[dumbrenter]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=CardiffBaseball]
As far as the stuff on profiling, I find it’s somewhat idiotic for him to mention that, but I also understand he’s got to show some street-cred here. Cardiff understands the way the game is played, and right now I am content to give him a pass on this. I think he did enough to say “brothers I am with you in spirit” while at the same time tipping his hat, that this is probably over at the Federal level.[/quote]

I don’t think it was idiotic at all. I think it was essential for those who haven’t experienced it to understand the context of the reaction of the black community to the Martin killing. It happens every day in this country, probably thousands of times. Black men are stopped by police and others under the color of authority solely because they are black. Purses get clutched a little tighter, car doors get locked when a black man walks by. It happens in Florida, it happens in NYC, it happens in Carmel Valley. It’s overt racism, and it’s demeaning, demoralizing and insulting.[/quote]

Nicely put. Did not vote for this president, but I think the speech was good and he did his bit to present the black perspective and frustrations just as you have done above.

It is demeaning and insulting, no question about that. But is it racism? Or some kind of primeval or tribal self preservation that makes people do that? If we want folks to understand the context, the frustration, may I suggest that calling them racists is not a good way to start?

[dumbrenter]

[quote=no_such_reality]This case is tragedy, the media coverage has been abysmal, biased and race baiting. The counters to that play right back with other racial stereotypes and hyperbole.

The disinformation from both sides is appalling and the talking heads are running rampant with opinions that aren’t even close the the facts presented in the case.

The reaction going on is what the media has been stoking for a year starting with NBC editing the 911 call tapes.
[/quote]

I can’t believe that more people do not clearly see what you are saying. Why bias in reporting? Why race baiting? why doctor the tapes?
The only rational explanation I can find is that the media is using this to get more eyeballs, more people watching which translates to more revenue.
Heck, they even managed to get squat/scaredy back to post!

[dumbrenter]

[quote=SK in CV]
I don’t think there is any evidence that it happened that way. Zimmerman didn’t simply get out of his car, he followed him. Who threw the first punch, nobody knows except Zimmerman and a dead kid. But Zimmerman never got a beat down, at least not the way his attorney would have you believe. Martin may have been on top, but Zimmerman’s head never got beat into the pavement. If it had, he would have had a concussion at least, or more likely knocked unconscious. Maybe even killed. Head pounded into concrete doesn’t leave a couple of small cuts not requiring stitches.
[/quote]

He stopped following when the dispatcher asked him to.

Do you even realize the silliness of what you are saying? If GZ had a concussion he would not even be on trial today, he might not even be alive, as you say. So should somebody wait till that happens?
The ‘threat’ of getting head bashed into the pavement is enough for any sane individual to use whatever force at disposal to defend themselves.
Now, how he got into that position is a totally different matter, but how can anyone fault a man for defending himself given his situation?

When people get into a fight in a rush of adrenalin, the thought of how a future jury would look at their actions is very remote in their minds which would be fully occupied with self-preservation.

[dumbrenter]

I have no advice for you, but can you name the restaurant so others can avoid any illness?
Thanks

[dumbrenter]

[quote=SD Realtor]DR very few. Most of them used fixed rate conforming loans. Some used FHA. However in no way do I see any sort of squeeze coming because alot of people carrying arms. The rates were so low there was no reason to.[/quote]

Thanks. And those that need to sell (e.g. because of job move) might be affected even if they were on fixed rate loans.

[dumbrenter]

[quote=SD Realtor]Take a 600k home with 20% down. At 3.5% your p/i is around 2155, at 4.5 it is 2430, at 5.5 it is 2725 and at 6.5 it is 3030. So in about 6 weeks we have added around 280 smackers per month to a payment. That hurts some and has an effect. At 5.5% we are adding almost 600 clams a month, close a 20% higher payment. To me that will indeed claim some buyers. However the market will also respond and sellers will need to adjust pricing. We will see what happens.[/quote]

SD Realtor, what percentage of the buyers do you think in the last 3 years have taken on ARM as opposed to 30-yr loan?

[dumbrenter]

[quote=paramount]A little over a week ago,I was offered 4% through box home loans with basically no points. Today I’m looking at 4.75% with the same points/cost. I didn’t see that coming, damn I’m pissed – I procrastinated.[/quote]

No, you were hoping it would go down 🙂

[dumbrenter]

[quote=GotFear]Wow, some of you folks responding on this thread has some serious Chinese xenophobia going on….

One of you even went as far as suggesting the only ones buying from China must be corrupt government officials….WTF? Sounds totally like a redneck baffoon to say…

I’m surprised more people haven’t thought that maybe the reason someone people are buying homes with cash (irrespective of race, gender,etc) is, oh I don’t know, maybe they earned it and/or have more wealth than you do?

Just because someone has the financial ability to do something you can’t do doesn’t mean whatever they did was illegal or “corrupt”, Making such a suggestion is nothing more than a personal reflection of your own fear, jealousy, etc of whatever financial shortcomings you apparently think you have.[/quote]

Being too sensitive, are we? Where is the relationship between corrupt chinese officials and xenophobia? These same people had worse things to say about our own government officials.

The only nasty thing I heard here on this thread so far is you using the phrase [quote=GotFear]Sounds totally like a redneck baffoon to say…[/quote]

[dumbrenter]

[quote=CA renter]
Note: rents did not go down, so the belief that rent would go up as a result of its repeal doesn’t really hold water. What would probably happen, is that properties would flood the market in anticipation of the repeal, which would drive down prices in many cases. Some of us would like to see this happen, as we believe that the rights of people to own their own (affordable) homes trumps the “rights” of landlords to collect rents/profit from people who need housing. Some properties could be excluded from the tax increase, but ONLY if the savings are passed on to renters (especially low-income renters) instead of padding the pockets of the profiteering parasites. At least with pensions we’re getting something in return (the best possible public employees who provide for our safety and security); with Prop 13 subsidies to landlords/landowners, we get NOTHING in return.[/quote]

You say that the rents did not go lower when Prop 13 was introduced hence they will not go up if it were to be repealed. I do not think it is as simple as solving for a mathematical equation.

That said, I see that your expectation in this scenario is for the newer (relatively) landlords to lose the margin and hence put their properties on the market. I admit I did not consider this scenario, but still, the newer landlords will still have to raise rents and they will be even more compelled to do so since they do not have the “advantage” of the older ones. Given that this repeal is across the board, nobody can make a case of collusion in raising rents statewide.

BTW your expectation of future is better for my finances than mine, but I think it is unlikely that it will turn out that way.

[dumbrenter]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=dumbrenter][quote=SK in CV][quote=dumbrenter]Your fix will have a nasty side-effect of rents going up drastically.
[/quote]

Why? How?[/quote]

The increase in property taxes will be passed on to the renters.[/quote]

Really? You think there are a lot of landlords now that are leaving money on the table, keeping rents lower because their property taxes are lower?

Not. A. Chance.[/quote]

huh?

It is ok for you to have a different opinion about future and it is also ok to say I am wrong. I wish you the best with whatever version of future you are thinking of.

But what is not ok with me is for you to make up things I never said. I never said a word about current rents and margins being made by landlords. Again, I said that the increase in property taxes will be passed off to renters.

While I like to have a conversation with people who hold different views, I do not like your twisting of things (intentional or otherwise), responding with questions and being lazy with words. Do not expect me to respond if you persist with such behavior.

[dumbrenter]

[quote=FlyerInHi]
Interest rates are low so parking money in real estate, especially If it’s something you can use is not a bad deal at all.[/quote]

Flyer, I’m not sure I follow the connection between interest rates and buying a home all cash. could you please elaborate?

[dumbrenter]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=dumbrenter]Your fix will have a nasty side-effect of rents going up drastically.
[/quote]

Why? How?[/quote]

The increase in property taxes will be passed on to the renters.

[dumbrenter]

[quote=CA renter]
And the #1 way to fix the pension problems in California? Repeal Prop 13 for every property except for a single primary residence. Taxpayers are subsidizing the profits of all landlords (from SFHs to large apartment complexes), land owners (think Pardee), and commercial/industrial building owners who are paying below-market taxes. This is far worse than any “pension crisis,” especially when you consider the fact that ~50% of the housing units in California are rentals.[/quote]

Your fix will have a nasty side-effect of rents going up drastically.
If I am not mistaken, the Prop 13 can only be repealed by another ballot measure and I do not see that happening.

[dumbrenter]

[quote=zk]I think a lot of them are from Taiwan and China. They have lots of cash, they don’t like to borrow money (in general), and education is all-important to them. So they’re going to find what they think is the best school district and buy a house there with cash. They communicate with each other, and once an area gets a good reputation, word spreads. It’s happened in the Bay area, L.A., and San Diego (and no doubt other metropolises as well). A particular area gets the reputation. In San Diego, it’s Carmel Valley.

Not sure what percentage of the cash buyers are Chinese, but I know that it’s common for them to pay cash.[/quote]

I observed a much higher percentage of expats from South Africa / australia / uk in carmel valley than in other areas. Do they typically go all cash?

[dumbrenter]

[quote=The-Shoveler]
But really I think it is more borrowing retirement and investment accounts (and parents) then taking a mortgage after close than anything else.[/quote]

I fail to understand this. won’t it be better for them to take a mortgage before buying the property rather than after? Can you elaborate on possible motivations to do such a thing?

[Author]

Posts