU? Your choices are YOUR problem …. not mine.

IT’S NOT MY PROBLEM, NOR SHOULD IT BE!!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]I wouldn’t want to be off grid sewer/water wise. Too much of a pain.

But off grid electric wise, with solar and a battery array doesn’t sound bad. Of course, you can still have high speed internet.[/quote]

Well, believe it or not, several areas up in the Rockies which I considered putting on my retirement short-list (even “upscale” areas), currently have only DSL internet to choose from, which I don’t want after having cable internet in my home since 1999. (I have used DSL service working in older dtn SD bldgs and feel it is not in any way comparable to cable internet svc at all.)

What I like about S. Lake Tahoe is that it is extremely beautiful and has all the amenities and local public services yet a a SLT resident can be in the wilderness in just a few minutes driving.

I just watched the NYT video on the cost of electricity in HI. Although its residents likely don’t run heat (or even have heaters in their homes), homes on the Hawaiian Islands are likely all-electric. This makes the utility bills much higher for the its residents.

We in SD have natural gas available to heat our homes, our inside water and cooktops. Natural gas is the favored utility for at least the 1st two purposes.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]BG, I believe the utilities are trying to stem the defection to rooftop solar by higher energy users. So they will charge lower users like you to subsidize the high users (that is to make it less economically self evident to install solar)

I think that states may have to regulate utilities and make them non-profit if the big picture goal is to reduce carbon emissions.

There’s a lot of polemic in Neveda where NV Energy (owned by Belkshire Hathaway) is doing the same thing.

Tech improvements such as the Tesla Powerball might cause more people to go off grid. Good time to invest in battery makers?[/quote]

Well my highest bill (dead of winter) with my kid here PT was <$89. So I ALWAYS conserved energy, even when I was a 1.5 person household. Seriously, how much energy should each person in a household need to use per month ($40 each ... $50 each?). I realize this equation changes if the household has a pool or AC but that household CHOSE to buy/rent a house in an area where AC was needed and/or one with a pool or CHOSE to install a pool themselves. I have owned home(s) with backyard in pool(s) in the past (none which needed A/C, though) but this is no longer my problem, nor should it be. Moving off the grid actually sounds really great to me, FIH. I'm just wondering about the existence (or more likely, non-existence) of high speed internet in those areas. And experience has taught me that many of those fabulous hideaway homes situated in the bucolic woods "off the grid" need extensive septic/leachfield remediation prior to move-in at a cost of $3800 or more. Assuming the seller refuses to pay for this in escrow, that's enough for me to pay for city sewer for about 9.5 years! It's not always cheaper to be "off the grid" unless one is satisfied to live a very primitive lifestyle.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]What’s up with SDGE reducing to 2 tiers from 4 tiers?

Seems like they should charge the heavy users more to encourage people to save energy.[/quote]

Yeah, I got that e-mail as well. Since my last kid left a year ago, I’ve always been in Tier 1 and my bills have been only $33 to $66 mo for a 4/2/2 SFR. I’m going to get slammed by next spring when there are only two tiers.

So much for being an energy conservationist. I feel the two-tiered system will be very unfair to single-person households with no A/C or pool. We will undoubtedly end up subsidizing energy-hog households and they shouldn’t be my problem …. at all.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Hobie][quote=]I’ve used these guys several years ago upon recommendation from my longtime mechanic and they’re reasonable, fast, efficient and do good work … also family owned:
http://www.jimsautoupholstery.com/
http://www.yelp.com/biz/jims-auto-upholstery-san-diego%5B/quote%5D

Funny you mentioned these guys. I used them 20+ years ago on a custom car. Couldn’t remember the name. Good work back then, hopefully still good today.[/quote]

I used them on a couple of different vehicles over the last 25 years …. on both carpeting and leather repairs. IIRC, the carpeting job was able to be done while I waited! Their people have a lot of experience and know exactly what they are doing.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu][quote=teaboy]Thanks for the tips!
I already cut out the old back window 10 years ago and have been mostly OK since it’s mostly garaged. Rest of roof is in OK condition.
I read that installing a full new roof onto an existing frame is a 6-8 hour job, which means a couple months for me 😉
Also, I see the back window only sections for sale. But not sure how easy these pop in.
http://m.ebay.com/itm/EZ-ON-MAZDA-MIATA-1990-2005-Convertible-Soft-Top-Plastic-Window-Black-Cabrio-/251217761656?_trkparms=aid%253D222007%2526algo%253DSIC.MBE%2526ao%253D1%2526asc%253D20150519202348%2526meid%253D8a7b63503c904a88b732cc584e508741%2526pid%253D100408%2526rk%253D4%2526rkt%253D16%2526mehot%253Dpp%2526sd%253D251354727931&_trksid=p2056116.c100408.m2460

Anyone know about these? I’ll try to look into these further and report back.

tb[/quote]

Ugh..just buying the rear part.might be a challenge. The zipper tooth count might be different, depending on whether your top is oem or whether what they are selling is oem. If you can remove the rear part yourself, you can find an interior shop that will sew on a new rear window. It shouldn’t cost more than $300 at most. I don’t think rocky would do this sort of work because he isn’t an interior guy
He would most likely buy an entire top and install it…but call him and maybe he does do this sort of repair or at least knows some guy that will. I haven’t found a reasonable interior shop myself for any of my cars. So if you find one, let me know.[/quote]

I’ve used these guys several years ago upon recommendation from my longtime mechanic and they’re reasonable, fast, efficient and do good work … also family owned:

http://www.jimsautoupholstery.com/

http://www.yelp.com/biz/jims-auto-upholstery-san-diego

[bearishgurl]

I haven’t been paying attention in recent years and am unclear if Americans are actually allowed to “own” land in MX. Aren’t/weren’t Americans who bought RE in MX just deeded a “99-year lease,” or something of that nature … in lieu of being deeded fee-simple ownership rights? The only Americans I know of who “own” property in MX are Mexican citizens or dual citizens who may or may not have a US-born spouse on title with them, who, by proxy, also “co-own” the land and any improvements on it.

[bearishgurl]

Good post summarizing the problem in detail, CAR. Yes, I don’t have a problem with 1 or 5 because the folks in the “1” group who are still residing in their property with the original Prop-13 assessment will eventually pass on, making their ultra-low assessment moot (and eventually Prop 13 itself moot). It was the later-enacted Props 58 and 193 which allowed the ultra-low Prop 13 assessments to pass on down a family into perpetuity and that wasn’t the original intention of Prop 13. It was mainly to keep senior citizens (read: 65+ years of age) from being taxed out of their homes. It wasn’t to provide their hotshot age 30-40-something children or grandchildren in (expensive) SF or LA a $25K++ property tax subsidy on each multifamily building they’re currently trying their hand at slumlording over.

As far as #5, I do think agricultural landowners who inherited their property should get a pass-thru of their ancestor’s assessment as long as they are still using ALL the property for agriculture. If they decide NOT to farm or ranch for a season while they negotiate with Big Development over subdividing their land (and eventually sell it to that developer) then their assessment should be increased retroactive to July 1 in the year they decided not to farm anymore, regardless of when the sale actually consummates. I haven’t figured out the formula for this increase, but it should be substantial enough to keep them from “gaming the system” to stretch out their ultra-low assessment (or trying to transfer title to a child or grandchild who is a developer or will act as a middleman to unload the property on a developer). Also, if the state has any other programs which act as waivers of assessment for CA farm and ranch land owners and which have the effect of lowering their assessment per acre LOWER than what Prop 13 provides for, then the landowner shouldn’t be able to use both programs simultaneously on the same parcels of land. If the landowner is being paid by the Dept of Agriculture NOT to grow certain crops for particular season(s) or to leave their land bare, then this should have no bearing on their assessement for those particular parcels.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=no_such_reality]While I think long term ownership is more beneficial than long term renting for building financial stability and wealth, that’s not what we’re talking about in this thread.

This is about whether gutting prop thirteen for any non-primary residence and removing the ability to protect the tax basis in family transfers will be better or not for the majority.

The proposal will make it harder for people to buy, harder to move up, harder to save to buy because it will increase rents and push more to corporation run housing which will churn them.

The anti-13 crowd has a lot of wishful thinking on what they want, but no basic economic connection to what will happen in their proposal.[/quote]

NSR, your post above assumes that current landlords who are most benefiting from the existence of Props 13, 58 and 193 are somehow “benevolent” and thus renting their affected propertie(s) below market due to the generous property tax subsidy attached to them.

In the absence of rent control, nothing could be further from the truth. LL’s charge (and get) as much rent as their local market will bear (to still be able to retain longer-term tenants). I will repeat again here that the amount of their annual property tax has nothing to do with this.

The end result of these propositions is that one set of property owners is unjustly enriched over the set who is paying closer to market-rate property taxes, plain and simple. The “unjustly-enriched” set can also afford to be more selective on tenants because they can hold a vacancy longer due to much lesser carrying costs than the “market-rate set” has, since many (most?) of these properties have been in the same family for ~40 years and are likely now free and clear. The latest “owner” (child or grandchild) is no more “deserving” (than the “market-rate set” of owners) of a generous tax subsidy than they are. The child/grandchild owner was simply born to people who were not necessarily even well off themselves, educated or even contributed anything to their communities but owned (or inherited) CA property at the “right time” and often situated in the “right place.”

These props (esp the last 2) are a gross example of unjust enrichment to one group (consisting of many thousands of younger, able-bodied individuals of working age) to the detriment of all the “near market-rate taxpayers” and our state and local governments.

[bearishgurl]

My kid and 3 roommates (all students) have a nice 4/2.5/2 townhome (abt 1650-1750 sf – not sure) with LR FP, DR, huge kitchen, oversized attached garage and private enclosed patio in a very nice (upscale) eastern suburb of LA for $1950 month. Most of it (flooring, mouldings, plantation shutters, tub enclosures & doors, etc) has been upgraded since it was purchased by the latest investor a few years ago. IIRC, it was built in the mid/late ’80’s (no residential RE is very “new” in the vast majority of this area until you pass well over the San Bern County line).

My kid’s 1/4 portion of all monthly expenses is a very reasonable +/- $600 (incl 1/4 utils), depending on amount of heat or A/C used. Their gas and elec are separate bills and they also have wifi. The owner pays water, sewer and trash thru HOA dues and it is a very large, beautifully-landscaped and maintained complex with all amenities, including roving security in golf carts.

I think LA county rents might be comparable to SD rent up to about 12 miles from the (SD) coast but in East LA and beyond rents are much less as these cities are between 26 and 50 miles inland (from the Santa Monica Pier). Almost all are extremely liveable (even “charming”), uncrowded cities with more generous SFR lots (on avg) than in SD. It is clear to me that LA County did not sell out their open space to Big Development in past decades as SD County and its cities did. These wise decisions LA area leaders made in the past contribute greatly to their livability factor today, imho. Sure, LA County’s freeways are crowded but that is primarily due to millions of residents from four adjacent counties using them in their daily commute to work and back. That phenomenon isn’t as pronounced in SD County except for (possible 150K?) Southern RIV County daily commuters and a few straggling daily commuters residing in the OC.

In my mind, $2700 is a RIDICULOUS amount of rent to pay for a 1388 sf 3/2.5 in (congested) CarmelV (SD). Especially if it doesn’t even have a garage or only has a one-car garage! Likewise, the 588 sf condo in a 40 year-old part of MM (the congestion capitol of SD) for $1500 mo (w/carport pkg?) is a ripoff. Uhhh, no … I don’t care if there IS a ramshackle plywood “tool closet” to store stuff in front of each assigned carport space, lol. SD County’s quality of life has gone down the tubes in so many of its areas because City/County leaders have allowed in much too much density in recent decades. In older parts of Chula Vista, the (apt) density isn’t bad (mostly a few older small, scattered one-story “court” apt developments) but it is terribly congested in 91914 and 91915, especially in the multifamily areas. It is so bad on some streets that a motorist has to slow down and pull over a little to let an oncoming vehicle pass, due to too many parked cars on the sides of the (narrow) streets. Why? There aren’t any parking lots for residents, just bare-mininum-width 2-car garages facing the alley (which you can’t park in, except to quickly unload groceries). They also didn’t build any driveways on these (numerous) blocks full of PUDs. It was just really poor planning all around … a comedy of errors the city allowed in. I feel sorry for all the poor slobs who bought into that mess and are now stuck with 1-2 HOAs collecting their monthly dues and MR that is thru the stratosphere.

I don’t know why SD County’s leaders had to ruin everything for the existing residents while other CA counties elected to preserve their quality of life so somehow managed to refrain from letting Big Development run amok calling the shots. Our leaders shot themselves in the foot because now we have hundreds of thousands (million(s)?) more residents since 1987 (debut of MR in SD Co) to provide public services (and water) for, not to mention clogging our streets and highways.

[bearishgurl]

mixxalot, if you’re actually willing to live in AZ, then SD East County would be a better alternative for you, imho. It’s not as hot as AZ and you’re right in that you can get a lot of bang for the buck out there in housing and also easily find someplace to park a (trailered) sailboat for “free” on your own property (or at the very least, bring it “home” 1-2 times per month to more conveniently load it up for a trip) :=)

Just look at the listings out there very objectively (even the “bargain-priced ones) taking the lot size, lot configuration, lot topography and type of soil into account and take a good inspector with you before making your offer. Do not be afraid to write in contingencies in your offer that you have X number of days to approve both your inspection report and engineering report during escrow (if you need one of those in escrow, as well, and you very well may). “Traditional” sellers out there are used to this protocol. Good luck.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=mixxalot]Point Loma, Del Mar, Pacific Beach, Encinitas and Carlsbad as well as La Jolla, Ocean Beach and Rancho Santa Fe are still crazy ridiculous even for a tiny 1-2 bedroom place compared to much larger nicer homes farther inland in Santee and El Cajon.[/quote]mixxalot, even a “working class” town or area situated in or near the “coastal” zone (within 7 miles from the ocean but even moreso within 5 miles) is going to have higher-priced housing than East County … yes, even National City and Linda Vista (SD), for example. The sole reason for this is because of their better weather and that A/C is really not needed in these areas (which costs a lot of money to run). Even smallish older homes in “coastal” Chula Vista (2/1/1’s and 3/1/1’s) are worth more than a 1800 – 2300 sf home in most (non-HOA) areas of SD East County (where a homeowner would be allowed to park their big toys). In coastal CA counties, location means everything when determining real estate values. There is nothing anyone can do about this. It is what it is.

[bearishgurl]

Synchrony Bank (NJ) also has a 1.25% CD for 12 months (higher for 24 – 60 months). THEY are completely legit and their customer service (located in the US) is excellent!

https://www.synchronybank.com/banking/products/cd/index.htm?UISCode=0000000

About 18 months ago, Synchrony Bank bought GE Capital (who ran their own Visa brand), Care Credit and JCP Credit. They’re now a huge US bank.

Don’t know anything about Emigrant Bank. Never heard of them.

[bearishgurl]

Property Taxes Tax data from local public records.

Year Taxes Land Additions Total Assessment
2015 N/A $32,654 $54,569 $87,223
2014 $1,598 $32,015 $53,501 $85,516
2013 $1,480 $31,871 $53,260 $85,131

Holy smokes! The above is the assessor record for the Harleigh listing (now pending) in Saratoga. The property tax rate for this property is about 1.87%! Did the voters up there vote in some wickedly expensive bond measures that they’re now paying through the nose for??

I wonder how high taxes will be for the new owner of this property (who pays $1.5M+ for it)!

[Author]

Posts