Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
CA renter
ParticipantTotally agree with you, flu.
This has nothing to do with racism. Yes, police brutality is an issue (unrelated to racism), but inner city crime is no less of an issue. Why isn’t anyone addressing that? Would it make us sound “racist” if we brought it up? It impacts more poor, black people than police brutality does.
ParticipantFunny, I remember the RE agents claiming that foreign buyers were behind the run-up in the prior housing bubble. IMO, it’s not that the world is smaller (agents come up with the nuttiest stuff), but that it really hurts to hold cash right now, and most other asset classes are at/near highs, too. As they said during the last bubble, at least you can live in a house (unlike stocks, bonds, etc.).
One thing that tends to happen when the housing market is about to turn is that spreads between the high-end and low-end tend to compress near market bottoms and expand near market tops. That’s because the people who sold starter homes have more money to put down on move-up homes, whereas buyers at the bottom don’t have huge sums to put down. That’s why the top usually continues to go up for a while longer after the bottom has stalled, and it’s why the top of the market usually doesn’t crash quite as hard as the bottom — there is more equity at the top, along with other types of wealth that can help these owners make it through the hard times.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=flu]Maybe there are some people can actually afford homes here, even at current prices. That said, I don’t know why you have an ax to grind with the (un)affordability and prices in parts of SD. Maybe people actually want to live in some of the lizard land places, and maybe some people dont’ mind paying more and even can stretch to afford it. And looking at it, you and many others were just plain wrong about expecting a 40-50+% correction around here. It never happened, to your disappointment. Maybe 20-25% at worst, but it’s close to peak and in many cases above peak. Anyone that held out all this time did just fine, and in some cases even better once they refi’d. Not that I’m particularly happy about it because it’s just one more dis-incentive to move to a bigger place…[/quote]
Thanks for your comments, flu. I frankly have never looked at any listings in CV unless someone posted them here. I had no idea that there were listings up to $4.5M in Carmel Valley! Based upon the links of listings I’ve viewed here, CV seems way too dense to have “luxury” listings in the multimillion-dollar range!
I’m actually not “one of those” people who believes that SD housing is unaffordable or “overpriced.” Actually, I think there are several areas in the county which are still undervalued. And I’ve never posted that Carmel Valley is situated in “Lizardland.” It is not. However, it cannot be compared to Encinitas, which is on the coast and boasts many custom homes. CV and Encinitas (much moreso west of I-5) are two completely different animals, imho, and likely cater to two completely different buyer-demographics.
Believe me, I DO remember when “North City West” was first developed and advertised its first one-story home plan for $168K.
I don’t have a personal problem with Carmel Valley today as it has never really been in my sphere but have always wondered what the “draw” to CV was. The subdivisions developed there since about ’98-’00 became just completely devoid of character as the developers continued to squeeze as many SF as they could on mostly 4500 to 6500 sf parcels. (This isn’t the only area like this in SD but it is undoubtedly the most expensive). Carmel Valley is now VERY expensive for what a buyer actually gets there compared to older, more established communities for the same price or less and without HOA dues and MR.
For example, my (very real) description of a circa 1976 ranch home in SD with great bones as I referred to in this thread:
http://piggington.com/deal_breakers_home_inspection
My gosh, for $800K to $1M, one can still buy a “cosmetic fixer” with a possible ocean view IF you can still find one! A home on a 7500 – 23,000 sf lot (more than 1 AC in parts of east county). These homes might have authentic river rock front porch surround; possible mahogany or redwood built-ins and FP; giant rock floor-to-ceiling FP with a 2′ high hearth; mahogany pocket-door room dividers; old brick pizza oven; built in bread box and/or spice grinder; authentic American Standard pastel tile; stained and leaded glass windows; even cantilevered ceilings (think LM, Bonita, etc). The list goes on. Of course, not all these features are in the same house but I’m sure you’re aware that there is so much out there to choose from in the $1M price range!
In comparing a CV “econobox” priced at $1M++ to a comparably-priced “character” or “period” home which sits on a larger (even much larger) parcel elsewhere in the county, I just fail to see the reason for the tremendous interest in the former. In my mind, there isn’t any comparison whatsover. The latter is so much more liveable for the long term.
Maybe it’s just easier today to buy an econobox due to ease of financing and not having to shop around for months (or even a year +) to find just the right “character” home.
Thank you, joec, for introducing me to the term, “econobox.” It’s very fitting for most of the listings discussed here.[/quote]
BG, I think that one of the reasons you don’t see eye-to-eye with some of the other posters/home-buyers is because you and they place different values on different things.
The details you’ve noted are exceptional, IMHO, and they are a true hallmark of what people like you and I consider to be a “high quality” property. But many people from different generations and cultures don’t place any value on those things; they might even place a negative value on them because they want to demo and replace all of those things (truly horrible, IMO…I’ve seen people tear down those beautiful floor-to-ceiling river rock fireplaces and replace them with ugly, cheap drywall and granite!). But what you and I think will not change how people value different features, nor will our beliefs change the value of real estate.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=CA renter]
…I’ve known many Christians and atheists, and both groups have their good, bad, and neutral. I’ve seen no difference in the level of obnoxiousness where the extreme ones are concerned.[/quote]perhaps. but the obnoxious superior atheist is a relatively new phenomenon. the obnoxious and dangerous religious viewpoint is pretty old.
im wondering how tht came about. when i was a kid, i dont recall religious people being so in your face, so proseyletizing, so demanding of public presence. kind of lik e veterans, they were proud and in the background.
as religiions got pushier and more needy, maybe atheists repsonded with “back the hell off?’ Im talking about the last 40 years in the usa only….[/quote]
I had to attend a Southern Baptist school. We were supposed to “witness” to our neighbors every Wednesday, IIRC. We didn’t do it more than the couple of times when we went with a larger church group (for a mandatory introductory experience, IIRC).
The Christians have probably been pretty obnoxious all along if there was someone who needed “correction,” but since more (most?) people were thought to be Christian decades ago, the religious nuts probably didn’t have as many people to pick on. That’s probably why they just picked on each other, fighting over ridiculous religious dogma and how the other person’s form of Christianity was going to doom them to an eternity of fire and brimstone with the screaming demons and worms eating away at their flesh. You have no idea how many (Protestant) Christians I’ve talked to who insist that Catholics are not “Christians” (hell-bound or not), not to mention some of the other religions. Ignorance abounds.
It’s likely that if there were many professed atheists around at the time, the Christians would probably be highly obnoxious around them, too. We just have more pronounced atheists (and other religious followers) now, so more folks to heap scorn and pity upon…and that would make it look more obnoxious.
Participant[quote=flu]Are you planning to still live there? I guess the question is whether you want to chase after 4 rents every month versus 1. Also, what happens if one doesn’t pay? I don’t know how that would work.[/quote]
This is exactly one of the main problems with renting rooms vs. a whole house (aside from code issues, as mentioned by spdrun).
If you rent room by room, you will have to manage four different tenants. That’s four different ads to attract tenants, four different lease agreements, four credit checks, four different people who might be bringing in boyfriends/girlfriends…not to mention all the chaos that might create among the tenants, etc. How would they share common space? Refrigerator/cupboard/kitchen privileges? Who is responsible for maintaining/cleaning shared bathrooms and other spaces?
If you’re living in the home and you know the room tenants well — and everybody gets along — that’s one thing (I’ve done that and lived with long-time/childhood friends), it’s another to live there and rent to strangers (done that, too…with stories to tell). But at least if you live there, you can keep an eye on things.
If you’re not living there yourself, I’d say no way. Not even close to being worth the potential hassle. Just my 2 cents.
May 1, 2015 at 1:46 AM in reply to: Home inspection no permits/neighbor built multi unit but zoned single family #785594ParticipantIs the addition single-story, or two-story? Does it really impact the livability of the home and property that you’re interested in, or is it just something that nags you for some other reason?
No matter where you move, you may very well have a neighbor or two that you don’t like…maybe even one that you hate. Personally, I think it’s better to focus on the neighbors that you do like. Just ignore the “bad” ones (and it’s all relative), and know that living with differences is just part of living, and as long as they are really offensive, just live and let live. Other people might be offended by something you do, too. It’s just how things are.
You did very well on finding this home, being astute enough to figure out what the potential landlord was hoping to do, and pouncing on it. If it looks like a really good deal, and if the location, lot, and layout are what you’re looking for, go for it!
As you know, good/cheap rentals are hard to find. This deal sounds like one of those rare opportunities in life where you will look back on it and high-five yourself. 🙂
Hope it goes well, and that you make friends with these neighbors. They might be some of the awesomest people you’ve ever met!
ParticipantFor us, it would be major foundation problems; major leaks (roof or plumbing), especially if they’ve been active leaks over a long period of time; or major structural issues.
Also, certain types of easement or land use issues could be deal-breakers. A new development going up nearby that would significantly affect the property and quality of life there could derail the deal, too.
That being said, you can negotiate your way to a good deal with these issues. If you can cover the total cost of repairing these issues using very high-quality materials and contractors, plus get something for your time and trouble, then it could be a good deal.
Best of luck!
ParticipantIs your violin teacher an economist, too? Just asking because we know an economist who played/plays professional violin and whose wife is an accomplished pianist.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=FlyerInHi]I don’t have life insurance because I have nobody to give the money to.
But if you buy life insurance early, say in your 20s, is it cheaper and is the term longer?
Also, if you don’t go hot air ballooning now, but go later and die of the balloon falling to the ground, does the insurance pay up?[/quote]
FIH, I bought term life insurance from age 25 forward (to supplement the 3x pay coverage I had at work, which wasn’t much). When you’re younger, your term life premium typically goes up every five years on a level-term policy (ex: age 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45). At age 50, the term ends. If you want a 20-year level term policy (typically from age 50-70), you will need to submit to a physical exam (with the CARRIER’s chosen provider) and sign a release for your medical records, in order to get properly priced. Once all that is completed, you will be offered policy terms and premium levels …. or you will be declined. At age 50, I applied to and kept the same carrier I had since age 25, but you are free to make application with other carriers.
If you answer that you do NOT go hot-air ballooning (or skydiving) on your application for term coverage (your premium was priced for a non-ballooner/skydiver) and then you later die in a ballooning/skydiving accident, your carrier will not pay out. If you answered that you DID go ballooning/skydiving on your app for coverage, the premium offered you will reflect that preference OR your app will be declined (depending upon carrier).
If you don’t have any dependents who will be your heirs, then you probably shouldn’t bother with paying life insurance premiums. Whoever will settle your estate will not be personally liable for any debts you leave behind that your estate cannot pay, and, in any case, life insurance proceeds are generally not part of your estate.
Please consult an estate planning attorney on this issue as I am not giving “legal advice” here.[/quote]
We had health exams both times we got new policies, at age 34 and age 44. I thought that every insurance company required it. Interesting to learn that this is not the case.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]i wonder what my special purpose is for being here.
maybe some of you remember steve martin in the jerk discovering what his “special purpose” was….man that was a funny movie…
i guess my purpose is to kick ass and be awesome.[/quote]
You’re here to bring us (Piggs, at least) humor while also educating and engaging to intellectual debates.
You’re here to be a great dad and husband so that you can raise wonderful kids who will also contribute to society.
You’re here professionally to help those who are hopeless and overwhelmed, and who need your wisdom, knowledge, and representation.
And that’s just scratching the surface.
Participant[quote=flu]Here’s my take on religious people.
You have a small percentage of religious people that are wacko nut jobs that screw it up for the rest of the religious people. Unfortunately, that small percentage tends to be the most visible and most vocal and have the most extreme viewpoints (my way or the highway). And for the vast body of folks that don’t believe in a religion, obviously it rubs people in the wrong way. And then people tend to generalize every religious person is a wacko nut job.
It’s really no different than watching the riots in Baltimore, seeing some of the looters/rioters are black, and then erroneously generalizing that every black person is a looter/rioter, when clearly that isn’t the case.[/quote]
+1 flu
Participant[quote=zk]All this talk about atheists and where the fit in is why we need a new word for the agnostic whose beliefs are similar to mine. I would wager there are more like me than there are atheists.
Say you’re a…let’s say freethinker. I’ll use that word to describe myself and people with beliefs similar to mine, although it’s not perfect and I think with some effort I’ll come up with a better one. You think that the idea of god is ludicrous. You think that the likelihood of god is small enough to be easily and completely dismissed from consideration. But you know that you don’t know enough about the universe to be certain.
If you say you’re an agnostic, people get the wrong idea about you. They think that you think that there’s a decent chance there’s a god, but you’re not sure. And it would be cumbersome and awkward for you, starting from there, to convey just how you feel about the likelihood of god.
If you say you’re an atheist, but you only say it because most people’s idea of where you stand will be way off unless you use that word, then people (thinkers, anyway) will say, (not without merit), “your certainty is as ridiculous as the religious believer.” And they’ll also lump you in with the militant atheists with whom you’d rather not be lumped.
If you say, “I’m a (insert better word than “freethinker” here),” then people would know what you mean. And, more importantly, if the word gains popularity, all the [freethinkers] will identify with it, and identify themselves thusly and, if there are as many of us as I think there are, they will, in my little fantasy here, all come out of the closet and become a force for reason.
I’ve considered this for a while, but I’ve never really put any effort into coining this word. I’m going to start giving it some effort now. Anyone out there have any ideas?[/quote]
Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known.[1][2][3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
—————–
Much respect to you, zk, for trying to work with me on this conversation. Thanks for trying to tone down the personal attacks, too.
It’s likely that our differences not only stem from how we see the world (black-white vs. grey), but also because we seem to hold very different beliefs about our knowledge of the universe. You seem to think that we know quite a bit (and we do), whereas I think that what we do know is an extremely tiny piece of what exists. Again, we can’t even really account for all the things that are not visible, audible, etc. to us because of our human limitations. Even with technology, we can only sense what we believe is there, based on our existing knowledge.
I may be far off, but I believe that the possibilities are endless. IMO, it’s unlikely that we will have the answers to these questions for many, many generations…if at all, in this world.
And I don’t think that an extraterrestrial being is necessarily separate from what people conceive of as a god/higher power. After all, the Biblical God existed before the Earth/universe, so he/she/it would indeed be an extraterrestrial being or power if he/she/it exists.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=CA renter][quote=FlyerInHi]Extremes, really?
I feel like there’s something very wrong when every politician has to end a speech with God bless the USA. I’d rather they wish me a good evening.
Plus believers think the one must find God for salvation. So even if they never talk about religion, they silently believe that God is the only answer and that excludes atheism. So why can’t atheists similarly exclude God?[/quote]
I agree with you about making religion a public spectacle.
Atheists can exclude God or a higher power, BTW.[/quote]
pretty rare i wager to find a dumber ;ess sophisticated religiious person who doesnt find an atheist to not be an affront to all that is decent in this world.
if atheists stay hidden, then religios people can go on thinking aTHEISTS ARE BAD PEOPLE. KINDA LIKE BEING A CLOSETED GAY. IF YOU GET TO KNOW A HOMOSEXUAL YOU WILL PROBABLY BE LESS OPPOSED TO GAY MARRIAGE. IF GAYS ARE ALL CLOSETED, SOCIETY WILL ASSUME THEY ARE A BUNCH OF PERVERTS. ATHEISTS ARE THE gays of this century…[/quote]
And many dumb, unsophisticated atheists (yes, they most certainly do exist) find religious people to be an affront to all that is decent in the world.
We’re not talking about dumber, less sophisticated religious people, though; at least, I’m not. If we match peer to peer, I’m willing to bet that atheists and religious people range from equally obnoxious and excluding of others to equally pleasant and tolerant.
I’ve known many Christians and atheists, and both groups have their good, bad, and neutral. I’ve seen no difference in the level of obnoxiousness where the extreme ones are concerned.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]Extremes, really?
I feel like there’s something very wrong when every politician has to end a speech with God bless the USA. I’d rather they wish me a good evening.
Plus believers think the one must find God for salvation. So even if they never talk about religion, they silently believe that God is the only answer and that excludes atheism. So why can’t atheists similarly exclude God?[/quote]
I agree with you about making religion a public spectacle.
Atheists can exclude God or a higher power, BTW.
-
AuthorPosts
