[EconProf]

Santaluz is all about low density and wide open spaces, and you pay for that in the purchase price.
The club membership is optional, and many, perhaps most Santaluz residents pass on it.
Price per square foot has come down considerably, especially for the big McMansions. But don’t forget Santaluz also includes clusters of smaller houses that have fared better.

[EconProf]

Santaluz is all about low density and wide open spaces, and you pay for that in the purchase price.
The club membership is optional, and many, perhaps most Santaluz residents pass on it.
Price per square foot has come down considerably, especially for the big McMansions. But don’t forget Santaluz also includes clusters of smaller houses that have fared better.

[EconProf]

Santaluz is all about low density and wide open spaces, and you pay for that in the purchase price.
The club membership is optional, and many, perhaps most Santaluz residents pass on it.
Price per square foot has come down considerably, especially for the big McMansions. But don’t forget Santaluz also includes clusters of smaller houses that have fared better.

[EconProf]

Santaluz is all about low density and wide open spaces, and you pay for that in the purchase price.
The club membership is optional, and many, perhaps most Santaluz residents pass on it.
Price per square foot has come down considerably, especially for the big McMansions. But don’t forget Santaluz also includes clusters of smaller houses that have fared better.

[EconProf]

Lots of pitfalls in doing it alone. I’d get a landlord’s attorney who does nothing else.
Should cost around $500, misc. fees and all.
By specializing, these attorneys get economies of scale, know all the tricks “professional tenants” can play (and the Legal Aid attorneys they use at taxpayers’ expense), and save you precious days by filling out the right forms correctly, serving them, etc.
Time is money, and you want your property back, intact, ASAP. A good attorney also knows how to negotiate their departure at minimum long-terms cost to you. If you can come to some kind of compromise, even if it hurts your pride, you’ll lose less, which is the name of the game here.

[EconProf]

Lots of pitfalls in doing it alone. I’d get a landlord’s attorney who does nothing else.
Should cost around $500, misc. fees and all.
By specializing, these attorneys get economies of scale, know all the tricks “professional tenants” can play (and the Legal Aid attorneys they use at taxpayers’ expense), and save you precious days by filling out the right forms correctly, serving them, etc.
Time is money, and you want your property back, intact, ASAP. A good attorney also knows how to negotiate their departure at minimum long-terms cost to you. If you can come to some kind of compromise, even if it hurts your pride, you’ll lose less, which is the name of the game here.

[EconProf]

Lots of pitfalls in doing it alone. I’d get a landlord’s attorney who does nothing else.
Should cost around $500, misc. fees and all.
By specializing, these attorneys get economies of scale, know all the tricks “professional tenants” can play (and the Legal Aid attorneys they use at taxpayers’ expense), and save you precious days by filling out the right forms correctly, serving them, etc.
Time is money, and you want your property back, intact, ASAP. A good attorney also knows how to negotiate their departure at minimum long-terms cost to you. If you can come to some kind of compromise, even if it hurts your pride, you’ll lose less, which is the name of the game here.

[EconProf]

Lots of pitfalls in doing it alone. I’d get a landlord’s attorney who does nothing else.
Should cost around $500, misc. fees and all.
By specializing, these attorneys get economies of scale, know all the tricks “professional tenants” can play (and the Legal Aid attorneys they use at taxpayers’ expense), and save you precious days by filling out the right forms correctly, serving them, etc.
Time is money, and you want your property back, intact, ASAP. A good attorney also knows how to negotiate their departure at minimum long-terms cost to you. If you can come to some kind of compromise, even if it hurts your pride, you’ll lose less, which is the name of the game here.

[EconProf]

Lots of pitfalls in doing it alone. I’d get a landlord’s attorney who does nothing else.
Should cost around $500, misc. fees and all.
By specializing, these attorneys get economies of scale, know all the tricks “professional tenants” can play (and the Legal Aid attorneys they use at taxpayers’ expense), and save you precious days by filling out the right forms correctly, serving them, etc.
Time is money, and you want your property back, intact, ASAP. A good attorney also knows how to negotiate their departure at minimum long-terms cost to you. If you can come to some kind of compromise, even if it hurts your pride, you’ll lose less, which is the name of the game here.

[EconProf]

Barnaby: CA’s problems are theoretically fixable, yes. But given recent trends, that is a bet I would pass on.
The two (at least) important long term fundamentals affecting real estate are demographic and political/economic. That CA is driving away its most productive, entrepreneurial, tax-paying middle and upper-income people is well documented. Its overly generous government programs are attracting the tax-users, whether on the dole or the unionized government work force. The current fiscal crisis is showing more of the same–an inability to fundamentally curb wild overspending. Instead we’ll have angry politicians getting revenge on voters by cutting the most visible programs in the most painful ways their creative minds can come up with.
While there will always be some pockets of investment opportunity in such a diverse state, I’d rather place my long-term bets on a state like Utah, Texas, AZ, in a growing and dynamic city welcoming CA businesses and well-educated, taxpaying citizens.

[EconProf]

Barnaby: CA’s problems are theoretically fixable, yes. But given recent trends, that is a bet I would pass on.
The two (at least) important long term fundamentals affecting real estate are demographic and political/economic. That CA is driving away its most productive, entrepreneurial, tax-paying middle and upper-income people is well documented. Its overly generous government programs are attracting the tax-users, whether on the dole or the unionized government work force. The current fiscal crisis is showing more of the same–an inability to fundamentally curb wild overspending. Instead we’ll have angry politicians getting revenge on voters by cutting the most visible programs in the most painful ways their creative minds can come up with.
While there will always be some pockets of investment opportunity in such a diverse state, I’d rather place my long-term bets on a state like Utah, Texas, AZ, in a growing and dynamic city welcoming CA businesses and well-educated, taxpaying citizens.

[EconProf]

Barnaby: CA’s problems are theoretically fixable, yes. But given recent trends, that is a bet I would pass on.
The two (at least) important long term fundamentals affecting real estate are demographic and political/economic. That CA is driving away its most productive, entrepreneurial, tax-paying middle and upper-income people is well documented. Its overly generous government programs are attracting the tax-users, whether on the dole or the unionized government work force. The current fiscal crisis is showing more of the same–an inability to fundamentally curb wild overspending. Instead we’ll have angry politicians getting revenge on voters by cutting the most visible programs in the most painful ways their creative minds can come up with.
While there will always be some pockets of investment opportunity in such a diverse state, I’d rather place my long-term bets on a state like Utah, Texas, AZ, in a growing and dynamic city welcoming CA businesses and well-educated, taxpaying citizens.

[EconProf]

Barnaby: CA’s problems are theoretically fixable, yes. But given recent trends, that is a bet I would pass on.
The two (at least) important long term fundamentals affecting real estate are demographic and political/economic. That CA is driving away its most productive, entrepreneurial, tax-paying middle and upper-income people is well documented. Its overly generous government programs are attracting the tax-users, whether on the dole or the unionized government work force. The current fiscal crisis is showing more of the same–an inability to fundamentally curb wild overspending. Instead we’ll have angry politicians getting revenge on voters by cutting the most visible programs in the most painful ways their creative minds can come up with.
While there will always be some pockets of investment opportunity in such a diverse state, I’d rather place my long-term bets on a state like Utah, Texas, AZ, in a growing and dynamic city welcoming CA businesses and well-educated, taxpaying citizens.

[EconProf]

Barnaby: CA’s problems are theoretically fixable, yes. But given recent trends, that is a bet I would pass on.
The two (at least) important long term fundamentals affecting real estate are demographic and political/economic. That CA is driving away its most productive, entrepreneurial, tax-paying middle and upper-income people is well documented. Its overly generous government programs are attracting the tax-users, whether on the dole or the unionized government work force. The current fiscal crisis is showing more of the same–an inability to fundamentally curb wild overspending. Instead we’ll have angry politicians getting revenge on voters by cutting the most visible programs in the most painful ways their creative minds can come up with.
While there will always be some pockets of investment opportunity in such a diverse state, I’d rather place my long-term bets on a state like Utah, Texas, AZ, in a growing and dynamic city welcoming CA businesses and well-educated, taxpaying citizens.

[EconProf]

Bob, your scenario is both plausible and well-supported.
The Fed and this administration well understand that any significant rise in mortgage interest rates would quickly choke off any emerging recovery in the economy. Accordingly they will do whatever it takes to keep the easy money flowing to home buyers. They will stimulate or compel mortgages to be abundant and cheap, even if it means a two-tier rate structure in which bond market rates trend higher but home mortgages remain a bargain. Subsidizing buyers plays well politically and shows up elsewhere in policy.
For example, it is already clear that the big 3 automakers will be induced (bribed) to make small cars domestically via government subsidies to buyers, by some direct or indirect (hidden) means. Raises overall mileage average, “helps” beleagured car buyers, props up the overpaid UAW workers, and sells politically. Just the kind of politically driven market tinkering we’ll see more and more of, with destructive overall long-term effects.

[Author]

Posts