[CA renter]

[quote=joec]I would guess nearly everyone in easy to sell areas would definitely throw out offers which have a sale of existing property contingency.

Just seems like a mess to have to deal with that.

I’d suggest just selling and renting if they really “NEED” to move to something bigger.[/quote]

Agree with this.

We were talking to another couple last night about this very same thing. In this market, the best option would probably be to sell and then rent. Might also be able to time things better WRT seasonal buying, too, by selling in late winter/spring and then buying in late fall/early winter. You also know exactly how much money you will have, as well. Lots of people don’t really understand how much money gets sucked out of each transaction when you sell, not to mention the fact that one might not get their “wishing price” when they sell. What looks like a lot of equity might end up being quite a bit less once everything is netted out.

[CA renter]

This is one of my favorite kid videos…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlZKj8ZrnUU

I love these kids, but glad they’re not mine! 🙂

[CA renter]

That makes sense, though it would be nice if buyers could opt out entirely from the builders’ cabinets, flooring, etc., in exchange for a credit or discount on the price — wouldn’t it be nice if the price discount were the same as they charge buyers for their installations and upgrades! Then, the buyers could put in their own finishes and get a certificate of occupancy in order to fulfill the terms of their financing. Seems a lot less wasteful, not to mention more cost efficient.

Thanks for sharing your experience, OCR.

[CA renter]

He bought a house and got a life. I miss him, too. 🙁

[CA renter]

[quote=ocrenter][quote=plm]Yes, on both of my new house purchases, they allow you to pay for upgrades separately. And usually they make you pay half up front in case you don’t go through with the purchase. I have found that the builder charges quite a bit more for upgrades but your kind of stuck using them unless you want to replace it yourself later.[/quote]

Yes, that’s my experience as well. You got to watch them like a hawk about it because the great majority of folks just include everything in the sales price so the “default” for the sales staff is to just mindlessly adding the upgrades into the sales price.

Also, when possible really best to just hire your own guys to do the upgrade unless the builder somehow was competitive with their prices, which usually isn’t the case.[/quote]

Agree with all about not paying property taxes on these overpriced upgrades. One option would be to put down more than 20%, and then do a quick refinance after it closes to pull that money back out and use it to do the upgrades. That way, you can still deduct the mortgage interest, and you have more control over the cost and quality and of the upgrades.

One possible way to get “instant equity” is to time the purchase seasonally. Not sure about new developments, but prices on existing homes are often quite a bit less expensive during the fall/winter months vs. the spring and summer months. If that’s the case with new homes, you can buy during the slow time and then refinance in the spring/early summer, which could potentially give you some extra equity over and above your extra down payment. Of course, this is a pure gamble, but it might be worth a try.

[CA renter]

[quote=AN]Too bad you can’t order the base house w/out flooring and kitchen so you don’t waste money tearing it out.[/quote]

I’ve often wondered this. Is it because you can’t get financing if the house isn’t complete?

[CA renter]

Here’s an interesting piece on the rising tuition costs and the changes in student numbers and funding sources over the years. Note how many more students are attending vs. years ago. How does pushing everyone into college affect the value of a degree? That’s a problem, too.

Higher Ed By The Numbers

This has pie charts showing revenue sources and expenditures. Unfortunately, it doesn’t show changes over time. If anyone can find that, please share. 🙂

Where Does All That Money Go?

[CA renter]

[quote=livinincali]The budgets are tight because the schools have spent too much money on things that aren’t all that useful for educating students. Everybody says the problem is state funding went down but when you look at the actual numbers, per student spending by the state is pretty close to the same as it was 10 years ago. Alright so let’s factor in salary increases for the educators of 50% over the past 10 years if that. So UC schools should be costing about 50% more maybe even 75% more than they did 10-15 years ago, but instead they cost 300-400% more. Where is all that money going. It’s going into more administrators, more glitzy buildings, more things that do little to nothing to provide an education.[/quote]

Except that they’ve been moving more and more toward using adjunct/part-time professors who barely make enough to get by and are usually entitled to no additional benefits (health, pension, etc.). It’s hard to believe that the universities are paying much more today than they were ~20+ years ago, at least where the instructors are concerned.

I’d like to know more about where the money is going, too, as the notion that they are running out of money just makes no sense, IMO. Yes, state/outside funding is down, overall, and that does make a difference, but the purported extent of the budget problems still doesn’t make any sense.

[CA renter]

[quote=njtosd][quote=CA renter]

If I have to choose between showing mercy for criminals who have no regard for innocent people vs. cops who show little/no regard for criminals, I will come down on the side of cops every single time. Of course, I do hope that cops use discretion and maintain their composure when dealing with suspects and criminals, but I also understand that they can make mistakes, and that they are dealing with the dark underbelly of human society, which will definitely cloud their perspective.

[/quote]

CA Renter – you seem sweetly unaware that people who like pushing others around (or worse) are disproportionately attracted to positions of authority. (Look at the history of the BTK killer, for example, or the ongoing issues with security guards). The more benefit of the doubt that you give them, the more attracted the bad actors are going to be. We want it to be very clear that being a police officer is not a license to play fast and loose with other people’s Constitutional rights.
And just to be clear, I don’t think all police officers are bad. I also don’t think all bartenders are alcoholics, but it has a certain appeal . . .[/quote]

You seem sweetly unaware of my understanding and position on this, njtosd. Read through this thread if you want to understand it a bit more:

http://piggington.com/ot_temecula_police_dui_checkpoint_8am_on_a_wed_morning

I’m fully aware of the fact that law enforcement positions attract power-hungry sociopaths. But it’s wrong to paint the entire profession with that broad brush, and it’s wrong to assume that every incident where someone is injured or killed is an example of police brutality or proof of racism.

Yes, police brutality exists, and I want to extinguish it as much as anyone, but riots, mass hysteria, and killing cops isn’t going to make it any better. If anything, it will make these problems worse.

[CA renter]

[quote=spdrun]During the time that Freddie Gray was in the paddy wagon and they were accused of driving like maniacs, no one’s life was in danger other than Gray’s. The issue isn’t the arrest as much as the possibility of them carrying out an illegal “punishment”, resulting in Gray’s death.

They have a history of doing that. Not only to career crooks like Gray (who was more of a small-time dealer and thief than a violent hardened crim), but also to university librarians who filmed the cops responding to a noise complaint and may have displayed some attitude.[/quote]

Yes, I’ve seen those reports about other cases. If they really did do that, then they deserve to go to jail for a long time. No dispute there at all. But the accusations of “driving to kill/injure” sound more like conjecture vs. fact. Yes, they did seem to take a long route to get to the jail, and they will definitely have to account for that, but it still doesn’t mean that they were driving dangerously in order to “punish” Freddie “for sport” (but I am keeping an open mind because the circuitous route is odd).

It just doesn’t sound like they have evidence that the driver did this. It seems more plausible that the cop(s) injured him when they were arresting him.

Look at this video where they were taking him to the van. It looks as though his legs are not working properly, IMO. And based on the statements of witnesses who described how he was taken down, it sounds very reasonable that he was injured during the take-down/arrest.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/videos/bal-man-who-shot-freddie-gray-arrest-video-i-finally-made-a-difference-20150501-premiumvideo.html

Listen to how he describes how they had him positioned…

http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/05/05/ac-dnt-marquez-kevin-moore-shot-video-of-freddie-gray.cnn

——–

To me, the question is whether or not they knew that he was severely injured and then chose not to get medical help, or if they simply didn’t know. IMHO, the biggest problems for the cops are:

1. Not getting help when Freddie was claiming to be injured. It might be helpful to know if this was Freddie’s M.O., too…if he often claimed to be injured or hurt during arrest when he was perfectly healthy, in reality (some people do this on a regular basis), it might explain why some cops who are familiar with the suspects might hesitate to call for medical assistance). Still, they should have called the paramedics.

2. Not securing him in the van.

[CA renter]

[quote=scaredyclassic]

The “ignoring medical complaints usually works out until it doesn’t” and is “technically” wrong comment seems coldly utilitarian. once youre in custody, for a short or long time, you’re at the mercy of the system and its players.

some small percentage of people may be actually innocent, a larger percentage overcharged, and some guilty, obviously, with each group potentially being a malingerer with a complaint…but everyone is dependent on the police to address medical needs. They have a duty to provide care, like a lifeguard has a duty to rescue, or a teacher has a duty to his charges…

cops obviously arent doctors, and probably presume virtually everyone is malingering or exaggerating symptoms to some degree, unless they’re visibly in shock or have juicy visible wounds. But if a cop is going to play doctor, and make a medical judgment, hey this ones a faker, then , well, they’re violating the law, by practicing medicine without a license, and open themselves up to all kind of liability.,

many hate the idea that inmates of any stripe get medical care at all, since those on the outside who havent been accused get no free medical care. but thats part of the cost of running a system of mass incarceration that we have. the medical bills are going to be high. For the police to “screen” complaints is essentially saying, let the police practice medicine without a license, be our gatekeeper, like some cop/nurse practitioner.

on the statistically inevitable times when they get it wrong, them it seems fair to hold their feet to the fire, civilly and criminally, for when their illegal medical practice goes haywire. feel free to play doctor, mr and madame constable, but dont be surprised if the community you serve finds your errors to be the result of a depraved indifference to human life when you’re judgment is so dumb it results in someones swift demise.

of course, if it were your kid who died in custody because he had a knife on him, after voicing complaint of some internal injury to the police, the heartlessness of a lack of medical treatment would not seem part of the cost of doing business. it would seem absolutely sick and depraved on the part of the police.

imagine your son was writing in pain on the floor of that van, in his death throes, pleading for his life, feeling the a pain tantamount to torture, as the police took him for their trademark rough ride, looking back in satsifaction as his frail sweaty body bounced on the cold metal floor of the van, causing his final departure from this earth, where he would never again be held in your arms, his life cut short so that he would never marry, you would never see grandchildren, you would never hear his laugh…well, you might continue to feel as you do…

if you could say a few final words to him as he lay dying on the cold metal floor, would you say, hey dont do the crime {no matter how trivial) if youre cant do the time or also are not willing to possibly die at the hand s of the police…would you say “hey, shit happens”……. or would you be banging on the door of that truck, trying desperately to catch the attention fo the police, just as your son was doing in his final death throes, . And at that moment, perhaps you would realize, hey, those are actual beloved, precious, irreplaceable HUMAN BEINGS the police are taking into custody…not meat to be taken to the slaughterhouse….

these are our neighbors, our beloved children, our fellow countrymen…it doesnt seem that way…we as a nation have come to think of them as human trash…but they are not…

i know in my heart that cold utilitarianism would be out the window if it was one of yours in that van.[/quote]

Can’t disagree with your summation there, scaredy, but there is more to the story, as well. Freddie Gray had a long criminal history…

http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/freddiegray.asp

(using snopes so that people don’t claim this is made up)

It’s very likely that the cops knew him, and possibly knew him pretty well. He wasn’t arrested for just for having a knife. When the cops looked at him, he ran, so they pursued him. When they finally caught up with him, he was found to have a knife that may or may not have been legal.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/06/us/freddie-gray-knife/

The cops had reason to believe that he had just committed a crime, or was in the process of doing so, or was planning to commit a crime in the near future (a reasonable assumption since he ran as soon as he saw them looking at him).

From everything I have read and heard, these cops were not guilty of severely injuring/killing him “for sport,” nor were they showing reckless disregard for his life; but I would agree that they probably viewed him differently than they would their own children. Many people would view him that way, IMO, including myself.

I’m going to get a lot of flack for saying this, but having had altercations with violent criminals in the past, I most certainly DO view them as different from and less worthy of compassion than decent, law-abiding people who never seek to harm others. Here comes the real zinger…yes, if my children were criminals who preyed on innocent people, I would view them differently, too. I would indeed be very sad if bad things happened to them, but if they brought it on themselves, there would be far less compassion than if they were innocent victims. I would be far more angry with my kid for the end result than I would be with the cops.

If I have to choose between showing mercy for criminals who have no regard for innocent people vs. cops who show little/no regard for criminals, I will come down on the side of cops every single time. Of course, I do hope that cops use discretion and maintain their composure when dealing with suspects and criminals, but I also understand that they can make mistakes, and that they are dealing with the dark underbelly of human society, which will definitely cloud their perspective.

Not saying that they were right in this case — as noted, they had violated some of their own rules — just that I’m not going to jump on the politically correct bandwagon in wanting to burn all cops at the stake if they make some mistakes. Yes, some additional training is in order, but people need to understand the volatile, fast-paced, dangerous conditions that cops have to work in day-in and day-out.

Please watch this video of a civil rights activist who took part in role-playing some “use of force” scenarios with police. He says it was eye-opening, and I think that most people would agree if they had to spend just a single day in situations where their lives were literally on the line, and where split-second decisions mean the difference between life and death.

http://www.fox10phoenix.com/story/27788056/2015/01/07/activist-critical-of-police-undergoes-use-of-force-scenarios

And, because I know that many posters still haven’t seen it, here’s a real-life example of a cop shooting someone who is “surrendering” and putting down his weapon:

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/170481-9-second-video-shows-cops-shooting-man-putting-gun-watch-twice-wont-believe/

The last two links are a **must see** if anyone intends to engage in a debate about use of force.

[CA renter]

[quote=njtosd][quote=CA renter][quote=spdrun]Sport, revenge, punishment, whatever. They’re accused of overstepping their authority. If they’re convicted, they need a few decades to think about what they did.[/quote]

We don’t yet know what caused his injuries, or why. We need to see what comes out in the trial.

In no way am I condoning what the cops did if they caused his injuries and subsequent death. We just need to know all of the details before we start accusing them of “killing for sport” (or revenge, etc.). If it turns out that they did more than just try to subdue/arrest him, then I’m all for jail time. But we just need to know more before we can make that judgement.[/quote]

There is a legal theory referred to as “res ipsa loquitur” which roughly means “the thing speaks for itself”. It is used to describe a circumstance where fault is presumed based on circumstances. Freddie Gray was riding a bicycle when the police began chasing him, so one can only surmise that his spine was intact. He was arrested and placed in a van, unrestrained (against policy) and emerged with a severed spinal cord. I can barely think if a more clear res ipsa case. I agree that an exlanation should be provided, but unless his spine sponateously broke in two, i have a hard time even imagining a scenario where the police are not at fault. The degree and distribution of guilt does require some investigation.[/quote]

I’ve never claimed that the cops weren’t at fault, only that the claim that they did it “for sport” is hyperbolic and hysterical. We do not know all the details. From what I have read and heard from interviews with witnesses, when the cops restrained him, his legs were bent back at an odd angle with a cop’s knee on his neck. IMO, that sounds like a plausible cause of the broken spine. If you look at the footage of them dragging him to the van, it certainly appears as though his legs are not functioning correctly, though it’s not uncommon for suspects to be dragged to a police vehicle because they are not compliant. I can see why the cops might not think that anything was wrong with him at that point.

Were the cops trying to injure/kill him or showing a blatant disregard for his life, or were they simply trying to restrain someone who was clearly resisting arrest? That’s the central question here, IMHO.

As for his shouting that he was in pain, couldn’t breathe, etc.; lots of suspects do that when they’re arrested so that they can go to the hospital instead of jail. Cops hear that all the time. Of course, they technically should call the paramedics at that point (and obviously shouldn’t have loaded him into the van unrestrained, if that’s against their rules), but I think that a lot of cops get tired of that “I’m injured/sick” ploy, so some of them might not go along with protocol. That usually works out…until it doesn’t.

Again, we have to see what comes out in the trial(s) in order to determine whether or not they should be convicted, but to assume that they did this for sport is over the top, IMHO. There is clearly not enough evidence to support this (not saying it isn’t true, just that there doesn’t seem to be any evidence to support it at this time).

Let me be clear: I am not defending them at this point because Freddie Gray is dead, and there is no question that rules were violated on the cops’ part. I just dislike the witch hunts where every cop is assumed to be guilty of the worst crimes, even when the evidence doesn’t necessarily support the narrative.

If we want to avoid “street justice” for criminals, then we certainly owe cops the same consideration.

[CA renter]

[quote=spdrun]Sport, revenge, punishment, whatever. They’re accused of overstepping their authority. If they’re convicted, they need a few decades to think about what they did.[/quote]

We don’t yet know what caused his injuries, or why. We need to see what comes out in the trial.

In no way am I condoning what the cops did if they caused his injuries and subsequent death. We just need to know all of the details before we start accusing them of “killing for sport” (or revenge, etc.). If it turns out that they did more than just try to subdue/arrest him, then I’m all for jail time. But we just need to know more before we can make that judgement.

[CA renter]

[quote=harvey][quote=flu]what about all that looting? Where’s the prosecution for all those that burned down businesses and looted?[/quote]

No one is denying that the looting is a crime.

The Baltimore police are claiming that killing a man for sport is a not a crime – when they do it.[/quote]

They killed a man for sport? Really? Talk about hyperbole and hysterics.

[CA renter]

[quote=AN][quote=spdrun]Why does living in a rental long-term “suck” other than some conditioned sense of “pride of ownership?”[/quote]
Because most rental condition suck. Also, there’s a huge difference between a house and a home. There are things you would do to a home that you wouldn’t want to do as a rental.[/quote]

[quote=spdrun]Maybe my level of giveashit is just measurably lower than many people’? As long as the place is clean and in a nice location, the color of the kitchen tiles or the newness of the appliances does little for me.[/quote]

Said the youngish (not sure how old you are), single guy with no family. 😉

Like you, I don’t have a problem with renting, but even I, CA renter, hated the constant anxiety in the back of my mind while we were renting — worrying about the landlord raising the rent or deciding to sell the house before we were ready to move, living with “repairs” that were clearly of a temporary nature, worrying that the kids would be grown and moved out before we could buy a house that we could modify specifically for our family, etc.

Ultimately, it’s better to own because you have more control over your own environment and your housing costs. The goal should also be to have a paid-off house before retirement, IMO. Can’t do that if you’re spending decades in a rental waiting for the housing market to correct.

That being said, when conditions are totally, ridiculously out of whack, it can be wise to sell and rent (that’s what we did). But even doing that isn’t a guarantee that things will work out as planned. Stuff happens.

Also, I think I can speak for the majority of families here when I say that your living conditions and housing stability become a MUCH bigger issue once you’re married with kids. It would be pretty difficult for you to understand unless you’ve moved a family of five with 30-days notice (we didn’t have to do this, but know others who did…one bubble-sitting poster (here or HBB?) had to move their family every single year while they waited, either because their rental was being foreclosed on or the owner wanted to sell, etc. Needless to say, they were ecstatic when they finally bought…didn’t wait for the exact bottom, but didn’t care at that point.

[Author]

Posts