[Coronita]

[quote=FlyerInHi]do you need several ipads or several phones?

get rid of the old one when you buy something new.[/quote]

Ah yes…

For Android, there’s a need for different versions of Android… Lollipop, KitKat, Jellybean. For most cases, I can get by reflashing the phone/tablet. Not always… Then there’s the issue of Samsung’s version of KitKat isn’t exactly the same as LG’s version of KitKat..Which isn’t the same as Asus’ version 4.4 KitKat. And when I do figure out and workaround all the peculiarly, I get to repeat the fun all over when Google comes out with lollipop on their Nexus devices, with OEM’s trailing to upgrade devices afterwards..

As far as Apple….. Interesting tidbit.. Once you upgrade to say iOS 8.1, there really isn’t an easy way to downgrade back down to iOS 7.1.2 after Apple stops signing 7.1.2. Which means, you need to keep some devices on 7.1.2 for verifying compatibility while buying new devices that support 8.1…

[Coronita]

Speaking of clutter and the art of decluttering..

..I think I failed miserably at it….

[img_assist|nid=19907|title=|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=400]

…You know you’re having a really bad day…When you’re suppose to get something done, and none of your freaking tablets are cell phones have a freaking ounce of battery left because you haven’t charged any of them in a few days…..And then something comes up that requires to to fix something on most of them….

I think there’s a few others that I can’t find that are buried somewhere in my home or something…

I hate smartphones and tablets sometimes.I would never be caught dead buying a smartphone or tablet for personal use….I miss my Motorola Razor…

On the positive side, I guess I can run a small ebay business if I really wanted to….

Caption should be:
Top row, left to right to bottom row: iPad Mini, Nexus 9, Nexus Player, Samsung S3, Galaxy Nexus, Nexus 5, Samsung S5, Samsung S4, iPad Air

Not shown: iPhone 6, Samsung S4 asian version, Galaxy Note 4 asian version, Galaxy Note 4 verizon version, Nexus 7 , Nexus 7 (version 2), Nexus 6 (on order)

[Coronita]

[quote=harvey]You’re overthinking it.

A 3% loan costs 3%.

That’s all there is to it.[/quote]

Yes, but selling $150k of an investment to pay off that loan completely in itself is subject to capital gains, depending on how much of that is a gain. That’s on top of whatever other things have already been sold…

I for one, don’t really want to keep pushing my AGI up this year, especially when some planning of when I sell what investments, I can more or less control what my AGI is by spreading it out over a longer period of time…. sort of…with the exception of company issued stock, bonus, etc… which usually has some sort of time window you want to do things within.

[Coronita]

[quote=harvey][quote]pay the least total interest at the end…[/quote]

To pay the least total interest, pay the loan off immediately.[/quote]

Why?

So I can take money out of a higher return after tax investment elsewhere just to pay off this rental property….and consequently needing to pay capital gains taxes on that sell transaction this year…

…Just so I can own that rental property free and clear, so that that my rental income ends up being really really positive this year… for which I end up having to pay income taxes on that now really positive cash flow on top of the capital gains taxes I also have to pay on the money that I need to use to pay off my rental property…

…In a year when my tax bill will end up being even larger this year versus last year due to a pretty good windfall from from my company issued stock for which I had to sell and from a W2 income that was slightly higher than last year…

..especially when with the extra income I will have, I’ll end up probably just investing it anyway rather than need/wanting to spend it?

Um, no thank you…. I’ll wait for a year when my AGI is lower, like when/if I take a sabbatical, whether it’s voluntary or forced on me 🙁

[Coronita]

.

[Coronita]

[quote=AN]LoL, flu, you have too much time on your hand.[/quote]

I figure that it’s not worth it for me because
1) My loan amount is small
and
2) The interest rate is low

Maybe if the numbers were larger, it would make more sense.

[Coronita]

….Can someone please give me the cliff notes version of the past couple of threads?

It’s too much effort for me to read… (Hey, at least I admit it !)

Is Santee still La Jolla Adjunct? Is that the source of this debate?

[Coronita]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=zk][quote=bearishgurl]Well, scaredy, the price is never right. It seems that some Piggs may choose to “make a tradeoff for the sake of their family” to live in the path of of the likes of “Slaughterhouse Cyn” Rd. off SR-67…
[/quote]

Which Piggs would that be?

You’re like a polarizing radio talk show host with that attempt at “debate.” You take a person’s comments/ideas (people make tradeoffs for their families) and turn them into “people make tradeoffs for their families and live in deadly places.” Now, your average idiot who listens to polarizing talk show hosts, they can’t see that what you’ve just done is bullshit. They just start thinking that anybody who makes a tradeoff when buying a house is willing to risk the lives of their kids. They think, “man, what horrible people.”

But you’re on piggington. Not only are most people here smarter than that, but also you can’t just cut them off and have them not say anything more, like a radio host can. So, if you come up with weak, lame bullshit like the above (and like pretty much everything you’ve come up with on this thread, from your incorrect understanding of how economic obsolescence relates to buying and selling a home near a freeway to your defensive, puffed up bragging about your local schools (which, according to you, should be meaningless anyway since “CA public school districts can basically place your student anywhere they have room for them so school placement is essentially out of a parents’ control”) to your shrill harping about other schools to your hilarious contention that your feelings weren’t involved to your unsubstantiated claim that my arguments were circular to your assumption that people buy new homes near a freeway because they insist on newer construction), then people will call you on it. As you can see.

And yet you try. You are to be commended for your perseverance. I look forward to your next comment (although I must admit that I’m looking forward even more to my response to your next comment).[/quote]Awesome, zk. Waiting to hear from you! Like you, I have to actually “work” for a living and can’t monitor this board 24/7. Please roll on …. but while doing so remember that you are dealing with a Pigg here who has quite a bit of archives in their personal stash and a very l-o-o-ong memory ….

[quote=zk][quote=bearishgurl][quote=zk][quote=bearishgurl]Thus, the homebuying contingent who “settle” for incessant “freeway noise” because they “insist” on newer construction in their price range generally get the bottom of the barrel in local home selection if they choose to buy it. Why?? There isn’t anything in that realm that is located in desirable land in SD County because it has long ago been spoken for.[/quote] Settle? Sure. But pretty much everyone who’s not rich is settling in some way when they choose their house.[/quote] Sure, nearly every homebuyer has to “settle” in some way, shape or form. But “settling” for ear-splitting jets overhead on the hour or a freeway within shouting distance is completely unnecessary, that is, unless the particular RE market has a dearth of single-family listings which mostly go to cash buyers before even hitting the MLS (ex: most parts of San Mateo Co). In that case, a buyer who needs a mortgage would probably need to shop in another county and commute longer to work. We don’t have that problem in SD County and really never have …. not even in recent years. There has ALWAYS been homes in quiet areas to choose from.[/quote] Because they insist on newer home construction? Wow! Let me see if I have your reasoning right: There’s no good land left in SD. So all the houses being built now (newer construction) are near freeways.[/quote]No, you don’t “have that right,” zk. What I said was that the “newer construction” homes which are built for moderate, middle and upper-middle income families are built on the “least desirable land.” Often, that land is bordering a freeway and some streets can suffer much worse with constant ambient noise than others in the same subdivision. Why is this so? a) Because the most desirable sections of land in CA coastal counties have already been developed or are privately owned; and b) the “rich” with their powerful community groups and well-connected neighbors with many resources can afford to fight CalTrans into oblivion to keep any open space close to themselves open space, fight for zoning and legislation to keep themselves insulated from the likes of freeway construction, flight paths and heavy industry, etc.

[quote=zk]If that’s how you came to that conclusion, then… well, then you’re a nut. If that’s not how you came to that conclusion, I’d be very interested to hear how you did. It’s fascinating to see that you can’t seem to imagine a person buying a house near a freeway for a good tradeoff (more time with their family), but it’s easy for you to see them buying one for (what you see as) a bad tradeoff (they “insist” on newer construction).[/quote] Actually, buying a residential property with constant noise is a bad tradeoff, not a good one. It is not only newer construction that suffers from economic obsolescence due to freeway construction. Many older areas have had their own thoroughfares widened to connect with new freeway ramps and have a LOT more traffic today than they ever did or that they ever imagined they would when they purchased their home 40, 50 or 60+ years ago. The SR-56 as it looks today is a relatively new freeway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_56

Even though both ends of it already had residential development at the time of its construction, the SR-56 was only needed because of the relatively new construction which has popped up along its route in the last 15 years. As such, the development that has sprung up along its route is fairly new or new (<15 yrs old). A buyer looking to buy in the entire nine-mile stretch of the SR-56 (or works on either end of it) has many options. They don’t have to buy a home affected by the noise. zk, you still haven’t shown us a listing or ad for a home in or near the former “Rhodes Crossing” (now 56 merge) as the OP is referring to here and pricing it and then finding a similar nearby home without the freeway noise and pricing it. That was your “homework” and instead you would rather insult me. You claim that buyers “need” to make a “tradeoff” to buy a home that would be very uncomfortable to live in long-term and I maintain that they don’t.

[quote=zk][quote=bearishgurl][quote=zk]Newer construction is not usually why people choose a home near a freeway. They choose it for a multitude of reasons, most of them likely good, solid reasons. There are plenty of homes near freeways in older areas, and people buy those houses regularly. And most of them probably for good reasons.[/quote]The older areas which I am familiar with in metro and South County which have had freeways come through ended up turning into primarily rental areas immediately before, during and after freeway construction rendered those streets “economically obsolete.” People don’t “choose” to live in very noisy areas. They either “end up there” because they didn’t do their homework, they are renting there and didn’t realize how bad the noise would be or they purchased the property long before the freeway came through. There really isn’t any good reason to buy a residential property badly affected by freeway noise unless it was dirt cheap and the investor feels he can keep tenants in it.[/quote]You say, “bottom of the barrel in local home selection” as if it’s necessarily a bad thing. I’d rather live in the worst house in a fairly nice part of Chula Vista than the best house in a bad part of National City (or in a noisy neighborhood near my work so I have more time to spend with my family rather than in a quiet neighborhood farther away), that could easily be a wise choice.[/quote]

Different strokes for different folks. Actually there are “bad” (or shall we say, “inadequately zoned”) parts of Chula Vista and gracious, stately, well-kept-up blocks of National City . . . as there is in every well-established micro area.

Why is there no good-quality land left in SD County for tract subdivisons? Because, aside from its exhorbitant purchase price, it is extremely costly for the subdivision and permitting process in this region (before one single-family pad has been graded), so much so that Big Development can’t build the compact mcmansion-type dwelling that today’s families are seeking without getting whatever land is leftover as dirt cheap as they can.

Read my lips. There has been no quality land left to buy for subdivision development in SD County (excepting the occasional 1-4 unit spec bldg on an urban razed lot) for the last 22 years. It was all taken before that. If you don’t believe me, ask the major Big Developers … and while you’re at it, ask them why they left town and when they left town (or exited the local residential SFR market). They’ll tell you the truth.

If you see ANY subdivision in SD County (of whatever size) springing up today that you believe lies on actual “quality” land, rest assured that that land has been owned by a developer or other private party for a minimum of 25 years. This longtime owner may or may not be the one who is developing it today. If not, each improved parcel will be very expensive at the time of marketing (over $1M).[/quote]

I have no idea what you are on, but whatever you are smoking, can I try some?

[Coronita]

This article might be useful…Lol…

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/oct/24/airbnb-vrbo-mark-rent-steelers-gaslamp-condos/

Man who rented out condo fined $106K

If you own a luxurious condo in downtown and want to make some easy money, you can rent out your unit for a weekend via popular sites like Airbnb, Craigslist and Vacation Rentals By Owner.

Just don’t let your Homeowners Association find out — you could be writing them an even bigger check.

That’s what happened to Thomas Stevens, who in July paid The Mark Condominium Association more than $106,000 after a Superior Court judge ruled that he continually violated the opulent downtown building’s regulations by renting out his 19th floor unit on a nightly and weekend basis, something Stevens says he only did once. After he wrote the check, The Mark’s association posted notices in the elevators, informing residents of the victory as a tacit reminder to resist any temptation to list their units for leases shorter than the 90 days the complex requires.

With the skyrocketing popularity of sites like Airbnb and VRBO.com providing travelers an alternative to a hotel, homeowners associations across downtown are taking strides to ensure their residents don’t get tempted to take advantage of the opportunity.

Some municipalities also regulate short-term rentals.

This week, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to make the use of Airbnb legal for the first time in several years, a measure that moves to Mayor Ed Lee’s desk for signature. In New York, it’s still illegal to rent out a residence to someone for fewer than 30 days, rendering Airbnb moot for short-term stays. The city of San Diego doesn’t ban short-term house rentals, but requires a minimum seven-day stay for condos in some areas. Those who rent out their units are required by the city to obtain certification and collect transient occupancy taxes.

“Owners don’t want weekenders or other short-term stays because it turns their home atmosphere into a hotel atmosphere with visitors who can be loud, disruptive, rude, and simply not use the care required to help keep the community clean, safe and free of damage,” said Laurie Kendrick Coxworth, general manager for ICON, a complex on 10th Avenue, which requires at least 30 day leases of its units.

Kendrick Coxworth said each year around Comic-Con, the complex sends out reminder notices to residents not to list their units for the major international event. She said the board is now considering raising the fine for an initial offense from $250 to $1,000. Across downtown, at the 43-story Electra complex off Harbor Drive, the board two years ago increased the fine from $50 for a first offense to a maximum $5,000, although general manager Jim Jennings said most first-timers are fined $500.

Jennings said he checks sites like Airbnb every two weeks to see if people are advertising their units, and even more frequently around Comic-Con. If there’s a listing, he sends the owner a notice that it is not allowed, as the building requires a minimum one year lease. Jennings said he also finds out about short-term rentals through word of mouth.

“You’re not going to keep anything secret in a vertical village,” he said.

David Peters, the attorney for The Mark’s association, said visitors tend to get caught because they ask doormen and other workers at the expansive buildings for services more akin to those in a hotel.

“I’ve had them order food from security, and they don’t understand it’s not a hotel and that it’s not their concierge,” he said.

The ruling against Stevens came three months after he sold the two-bedroom unit for $774,000, which was $175,000 more than he and his parents paid when they split it in December 2009. The $106,059 payment to The Mark took away any sort of profit.

“It was kind of a wash,” said Stevens, 49, who owns a demolition company in Orange County. “I had to pay my attorney, and all my time wasted. I really didn’t want to sell the unit.”

Leases at The Mark have to be at least 90 days to comply with the building’s covenants, conditions, and restrictions, or CC&Rs, which owners agree to when they buy a unit at the complex. Stevens said he only violated the rule once, when he said there was a lack of clarity in the requirement. He said he rented his condo out to a teacher visiting from Ohio for a week, pocketing $2,500. He said he received a violation letter after she commented on the building to someone at the front desk. He eventually paid a $350 fine, and then adjusted his advertisement on VRBO.com to a reflect a minimum 90 day stay.

“I turned people down all the time because I didn’t want to violate the HOA rules,” he said, speaking by phone from Orange County this week.

Peters, The Mark’s attorney, said however, that Stevens actually continued to rent out his unit for short terms, despite the warnings to stop.

“He was basically bringing people in, and claiming they were his friends and his guests,” Peters said. “They were not his friends and his guests.”

Stevens disagrees, and said they actually were his friends. That includes Tunch Ilkin, a retired member of the Pittsburgh Steelers who stayed in the condo during visits to San Diego to care for his wife, who passed away in 2012 after a battle with cancer. A spokesman for the Steelers confirmed to U-T San Diego that Ilkin did stay at the property. Stevens said otherwise he and his wife and children would come down from Laguna Niguel for weekends, visiting places like SeaWorld, or that his parents would use it to escape the heat in Scottsdale, Ariz.

In the end, Superior Court Justice Jay Bloom found for The Mark, awarding $16,059 in costs and $90,000 in attorneys fees for breach of contract. The Mark also filed suit against a resident named Gerald Zelko, accused of renting his unit for short terms, but that case was settled out of court.

Seth Kaplowitz, a real-estate attorney and finance lecturer at San Diego State University, said homeowners associations are aggressive about enforcement because they want to sustain quality of life and property values. He said other parts of the county aren’t as strict on short term rentals, noting that there’s a large market in North County during Del Mar racing season.

[Coronita]

If one bought a 3/3 condo in Carmel Valley in say 2001, it would have cost maybe around $330k. And it would be worth $600k today…..

$3k is probably reaching for rent, probably closer to $2800/month for a 3/3.

As far as netting $1k a month, well it depends on how much operating cost he has and whether he owns outright..

But his entire story is suspect, considering now he admits 70-80% of that $1million net worth was from an inheritance….Not saying there aren’t under 30 millionaires..Plenty of them in the bay area…
But he isn’t one of them…

[Coronita]

My seventh grade math teacher had a sign posted in front of his utterly cluttered desk…. I never forgot it….

“A clean desk is a sure sign of a sick mind”…

That said, I think there’s a big difference between being messy/disorganized (IE you have papers all over the place)…versus being unclean/filthy. The latter is imho disgusting…

[Coronita]

This might help… Just went through this…

http://piggington.com/do_you_renegotiate_your_cablecellinternet_bills_all_time

I think recently, I’ve been pretty happy with uverse customer service. They seem to be on top of things, especially in San Diego.

And, unfortunately, you have to switch every year if you want the best rates in town..Or at least threaten to switch.

[Coronita]

[quote=CDMA ENG]Dude…

Get yourself a HVLP system and shoot the paint yourself…

You can do better than ghetto and if you know what you are doing… show finish with it…

Fuji makes a great 3 stage for like 550…

Apollo is here in Vista as well if you want to support the local boys but they are a bit more expensive…

You would propably find yourself shooting more paint and making the ghetto rabbit shiner!

CE

Check them those systems out on youtube… just search HVLP.[/quote]

I have a $55 “HVLP” sprayer and though it paints like sheet, it’s not so bad after wetsanding 🙂

[Coronita]

Sorry to hear that…. It happens….

[Coronita]

[quote=The-Shoveler]The most interesting thing about the vote yesterday to me was that in almost every state with a higher minimum wage measure it “passed”.

Even in red states.

I think that sends a pretty clear message.
Top down did not work, time to give bottom up a try.

And Silver dropping again, I got stopped out yesterday so I am out ![/quote]

It’s below $15/share for the silver ETf

[Author]

Posts