Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
CA renter
Participant[quote=spdrun]No, it shouldn’t be illegal. Burglary and home invasion should be illegal … oh wait. THEY ARE!
How many houses are burgled by people who politely come to the door and ring the bell? How common are “home invasions?” Statistics please… betting that the last thing that most burglars want to deal with is an irate homeowner, possibly holding a weapon.
It’s your right not to answer the door, or even disconnect the doorbell. But it’s disgusting that you support making something illegal just because of your personal preferences and fears. While I agree with a lot of what you say, your “law and order” attitude is frankly nausea-inducing.
No, there oughtn’t be a law, generally speaking. And I’d NEVER call the cops on someone who knocks on my door and offers a service. There’s no worse type of human being in my book than a do-gooder snitch who rats on people who aren’t actually hurting anyone, even if they’re technically breaking some asinine law or other.
Burglary in progress? Violent crime? You bet I’d call the cops. But not for a couple kids going door to door trying to make a few shekels. Anyone who works independently rather than (say) at some crummy fast-food joint for a multinational mega corp should be applauded, not arrested.[/quote]
While I totally get where you’re coming from, we have different perspectives because of our genders, ages, and personal experiences.
In neighborhoods where many elderly ladies live by themselves, having someone bang on the door unexpectedly can be quite frightening (and solicitors do often bang loudly on the door, repeatedly, as opposed to knocking politely).
I once called the cops on some men who were aggressively banging on our door when my husband was out. They were both VERY large, muscular men who looked like they had just left a prison yard where they spent their days lifting weights. They pounded so hard all of the walls shook, and when I told them through the door that we weren’t interested, they keep banging and insisting that I open the door for them. This went on for quite a few minutes. I called another neighbor who I knew was also alone to let her know about them, and they had just accosted her in her driveway and blocked her from going into her house. They were very aggressive with her, but she eventually made her way past them and into her home. We both called the cops on them.
I believe that people have the right to peace and privacy in their own homes. I don’t want to be advertised to or harassed in any way. Personally, I’ve had multiple incidents many years ago where we had bought stuff from kids who were selling magazine subscriptions or Christmas trees and stuff, and we never saw them again; they just took our money. The only people we’ve had successful transactions with were people we already knew to some extent — neighbors selling Girl Scout cookies or candy/wrapping paper for school fundraising, etc.
One time, we were at my MIL’s house in LA, and a man came knocking at the door. When my husband answered it, this man knew my husband’s name and claimed that he knew him from the neighborhood (my husband had lived there in the 80s, so it was plausible). He was very friendly and charming and had all kinds of info about my MIL and DH, so my husband gave him $20-$40 for whatever it was he was “selling” in order to help him out, though he had never heard of this man, and my MIL had never heard of him or his family name though she’s lived there off-and-on since the 1940s/1950s. The man gave my husband a piece of paper with all kinds of identifying information on it “to prove that he wasn’t a scammer.” We looked up the information after he had left, and it was a scam. Scary to think of how this guy got all of this personal information about my MIL and DH, and what he might have been planning to do if my MIL had been alone at the time.
Anyway, I appreciate that you have no problem with people banging on your door unexpectedly at all times of the day and night. Perhaps we should have signs that let them know of your preference so that they can approach people like you while leaving the rest of us alone. I know that I’m not in the minority on this, too, as the vast majority of people I know absolutely hate door-to-door solicitors. And most solicitors do NOT abide by people’s wishes even if they put “no soliciting” signs in their yards or on their front doors.
Participant[quote=The-Shoveler][quote=FlyerInHi][quote=The-Shoveler]LOL probably closer to “Encino” than Beverly Hills,
You need to be closer to “Rancho Santa Fe” to be compared to 90210. (which trust me is a good thing).
Only the servants kids go to public school in 90210.[/quote]
When I think of the San Fernando Valley of back in the day (like before 1996) I picture 1/2 country bumpkins.[/quote]
Funny, before the late 80’s there were quite a few Tech companies in the SF-Valley, about that time is when they moved to the burbs.[/quote]
And lots of aerospace companies, too, until the 80s. 🙁
I don’t remember any country bumpkins in the Valley, though I’ve heard stories about the chicken farms from some of the old-timers (now deceased) who grew up there before the freeways were built.
We did have some orange groves, corn fields, and strawberry groves in the west valley back in the day, but those were some very rich “country bumpkins” who owned them. They were eventually sold off and converted into high-rise hotels and offices, large condo complexes, apartment complexes, etc. many years ago.
Participant[quote=spdrun]
haha..
These days with cell phones, it’s a little unsettling to get someone ringing your door bell. Are door bells still useful? People are supposed to call and announce themselves first.Pressing a button on a door frame takes a second. Calling on the cell phone when you arrive at someone’s house: get electronic leash out, find contact or dial number, call or write text…[/quote]
People should call **before** dropping by to make sure that they aren’t interrupting people’s activities.
Personally, I dislike it when people “drop by” unexpectedly. It’s rude and shows a disregard for other people’s privacy and personal time/space. If we aren’t expecting someone, we don’t even answer the door.
Lots of burglaries and home invasion robberies happen under the guise of “innocent” door-to-door solicitation. IMO, it should be illegal.
Participant[quote=flu]Hey they wrote about “The Valley” today.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/feb/22/one-paseo-carmel-valley-smart-growth-planning/
Great. Home prices are now going to shoot up another 20% because, we’re even more awesome now.[/quote]
Too late! “The Valley” is already taken by the San Fernando Valley. 🙂
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Fernando_Valley
It’s where “Valley Girls” come from…
They made a movie about it, too!
ParticipantFrom flu’s link:
“Jannone said his department has no interest in cracking down on kids who want to shovel sidewalks or driveways. The law was made for transient scam artists who prey on the vulnerable, he said.
“The spirit of the ordinance is to protect residents from gypsy activity. People will solicit door to door and target the elderly and get into their house,” he said.”
Seems pretty reasonable to me.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]Carli, I would argue that zoning takes away property rights. The rules are cookie cutter arbitrary and don’t take into account the lay of the land, people with resources can get variances but the regular guy is hurt.
So you end up with ugly suburbs like Clairemont that don’t get up zoned and remodeled.
I thInk my view is more big picture than those of soccer moms who don’t want to deal with traffic taxiing their kids around in their SUVs and mini vans.[/quote]
Your last paragraph says it all. You should be allowed to live in a high-density area if that’s what you like, but “soccer moms” should also be able to live in the boring suburbs if that’s what they like. We need ALL types of neighbhorhoods because different people have different needs and desires.
Soccer moms shouldn’t be able to force their way of life on you, and you shouldn’t be able to force your way on them. Thank goodness we aren’t all alike. That gives us more choice, which is a GOOD thing!
Participant[quote=AN][quote=The-Shoveler]That’s kind of the point, it grows organically as a location matures and grows, it’s not force fed.
When the strip mall owner is suddenly offered 10-20 million for his land, the Biz owners will mostly like get something too, it just kind of works itself out.[/quote]But areas like built out suburbs won’t grow, unless it already has an urban core w/in it. If it doesn’t, it will most likely just stand still as a suburb. Have you seen very many suburb with no urban core reinvent/grow itself and add an urban core?
Even if the strip mall owner might get offered 10-20 millions for his land, the surrounding residence won’t let that strip mall be converted to an urban core with mix use. That’s my point, I just don’t see that happen. A strip mall can be renovated, but it will stay a strip mall.
Also, you don’t want just any strip mall to be converted to mix used urban core. You want your urban core to be near freeway/public transit. Those are the kind of things that need proper planning.[/quote]You’d be surprised. My MIL’s neighborhood in LA looks vastly different today than it did just 10-15 years ago. Her house is beginning to look like the old man’s house in the movie “UP,” when the big city was being built all around the quaint little house. (the second picture down)
They’ve torn down some old favorites (houses and businesses) and built up 4-5 story buildings in their places. It’s happening all over the place in the older parts of LA, including the suburbs.
February 18, 2015 at 7:17 PM in reply to: Best Option for Getting a Loan – And Purchasing Without an Agent #783162ParticipantNot saying he should use it to negotiate, just that it’s best to be fully informed whenever one is buying a house. While I’m sure the landlord is being fair, I doubt that doofrat is getting it for 50% less than market price.
February 18, 2015 at 12:19 AM in reply to: Best Option for Getting a Loan – And Purchasing Without an Agent #783112Participant[quote=doofrat]Thank You spdrun, looks like those forms will do the trick!
Does anybody have any advice on who the best lender to go through for the mortgage? Anything to watch out for?[/quote]First off, congratulations to you and your family, doofrat!!! 🙂 I think that buying a home you’ve rented for a long time is one of the best ways to go. You have a history with the house and know it better than just about anybody else (including the landlord, most of the time), AND you don’t have to move!!! Not including an agent will likely save both you and the seller thousands of dollars. Win/win/win for you!
We tried to buy our old rental, too, but the landlord decided they weren’t ready to sell.
Anyway, HLS is a mortgage broker who’s been on Piggington for quite a while. Why not PM him and ask for his advice? Other Piggs have used him and seem to be happy with his price and service.
The escrow/title companies will handle pretty much everything. Be sure to get the disclosure package that includes any fire/earthquake/hazmat/flood zones that might apply to the property before you buy it, as this could affect your ability to insure the property for a reasonable price.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardized_Natural_Hazards_Disclosure_Statement
Here is just one source for this type of report. Also, you can get a CLUE report which will tell you of any insurance claims made for that address.
http://www.firstam.com/title/products/disclosure-reports/natural-hazard-disclosure-report.html
Also, be sure to ask about Mello-Roos bonds and any other special taxes. You can also look up tax information on the County Assessor’s site:
http://www.sdtreastax.com/pay.html
Congratulations, and best of luck with your transaction. It’s actually a lot easier than most people think.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]personally i enjoy hearing more about failures than successes. in gneral most lawyers i know like to talk about their successes, take credit for them even when it wasnt all them.
i prefer hearing stories from attorneys about screwups.[/quote]
I like hearing about both successes and failures. We can learn a lot from both.
It’s also interesting just to hear other people’s stories and perspectives. From maids and gardeners to executives and successful, self-made entrepreneurs…there are so many varied experiences from which we can learn. It’s all fascinating to me.
ParticipantI would absolutely love to see scaredy get into writing novels.
Please do it, scaredy! 🙂
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]if anyone wants a ree month’s pass, i can hook you up, PM me. on the 79 near best buy. also in murrieta somewhere
just one month and i feel like a new man.
blood pressuredropped 10 points to 99/61.
i walk around feeling like a jungle cat.[/quote]
Good for you, scaredy! That’s a fantastic blood pressure reading!
Participant[quote=AN][quote=CA renter]1.) Restrict the ratio of highest-paid to lowest-paid people who work for or own a particular corporation (including ALL types of compensation to any individual). If they want the benefits of incorporation (basically spreading the risks), then they should have to pay for those benefits by spreading the rewards, as well.
2.) Tax ALL income at the same, steeply progressive rates.
3.) Eliminate the ability to step-up the cost basis of assets for heirs of large estates. Adjust the cost basis by some sort of inflation factor instead in order to avoid being taxed on “inflation.”
4.) Universal healthcare for all U.S. citizens. Medical costs are one of the leading causes of bankruptcy. Unfortunately, if someone is stricken with a devastating illness, they are often unable to work (and maintain affordable insurance) at the very same time that they need this insurance. We pay the highest medical costs for some of the worst outcomes, respectively. Americans desperately need to wake up and learn more about the different healthcare systems and their outcomes.
5.) Lift the cap on income subject to SS taxes, increase SS contributions from both employees and employers, and increase the benefits with the possibility of adjusting the benefits based on needs.
6.) Consider imposing tariffs on “U.S. companies” (and foreign companies?) that do most of the manufacturing overseas if they want to sell goods in the U.S. These costs should offset any differences in labor and environmental standards between the two countries.
If the company isn’t paying for all of the legal, physical, social, and other infrastructure provided by our government (because they are doing most of their work overseas), they should have to buy the right to be a U.S. company with all of the protections and benefits that this affords them.
Just these steps alone would greatly reduce the income and wealth gaps, while still allowing people the ability to save for retirement and enjoy a decent quality of life.[/quote]
1)What would that ratio be? I wonder how this will affect CEO’s decisions, especially regarding inversions to bypass this all together.
2)This wouldn’t matter if the company is non-American (inversion).
3)What would be considered large?
4)This a whole other debate, but sure, reform of our healthcare system. There is a reason why the rich people from other countries come here for healthcare.
5)So, what you’re saying is, the richer you are, the more you pay, but the less you’ll get and the poorer you are, the less you pay into the system but they more you’ll get. How can such system be sustainable?
6)So, you’re imposing tarriffs on most companies. Most tech products are made overseas. Wouldn’t this give companies one extra reason to invert? Since they’ll have tarriffs imposed on them anyways?
Wouldn’t this also cause a trade ware against other nations? How does this help the little guys in the bottom rung if everything they buy becomes more expensive? Wouldn’t that eat up any gain their get from income increase?[/quote]1. The ratio can be variable, but here is an article stating that Peter Drucker suggests a 20:1 ratio.
Here’s an article about the average American’s ignorance regarding executive/worker compensation ratios. The U.S. is far above any other nation in this metric.
2.)Taxing all income at the same, steeply-progressive rates would indeed matter, whether or not there was an inversion because of rule #6 — foreign companies would not receive the benefits of publicly-funded U.S. infrastructure of all types — no IP protection, no naval protection of their sea lanes, they would have to pay for the use of our roads (if they sell here), etc. if they were not a U.S. corporation and/or if they were a U.S. company that only wanted to be headquartered here because of the many benefits we provide. They (foreign or domestic) would have to pay for the benefits of being domiciled here and/or doing business here. And any money that would be earned here would be taxed by us at these progressive rates. I would even argue that corporate taxes could be made progressive, as well, though I would not tax corporations as highly as individuals unless the money was going to an individual, at which point they’d be taxed at the individual rate.
While costs might go up a bit initially, I firmly believe that we can produce better quality goods for fair prices, even after taking into account the superior labor and environmental protections here. Also, the purchasing power of labor would be increased, offsetting much (or all) of the increased costs that would result from domestic production vs importing the cheap junk from abroad, IMHO.
Also, I would argue that a widget that costs $20.00 but lasts for 10 years is “cheaper” than a widget that costs $2.00 but only lasts for six months. I’m not nearly as convinced as you are that we are better off because of cheap imports that are often of inferior quality.
3.) My mistake, as I was thinking of the issue of estate taxes on large estates when I started writing this.
While I am generally opposed to estate taxes, one could make the argument that there should be a progressive tax rate applied to inherited wealth above a certain threshold. IMO, it should be lower than individual or corporate tax rates because this income/wealth has already been taxed when it was first earned, and I do believe in property rights.
Additionally, inheritance dilutes wealth rather than concentrate it, contrary to popular myth. But the unjustifiable accumulation of additional wealth after inheritance is what needs to be dealt with, and this would be addressed by changes to current laws regarding stepping up the cost basis of assets, along with a higher, progressive tax rate for unearned income.
Heirs of ANY property/estates should not be able to step up the cost basis to market values upon inheritance. The cost basis for ALL assets, whether inherited or not, should be offset by some sort of inflation factor. There should be no difference between inherited and non-inherited assets.
4.) Rich people don’t only come here for care, they go to other countries, too. Many go to Europe for treatment. Some wealthy people even go to Mexico for treatment. While the wealthiest individuals can certainly get exceptional treatment here, most average Americans will spend more to get less than average people in other countries.
But I think that we both agree that our current healthcare system desperately needs to be reformed. How that happens, and what the end result should look like would be a fun, but different, debate.
5.) Yes, that’s what I’m saying. Yes, it’s socialism, but I think it’s the best way to prevent elderly people from living in abject poverty…with the added effect of keeping more money in circulation via the additional purchasing power of this demographic. We could either charge a flat SS tax, as we do now, or we could make it progressively smaller after a threshold (maybe a flat rate up to $500K, and reduce the rate incrementally from there, perhaps at every $500K) where it would eventually go to zero; but that would be at a much higher income level than what we have now.
6.) Most companies desperately want access to U.S. consumers. They can be foreign companies/inversions, or domestic companies. Any money made here would be taxed at our corporate/individual rates.
Any foreign company would not have access to any of our govt-provided infrastructure or services (including military, distribution infrastructure, or IP protection, etc.) unless they pay a proportional share of the costs (plus a profit for our govt?).
We already have trade wars. Note how many countries are trying to devalue their currency, and look at all of the countries that allow for the exploitation of labor and the environment in order to be more competitive. I believe in global trade, but only when the playing field is level. Fair trade, not free trade, except for when a country needs to import from another country because they are absolutely incapable of providing a particular good/service for themselves.
Participant[quote=joec][quote=flyer]Some “real-life” examples:
I’ve talked to many of the people who rent homes and condos from us both here in San Diego and elsewhere about their lives, and, although they have great jobs, most of them are not in a position to buy homes–would like to–but don’t know if it will ever be possible for them. In addition, they don’t know if they’ll keep their jobs long enough to be able to retire–ever–and on and on.
Other friends who also own lots of rental properties tell me they hear the same things from their tenants–people with great jobs, who can’t get ahead.
When my parents started renting properties out years ago, it seemed people would rent for a shorter period of time, then buy their own homes quite soon thereafter.
“Wealth Gap,” or otherwise, things seem to be getting tougher and tougher out there for more and more people.[/quote]
I think you, flyer, are one of the few people who sorta “gets” it here. It’s not just about spending money and ALL these people pissing their dollars away. Sure, some do, most incomes are just not that high. Also, it’s hard to save with a wife/family. Easy if you are single and can cut everything in your life (I was always the saver myself).
I think the problem with this forum and a lot of people (AN, yes you), is that if you have a great tech job or a very high paying (relative to the general populace) job, you’re really tone-deaf and out of touch with how a lot of people live.
As someone who HAS worked in high tech during the tech boom making well more than 200k+ and having options/perks/you name it…people in silicon valley, here, wealthy people simply don’t “get it”.
Having LEFT hi-tech and worked in other industries, finance, self employed, and seeing how regular schmos live, it’s not as easy to make it big since your job is REALLY not as stable, it’s not as easy to find work (I NEVER WORRIED ABOUT FINDING WORK WHEN I WAS IN TECH). I also got laid off and know of others who got fired and messed with by the company so they couldn’t find easy work afterwards. I also know someone who had 4 jobs in 4 years (CFP) and just can’t find that idea gig…
For people who have it, tech work IS really different than most other jobs (and some others as well).
Is this the fault of the worker? in a way, it is…but the tech industry wasn’t this lucrative say 20 years ago. Also, people working in econ/biz can be laid off and there might not be as much work to be had (traders now I hear)… (think architects also as an example) or even regular engineers not killing it as much I don’t think.
If your job isn’t that stable, you aren’t clearing massive amounts yet and you have a family, it’s a lot tougher…
I saved most of my money when I was single, much harder if you are ramping up young and your job changes a lot or layoffs, etc…
Taxes being more fair (tax all income the same) I think would help a bit (Warren buffet supports this)….[/quote]
Agree 100% with this. This is exactly what I’ve seen.
-
AuthorPosts
