[Prufrock]

I think you mean Arterro at La Costa, which is adjacent the new La Costa Town Square.

[Prufrock]

Thanks, ma just told me – no – to anything built before 1982, so I guess we are out of the running. Looks like it could be a nice spot though.

[Prufrock]

Generally, when a tenant breaks a lease, the landlord is required to attempt to lease the house to someone else, i.e., to mitigate the loss.

The current tenant will be liable for the rent until a new lease is started. If, for some reason, the market requires that the new lease be for a smaller monthly payment, the current tenant could be liable for the difference. If the landlord fails to use reasonable efforts to find a new lessee, the current tenant will not be liable for the lost rent.

Under no circumstances will the current tenant be liable for almost three years of rent. In fact, I cannot imagine that he’d be liable for more than two months after he moves out. It’s best just to work the situation out with the landlord rather than take an adversarial position.

This is not legal advice, and your friend should consult a landlord-tenant lawyer.

[Prufrock]

Generally, when a tenant breaks a lease, the landlord is required to attempt to lease the house to someone else, i.e., to mitigate the loss.

The current tenant will be liable for the rent until a new lease is started. If, for some reason, the market requires that the new lease be for a smaller monthly payment, the current tenant could be liable for the difference. If the landlord fails to use reasonable efforts to find a new lessee, the current tenant will not be liable for the lost rent.

Under no circumstances will the current tenant be liable for almost three years of rent. In fact, I cannot imagine that he’d be liable for more than two months after he moves out. It’s best just to work the situation out with the landlord rather than take an adversarial position.

This is not legal advice, and your friend should consult a landlord-tenant lawyer.

[Prufrock]

Generally, when a tenant breaks a lease, the landlord is required to attempt to lease the house to someone else, i.e., to mitigate the loss.

The current tenant will be liable for the rent until a new lease is started. If, for some reason, the market requires that the new lease be for a smaller monthly payment, the current tenant could be liable for the difference. If the landlord fails to use reasonable efforts to find a new lessee, the current tenant will not be liable for the lost rent.

Under no circumstances will the current tenant be liable for almost three years of rent. In fact, I cannot imagine that he’d be liable for more than two months after he moves out. It’s best just to work the situation out with the landlord rather than take an adversarial position.

This is not legal advice, and your friend should consult a landlord-tenant lawyer.

[Prufrock]

Generally, when a tenant breaks a lease, the landlord is required to attempt to lease the house to someone else, i.e., to mitigate the loss.

The current tenant will be liable for the rent until a new lease is started. If, for some reason, the market requires that the new lease be for a smaller monthly payment, the current tenant could be liable for the difference. If the landlord fails to use reasonable efforts to find a new lessee, the current tenant will not be liable for the lost rent.

Under no circumstances will the current tenant be liable for almost three years of rent. In fact, I cannot imagine that he’d be liable for more than two months after he moves out. It’s best just to work the situation out with the landlord rather than take an adversarial position.

This is not legal advice, and your friend should consult a landlord-tenant lawyer.

[Prufrock]

Generally, when a tenant breaks a lease, the landlord is required to attempt to lease the house to someone else, i.e., to mitigate the loss.

The current tenant will be liable for the rent until a new lease is started. If, for some reason, the market requires that the new lease be for a smaller monthly payment, the current tenant could be liable for the difference. If the landlord fails to use reasonable efforts to find a new lessee, the current tenant will not be liable for the lost rent.

Under no circumstances will the current tenant be liable for almost three years of rent. In fact, I cannot imagine that he’d be liable for more than two months after he moves out. It’s best just to work the situation out with the landlord rather than take an adversarial position.

This is not legal advice, and your friend should consult a landlord-tenant lawyer.

[Prufrock]

Thanks for the link, 4Sbuyer2002. Did you assume that all houses protected by the RSF Fire Protection District are in RSF, or am I missing the note stating so on the website you linked to? I thought you posted earlier about economically diverse areas like 4S being protected by RSF Fire. Maybe that wasn’t you.

Anyway, I am guessing that over the past 5 years you haven’t had the opportunity to learn much about the areas to your north and northwest. If you had, you could quickly see from the street names on your list that at least 5 were in San Diego 92127 and about 20 in the Del Dios neighborhood of Escondido 92029.

I still haven’t seen an actual figure for burned homes in RSF. The RSF Review lists the same number as your linked website, and does not break down the data. Without checking each address on the list you provided but did not investigate, I’d estimate about 35 in 92067. Certainly more than the 8-10 I previously thought.

Back to the issue at hand. It seems that Rancho del Rio and the other RSF neighborhoods facing the Crosby and 4S would be spots to avoid buying, or to buttress with better fire prevention planning. It’s funny because I never liked those areas due to the ground stability issues during wet times. Now they get the fire too.

With homeowners using their insurance money to rebuild, I really don’t see much of an effect on supply or demand in RSF as a whole. If I were moving into RSF, I’d go west of the village, and north of Linea. If fire hits there, the whole ranch will be in trouble first. There’s this place on El Secreto… uh, nevermind, that’s a secret.

[Prufrock]

Thanks for the link, 4Sbuyer2002. Did you assume that all houses protected by the RSF Fire Protection District are in RSF, or am I missing the note stating so on the website you linked to? I thought you posted earlier about economically diverse areas like 4S being protected by RSF Fire. Maybe that wasn’t you.

Anyway, I am guessing that over the past 5 years you haven’t had the opportunity to learn much about the areas to your north and northwest. If you had, you could quickly see from the street names on your list that at least 5 were in San Diego 92127 and about 20 in the Del Dios neighborhood of Escondido 92029.

I still haven’t seen an actual figure for burned homes in RSF. The RSF Review lists the same number as your linked website, and does not break down the data. Without checking each address on the list you provided but did not investigate, I’d estimate about 35 in 92067. Certainly more than the 8-10 I previously thought.

Back to the issue at hand. It seems that Rancho del Rio and the other RSF neighborhoods facing the Crosby and 4S would be spots to avoid buying, or to buttress with better fire prevention planning. It’s funny because I never liked those areas due to the ground stability issues during wet times. Now they get the fire too.

With homeowners using their insurance money to rebuild, I really don’t see much of an effect on supply or demand in RSF as a whole. If I were moving into RSF, I’d go west of the village, and north of Linea. If fire hits there, the whole ranch will be in trouble first. There’s this place on El Secreto… uh, nevermind, that’s a secret.

[Prufrock]

Thanks for the link, 4Sbuyer2002. Did you assume that all houses protected by the RSF Fire Protection District are in RSF, or am I missing the note stating so on the website you linked to? I thought you posted earlier about economically diverse areas like 4S being protected by RSF Fire. Maybe that wasn’t you.

Anyway, I am guessing that over the past 5 years you haven’t had the opportunity to learn much about the areas to your north and northwest. If you had, you could quickly see from the street names on your list that at least 5 were in San Diego 92127 and about 20 in the Del Dios neighborhood of Escondido 92029.

I still haven’t seen an actual figure for burned homes in RSF. The RSF Review lists the same number as your linked website, and does not break down the data. Without checking each address on the list you provided but did not investigate, I’d estimate about 35 in 92067. Certainly more than the 8-10 I previously thought.

Back to the issue at hand. It seems that Rancho del Rio and the other RSF neighborhoods facing the Crosby and 4S would be spots to avoid buying, or to buttress with better fire prevention planning. It’s funny because I never liked those areas due to the ground stability issues during wet times. Now they get the fire too.

With homeowners using their insurance money to rebuild, I really don’t see much of an effect on supply or demand in RSF as a whole. If I were moving into RSF, I’d go west of the village, and north of Linea. If fire hits there, the whole ranch will be in trouble first. There’s this place on El Secreto… uh, nevermind, that’s a secret.

[Prufrock]

Thanks for the link, 4Sbuyer2002. Did you assume that all houses protected by the RSF Fire Protection District are in RSF, or am I missing the note stating so on the website you linked to? I thought you posted earlier about economically diverse areas like 4S being protected by RSF Fire. Maybe that wasn’t you.

Anyway, I am guessing that over the past 5 years you haven’t had the opportunity to learn much about the areas to your north and northwest. If you had, you could quickly see from the street names on your list that at least 5 were in San Diego 92127 and about 20 in the Del Dios neighborhood of Escondido 92029.

I still haven’t seen an actual figure for burned homes in RSF. The RSF Review lists the same number as your linked website, and does not break down the data. Without checking each address on the list you provided but did not investigate, I’d estimate about 35 in 92067. Certainly more than the 8-10 I previously thought.

Back to the issue at hand. It seems that Rancho del Rio and the other RSF neighborhoods facing the Crosby and 4S would be spots to avoid buying, or to buttress with better fire prevention planning. It’s funny because I never liked those areas due to the ground stability issues during wet times. Now they get the fire too.

With homeowners using their insurance money to rebuild, I really don’t see much of an effect on supply or demand in RSF as a whole. If I were moving into RSF, I’d go west of the village, and north of Linea. If fire hits there, the whole ranch will be in trouble first. There’s this place on El Secreto… uh, nevermind, that’s a secret.

[Prufrock]

66 houses did not burn in RSF (92067 and 92091). More like 8-10. Maybe 66 properties had damage (like all the landscaping in Cielo). Who gave you the 66 figure?

[Prufrock]

66 houses did not burn in RSF (92067 and 92091). More like 8-10. Maybe 66 properties had damage (like all the landscaping in Cielo). Who gave you the 66 figure?

[Prufrock]

66 houses did not burn in RSF (92067 and 92091). More like 8-10. Maybe 66 properties had damage (like all the landscaping in Cielo). Who gave you the 66 figure?

[Prufrock]

66 houses did not burn in RSF (92067 and 92091). More like 8-10. Maybe 66 properties had damage (like all the landscaping in Cielo). Who gave you the 66 figure?

[Author]

Posts