[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

I agree with Hatfield and HLS here.

Going month-to-month is in your favor.

However, if you really want them to choose a 12-month lease, then don;t ask them, just send them a notice of intent to increase the rent under month-to-month agreement and give them a form with a box to check to give them a choice between the increased month-to-month costs or a new 12-month lease at the same rent (or modest increase).

box 1 – Renew 12 month lease at $X (e.g. no increase in rent).

box 2 – continue month-to-month with $X increase (as of a date far enough in the future that you can give 30 days notice, so e.g. 45 dayd from when you send the letter.).

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=EconProf]

“Higher recent rates of unemployment mean the lifetime risk of experiencing economic insecurity now runs even higher: 79%, or 4 in 5 adults, by the time they turn 60.”

[/quote]

This means that 21% of folks reach the age of 60 without having experienced any economic insecurity.

I am amazed that this number is that high.

We should more heavily tax that priveledged 21%.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=HLS]
I realize that this may not be the case for you, but I am seeing a lot of people with trapped equity and no way to get to it.[/quote]

There’s always a way to get to trapped equity … selling.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

Meanwhile… short-term interest rates remain relatively stable.

Look for the 5-year ARM to re-emerge as the weapon of choice for buyers sometime between now and next spring (assuming the yield curve remains as steep or steeper than it is now).

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=The-Shoveler]OK I will take a stab at it knowing full well I am about to be flamed.

If they raise interest rates without wage inflation then the housing market will crash followed by state and city bankruptcies one after the other because their main source of revenue is property tax.

This will cause a lot of other economic issue etc…

A lot of people I think fail to put two and two together and think housing crash existed in some sort of vacuum.[/quote]

I don;t follow. How would this scenario lead to 7-10% inflation. Sounds deflationary to me

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

We should just make killing people illegal.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

We have purchased 4 houses over the years. Not a single one closed within the time frame originally agreed upon (usually 30 days). There’s always something.

I wouldn’t walk away immediately just because my loan lock expired (regardless of the length of escrow, you should have had a loan lock longer than 21 days anyway).

If the house is a good deal financially, I would try to make it work. If the rate difference between 21 days ago and now (up a bit) makes it no longer a good deal, then it was a marginal deal to begin with.

You gotta look at the big picture.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

There certainly is a lot of bubble babble out there.

A bubble occurs when prices greatly exceed fundamental values.

As soon as Rich updates his affordability charts (price to income, price to rent, monthly payment to rent ratios, etc), we’ll have the evidence on this board to make an assessment. (Hint Hint).

Based on price trends and previous ratio published, I don;t believe that today’s prices significantly exceed long-term fundamentals. I think his numbers will show that price to income and price to rent are near long-term averages, and due to low interest rates monthly-payment to rent ratio is still below historical norms.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=no_such_reality]

I’ll be honest, I don’t understand the Nissan Leaf. Given SoCal traffic and heat, I can’t imagine most people wouldn’t need to plug it in after their morning commute to not risk running out of ‘gas’ on the way home.

MPGe is a bit laughable too. They use a conversion based on the BTU content of “gallon of gas” but assume a 100% efficiency in the production of electricity.

In the case of renewable like solar that may be true, if you charge during the day, in the case of coal, it’s 33%. Which mean if you’re charging in an area dominated by coal produced power, your real MPGe is 1/3rd…[/quote]

I’ve owned a LEAF for almost two years. I think you are over-thinking MPGe. If you are discounting the MPGe by accounting for the efficiency of electricity production why wouldn’t you also discount the less than 100% efficiency in producing the gallon of gas ?

The simplest way to consider the LEAF is to count dollars.

Assume $4 per gallon, 11 cents per kilowatt hour and and 10,000 miles a year.

One year of fuel for a LEAF is:
$323 (assuming 3.5 miles/kWhr, which is what I’ve averaged over 2 years).

One year of fuel for a Prius is:
$1000 (assuming 40 miles per gallon)

One year of fuel for an SUV
$2700 (assuming 15 miles per gallon)

Not to mention maintenance costs. So far, after 23 months of ownership we have spent a grand total of $0 on maintenance for our LEAF. Some day we will need to have brakes or new tires, and maybe a new battery after 8 or 10 years, but there are no oil changes. Electric motors are pretty simple.

SO Cal, particularly LA with our heavy stop and go traffic and mild climate is ideal for this car, especially in a 2-car family. Spouse and I fight over who gets to drive it and use it for all local travel that we can. For us, it’s a no brainer. Never have issues with range for 99% of our lives. Otherwise we drive the SUV on long trips.
If you own a home (so that you can wire up the 220 circuit), have two drivers in the family and one commutes less than about 30 miles each way to work, it’s a great deal.

If you live in Riverside county and commute into San Diego, or drive around a lot for work, or have to haul a truckload of stuff it’s not gonna work for you.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=SD Realtor]Get an attorney. Don’t take advice from an internet blog when it comes to legal matters. [/quote]

… what does he do when the advice to not take advice from an internet blog comes from an internet blog ?

:0

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

This is yet another reason why I use a property management company for my rental…

They stay up-to-date on all these rules…

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=spdrun]Are there any state/local laws specifying minimum square footage or rooms per occupant?[/quote]

IN california I think the rule is 2 persons per bedrom + 1 more person.

So, a 4-bedroom can hold 4*2 + 1 = 9 people. Exactly the number here.

Based on the facts posted I think this is an obvious case of discrimination. The only question is whether the landlord was ignorant enough to put the reason in writing, in an email or a voice mail message (or post it on a blog).

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

The only difference i see is that yahoo chart ends at May 1 and google ends at May 2, so you have the yahoo chart ending on a slight dip down, whereas google reflects today’s close up.

nothing to see here, move on.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=kev374]

Let me ask YOU – why is the speculative sentiment that prices will keep rising now any different from 2000-2006? At that time people like you were also saying the same exact thing – that prices will keep rising ad infinitum. People like you were proved very wrong in the last bust, why should this time be any different?[/quote]

This wasn’t directed at me, but there is a big difference.

In 2005/2006 the Price to income ratio in San Diego was at an all-time high of about 14. ( C-S price divided by per capita income).

As of 2011 (Last time Rich updated the chart) that ratio was at an all-time low. Today it is maybe 10-15 % above those all time lows, but below historical norms.

The primary lesson that made Piggington was looking at those fundamental indicators :

– House price to rent ratio
– Monthly mortgage payment to rent ratio
– Mortgage payment as percentage of income
– Price to Income

These are what really matter. It is dangerous to assume that recent price appreciation is either indicative of future increases or indicative of a speculative bubble without looking at the underlying fundamentals, such as the ratios listed above.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=bearishgurl]
Of course, the OP would have to tell us, but I think his situation meets the exception described above. From my memory of his prior posts, I don’t think his rental house has been in service very long (1-2 years??). Before renting it out, it was his principal residence.

If I’m reading this paragraph right, the OP won’t have to pay capital gains on any portion of proceeds he nets from sale because his rental house hasn’t been in service long enough.

Is this your understanding of this exception?

paramount, how long has it been since you moved into your new primary residence and how long have tenants occupied your old house (if the answer to the 2nd question makes a difference)?

FSD, if paramount is coming up upon, say, 3 years since he turned his old house into a rental, what should he do here if he wanted to sell at least one house and avoid capital gains tax?[/quote]

My understanding is that if used as a primary residence first, before converting to a rental, the exclusion applies.. BUT they would still owe taxes on depreciation recapture. They would be taxed on the part of the gain equal to the amount of depreciation they took (or were supposed to take) while it was a rental property. Depreciation recapture tax can be up to 25 %.

Bottom line … if it was used as a rental any time after 2009 you’ll taxes of some sort on some portion of some gains.

Also, note that these rules have changed at least a couple times over the last decade.

[Author]

Posts