[Ricechex]

[quote=temeculaguy]I have read a number of books and spent hundreds of hours laboring over decisions in raising my kids. I’ve prided myself on their accomplishments, maturity, understanding and happiness. Until just now, I felt I had done a fantastic job, in fact, my first book is more than likley going to be a modern single dads guide to raising happy kids.

But then i read svelte’s post and realized that no man ever did a better job raising their kids than svelte’s pops, he should write the book because any man that raises their kid and that kid grows up and sets up that scenario for him should be given a medal. Some parents want their kid to grow up and be a doctor, lawyer or even a president, I want my kid to grow up and be svelte.

Bravo, keep spreading the happiness.[/quote]

I anxiously await your book.

[Ricechex]

[quote=EconProf]Ricechex: there is a lot more to that story than you know. First of all it is city-owned land, not owned by the tenants, who enjoy valuable space and pay way under market value for it. When they were granted tenancy decades ago, they were told it was not permanent and they were strictly tenants. But as they got older and politically savvy and able to gin up a sympathetic media sob story, they became entrenched and the City (read: us taxpayers) could not put to the valuable land to its highest and best use. I believe they have been offered attractive inducements to leave, but they are staying as long as possible…at the public’s expense.
As far as the public good is concerned, I’d rather see the city sell off ITS land to a condo or hotel builder so a lot more people could be utilizing that valuable site.[/quote]

Interesting info Econ. Thanks. Then, if it is public land and owned by the city and the people get bumped then the land should be used for the public such as a park and recreation area. We should all have use of the land. It would be a shame to see the developers profiting from land that is public space. I guess I would rather have those folks living there now, rather than condos that will obstruct the skyline and only affordable for a few.

[Ricechex]

[quote=EconProf]Ricechex: there is a lot more to that story than you know. First of all it is city-owned land, not owned by the tenants, who enjoy valuable space and pay way under market value for it. When they were granted tenancy decades ago, they were told it was not permanent and they were strictly tenants. But as they got older and politically savvy and able to gin up a sympathetic media sob story, they became entrenched and the City (read: us taxpayers) could not put to the valuable land to its highest and best use. I believe they have been offered attractive inducements to leave, but they are staying as long as possible…at the public’s expense.
As far as the public good is concerned, I’d rather see the city sell off ITS land to a condo or hotel builder so a lot more people could be utilizing that valuable site.[/quote]

Interesting info Econ. Thanks. Then, if it is public land and owned by the city and the people get bumped then the land should be used for the public such as a park and recreation area. We should all have use of the land. It would be a shame to see the developers profiting from land that is public space. I guess I would rather have those folks living there now, rather than condos that will obstruct the skyline and only affordable for a few.

[Ricechex]

[quote=EconProf]Ricechex: there is a lot more to that story than you know. First of all it is city-owned land, not owned by the tenants, who enjoy valuable space and pay way under market value for it. When they were granted tenancy decades ago, they were told it was not permanent and they were strictly tenants. But as they got older and politically savvy and able to gin up a sympathetic media sob story, they became entrenched and the City (read: us taxpayers) could not put to the valuable land to its highest and best use. I believe they have been offered attractive inducements to leave, but they are staying as long as possible…at the public’s expense.
As far as the public good is concerned, I’d rather see the city sell off ITS land to a condo or hotel builder so a lot more people could be utilizing that valuable site.[/quote]

Interesting info Econ. Thanks. Then, if it is public land and owned by the city and the people get bumped then the land should be used for the public such as a park and recreation area. We should all have use of the land. It would be a shame to see the developers profiting from land that is public space. I guess I would rather have those folks living there now, rather than condos that will obstruct the skyline and only affordable for a few.

[Ricechex]

[quote=EconProf]Ricechex: there is a lot more to that story than you know. First of all it is city-owned land, not owned by the tenants, who enjoy valuable space and pay way under market value for it. When they were granted tenancy decades ago, they were told it was not permanent and they were strictly tenants. But as they got older and politically savvy and able to gin up a sympathetic media sob story, they became entrenched and the City (read: us taxpayers) could not put to the valuable land to its highest and best use. I believe they have been offered attractive inducements to leave, but they are staying as long as possible…at the public’s expense.
As far as the public good is concerned, I’d rather see the city sell off ITS land to a condo or hotel builder so a lot more people could be utilizing that valuable site.[/quote]

Interesting info Econ. Thanks. Then, if it is public land and owned by the city and the people get bumped then the land should be used for the public such as a park and recreation area. We should all have use of the land. It would be a shame to see the developers profiting from land that is public space. I guess I would rather have those folks living there now, rather than condos that will obstruct the skyline and only affordable for a few.

[Ricechex]

[quote=EconProf]Ricechex: there is a lot more to that story than you know. First of all it is city-owned land, not owned by the tenants, who enjoy valuable space and pay way under market value for it. When they were granted tenancy decades ago, they were told it was not permanent and they were strictly tenants. But as they got older and politically savvy and able to gin up a sympathetic media sob story, they became entrenched and the City (read: us taxpayers) could not put to the valuable land to its highest and best use. I believe they have been offered attractive inducements to leave, but they are staying as long as possible…at the public’s expense.
As far as the public good is concerned, I’d rather see the city sell off ITS land to a condo or hotel builder so a lot more people could be utilizing that valuable site.[/quote]

Interesting info Econ. Thanks. Then, if it is public land and owned by the city and the people get bumped then the land should be used for the public such as a park and recreation area. We should all have use of the land. It would be a shame to see the developers profiting from land that is public space. I guess I would rather have those folks living there now, rather than condos that will obstruct the skyline and only affordable for a few.

[Ricechex]

There is that group of homes on Mission Bay, some trailers I think too, and for years they have been battling developers who want to put up condos there. The people that live there have been there for eons, and are mostly elderly and on fixed incomes. Not only would it push them out, but the developers would likely build an ugly, several story condo building.

[Ricechex]

There is that group of homes on Mission Bay, some trailers I think too, and for years they have been battling developers who want to put up condos there. The people that live there have been there for eons, and are mostly elderly and on fixed incomes. Not only would it push them out, but the developers would likely build an ugly, several story condo building.

[Ricechex]

There is that group of homes on Mission Bay, some trailers I think too, and for years they have been battling developers who want to put up condos there. The people that live there have been there for eons, and are mostly elderly and on fixed incomes. Not only would it push them out, but the developers would likely build an ugly, several story condo building.

[Ricechex]

There is that group of homes on Mission Bay, some trailers I think too, and for years they have been battling developers who want to put up condos there. The people that live there have been there for eons, and are mostly elderly and on fixed incomes. Not only would it push them out, but the developers would likely build an ugly, several story condo building.

[Ricechex]

There is that group of homes on Mission Bay, some trailers I think too, and for years they have been battling developers who want to put up condos there. The people that live there have been there for eons, and are mostly elderly and on fixed incomes. Not only would it push them out, but the developers would likely build an ugly, several story condo building.

[Ricechex]

Do you have to have “proven” fact in order to disclose? Our property had a water issue too, overwatering by the condo conversion next door, up the hill. (Don’t buy a house on the bottom of a hill!) The water flowed downhill and through the city’s meter, along the pipes and right under house. It was a bad scenario and took almost a year to get the condo conversion to do something. We installed french drains and a sump pump. The pump is on city property, in front of the water meter. I know, I know, its bad, but the City would do nothing and there was mass amounts of water coming up from ground onto the house. Cost thousands of dollars too…. Do we have to disclose this?

[Ricechex]

Do you have to have “proven” fact in order to disclose? Our property had a water issue too, overwatering by the condo conversion next door, up the hill. (Don’t buy a house on the bottom of a hill!) The water flowed downhill and through the city’s meter, along the pipes and right under house. It was a bad scenario and took almost a year to get the condo conversion to do something. We installed french drains and a sump pump. The pump is on city property, in front of the water meter. I know, I know, its bad, but the City would do nothing and there was mass amounts of water coming up from ground onto the house. Cost thousands of dollars too…. Do we have to disclose this?

[Ricechex]

Do you have to have “proven” fact in order to disclose? Our property had a water issue too, overwatering by the condo conversion next door, up the hill. (Don’t buy a house on the bottom of a hill!) The water flowed downhill and through the city’s meter, along the pipes and right under house. It was a bad scenario and took almost a year to get the condo conversion to do something. We installed french drains and a sump pump. The pump is on city property, in front of the water meter. I know, I know, its bad, but the City would do nothing and there was mass amounts of water coming up from ground onto the house. Cost thousands of dollars too…. Do we have to disclose this?

[Ricechex]

Do you have to have “proven” fact in order to disclose? Our property had a water issue too, overwatering by the condo conversion next door, up the hill. (Don’t buy a house on the bottom of a hill!) The water flowed downhill and through the city’s meter, along the pipes and right under house. It was a bad scenario and took almost a year to get the condo conversion to do something. We installed french drains and a sump pump. The pump is on city property, in front of the water meter. I know, I know, its bad, but the City would do nothing and there was mass amounts of water coming up from ground onto the house. Cost thousands of dollars too…. Do we have to disclose this?

[Author]

Posts