[mycroft]

Side tracking, say the first lender holding the 500K note forecloses; do they have any legal responsibility to prevent them from dumping at 500K versus 550K to move it quickly? Effectively hosing the people holding the second?

As far as Beach Rat’s question goes, if the 1st lender forecloses, there is nothing to prevent them from selling at $500K or less. The holder of the 2nd loan would have to protect their investment by being at the foreclosure sale and bidding it up to create surplus funds. They are entitled to receive surplus funds from the sale up to the amount they are owed. If there is no surplus funds, they lose it all. The buyer at the sale, whether it be a third party or the foreclosing lender has no obligation to any junior lender.

[mycroft]

Just off the top of my head, isn’t most of the natural gas America uses produced in America? If we’re not dependent on foreign sources, then the price of natural gas shouldn’t fluctuate (mostly fluctuate upwards these days) like crude oil does on essentially political events, such as US rattles nuclear sabers followed by Iran rattling oil supply sabers.

Also, again off the top of my head, it seems that the usage of natural gas should be more or less constant. There will be a set number of homes each using about the same amount natural gas that they did the month and year before. The number of homes probably rises each month as new homes are built, however, the amount of natural gas each uses will be fairly predictable. Whereas, the usage of gasoline is primarily in cars, with each driver making daily decisons on how much to drive, and whether to park the Hummer and buy a hybrid based on the costs per gallon.

[mycroft]

I’ll occasionally go to Frye’s off of I-15 and Aero Drive on a Friday night. Over the last few months, I’ve noticed that there seems to be a lot less cars in the parking lot than there were the same time last year.

Dunno if it is a general slowing of retail business, or just that people can’t afford $3.50 a gallon for gas to drive over there to buy big screen TV’s 🙂

[mycroft]

I quickly glanced at the article this morning, and wasn’t overly impressed. I think it said something about not much construction going on. I pass a large Archstone complex going up in Mission Valley on my way to and from work everyday. Just off Friars Road, there is another complex being built, and already being advertised in the For Rent magazines. Not to mention that at least some of the condo conversions are now accepting tenants again which helps to increase the inventory. My first guess is that the Apartment Association is trying to justify rent increases by having a newspaper story to point at. “See,” they can say. “The Union-Tribune says rents are rising. We’re not ripping you off. We’re charging market rates.”

My second guess is…well, the same as my first guess.

I don’t think the rents are rising 10% in the big singles complexes. I live in one of them and when we renewed our lease last year, it went up less than 3.5%. If it goes up more than that this year, we’ll most likely move. In that size complex, there’s always some kind of deal going on for a month or two free rent. At the current rental amounts , that would pay for the costs and hassle of moving.

[mycroft]

I sorta liked his last comment:

Now — would all the squealers please stop? You’re giving me a headache.

I wonder if his headache is as bad as the one I got from trying to read his unformatted prose, nevermind trying to understand the drivel he was attempting to spout.

Quick tip #1 to Mr. Temecula-Murrieta-Hemet.com – Learn how to format your HTML before you write anything longer that two sentences.

Quick tip #2 – Think about getting another picture taken, dude. That’s kind of a creepy little smile you’ve got going there.

[mycroft]

It seems to me that only insiders will know about this auction, and it is likely the house will sell to someone for much less than true market value.

I think it’s unlikely that *only* insiders are likely to find out about it. I gathered you found out about it by seeing a for sale sign on the lawn and calling on it. I did a quick search of the city web site and found:

http://apps.sandiego.gov/bcweb/getOneItem.do?subCatDesc=Sales&subCatCd=2&catCd=4&bidId=REA052606

1. The city council authorized the auction at its public meeting on May 16th.

2. The Real Estate Assets department published the sale on May 26.

3. The city was bequeathed the house by a woman who directed that the sale proceeds go to the Library Department. [side note – Thank you, Jane Cameron! Libraries are a cause worth supporting.]

4. There’s a 3 page document with the terms of sale available for download. I would imagine that this is the only document that the City will provide on the property.

5. The property will be open for inspection 3 times before the final auction on June 29 to be held at the property.

Like you, I don’t know if a million-three is reasonable. I have followed results of other public agency real estate auctions and it seems like the final bid amount is generally pretty near, or even higher than, market value. It doesn’t look to me like the City is failing to protect the public’s interest by selling the property in this manner. Just on a quick glance, I didn’t see the part about the City selling the property for less if the minimum bid isn’t acheived, but I don’t see any problem with it. If it can’t sell at open auction for what they think the market value is, they obviously overestimated the market value and they’ll need to go to plan B, which in this case is a private sale. I don’t know the details of how they conduct a private sale, but it seems to me that they would need to advertise the property and negotiate with a buyer. In short, just like any property selling his house on the MLS.

[Author]

Posts