Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
sdduuuude
Participant[quote=spdrun]If they used cable with a ground lead built in (typically anything built post-1940).[/quote]
No luck there.
The previous owner of our house, 1959, put in some “grounded” outlets. He tied them to the copper pipes.
Not much AL that I know of in Clairemont.
Grounding is more there to protect the equipment back at the power plant than the residents. The circuit breakers protect the residents.
Participant1700 sq. ft.
2-car garage
10,000 sq. ft. lot
4 BR (2 masters), 3-bath
canyon lot
Nicely finished but slightly dated – dated 10 yrs ago, not like 50 years ago.
Looks like $575K – $600K right now.I expect that La Platta house to go for $525 at least. They could have asked $550 for that, I think. Not saying they would get it, but they could have asked for it without turning people away. Virtually any “Mt.” street in Clairemont is desirable for renters or buyers. Again – 2 car garages are a good indicator of desireability.
Also, I attach a $40,000 premium to a canyon lot with no neighbors to the rear. So, that house I listed looks like a $490K house to me if it were on a standard Clairemont lot but the canyon makes it cha-ching-ier.
I know CDMA Eng and have been to his house. It has a 2-car garage so while he is saying my numbers were a little low, but I think the houses you listed were in neighborhoods inferior to his.
I share your perception of “not many people looking to rent a high-end home in Clairemont” yet people are getting these great rents so I’m not so sure. Also, this is why I suggested you look for good location, good bones, 2-car garage that needs work.
I say 2-car garage not because a 2-car garage is important, but because in Clairemont, neighborhoods with 1-car garage homes are not as nice.
ParticipantI suspect this will sell for more than asking. Might want to check it out.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/4716-Mount-La-Platta-Dr-92117/home/4960226
D
ParticipantSUggest you surf craigslist for rentals and visit them as a potential renter.
ParticipantI know a guy getting $2800 for a very nice 1700 sq. ft, 2-car garage property on a large, 10,000 sq. ft. canyon lot.
I know another getting about 2700 for a similar but smaller house.
They are both on quiet streets and much more desireable than the 3 properties you listed.
I consider anything with a 1-car garage in clairemont to be the weaker neighborhoods and I don’t pay attention to them so I’m not sure what you could get for those. Somewhere in the 2000-2400 range, which is a wild-ish guess.
The quieter streets are much better. I’d go for a fixer-upper with a 2-car garage before a nicer 1-car garage.
Fix it up while you live in it so it’s nice for the renters and already on a nicer street – which you can’t ever change.
ParticipantWhen people ask me what RTFM stands for, I tell them “Read the Manual First” snicker, snicker.
ParticipantSome homes bought in 2003 had no landscaping at that time. If you added a bunch of landscaping, that would increase the value.
ParticipantSDR has been saying for years that his food and energy bills are going up. My energy/water bills have been about the same for about 5 years, comparing the same month across years.
http://ycharts.com/indicators/food_index_world_bank
ParticipantNot working out so well for Sarajevo:
http://www.weather.com/video/olympic-park-lost-in-time-44366
November 18, 2013 at 1:34 PM in reply to: OT: The “Radical” Gay Agenda in California Public Schools #768115Participant[quote=CA renter]The people making those decisions are almost always elected or appointed politicians and their chosen administrators. In case you haven’t noticed, most of them are bought/owned by corporations. Unions/teachers have far less to do with this than corporations, special interest groups, think tanks, etc. — people who work outside of government. [/quote]
As always, you group “Unions” in with “government”
Unions are private orgainzations attempting to appear as if they are working for the “common good” when in fact they are working solely for the benefit of their members.
November 14, 2013 at 8:50 PM in reply to: OT: The “Radical” Gay Agenda in California Public Schools #767907Participant[quote=spdrun]Puberty starts anywhere from age 10 to 16 — waiting till age 15 (10th grade) is far too late. The point of sex ed is to educate the kids whose parents are too ignorant or ashamed to have that discussion themselves.[/quote]
Stating your preference (that waiting until age 15 is far too late) doesn’t really address the issue at hand.
It’s like saying “if he only believed that the topic of homsexuality should be breached at the same age that I believe, then he wouldn’t have this problem.”
November 14, 2013 at 8:38 PM in reply to: OT: The “Radical” Gay Agenda in California Public Schools #767901Participant[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=sdduuuude]
Well, maybe against the radical ones with an agenda, which is likely not very many.[/quote]That’s my point — there is no “radical gay agenda” here.
Here’s what happened: a reading assignment mentioned, in passing, 2 women adopting a child together. Where exactly is the “radical agenda?” I don’t see it.
OP’s takeaway: “Radical gay agenda! It sickens me!”
You are giving him a pass by saying it’s not about the gays, that it’s about early discussion of sexuality.
First, there’s nothing radical about that. I remember getting sex education in 5th grade. That was in 1981. And it was way more explicit than this, which is really just about two women adopting a child together (you could probably skirt the sex part pretty easily if the child asks about it).
Second, if it’s just about any mention of sexuality, why is the title The “Radical” Gay Agenda in California Public Schools? Why isn’t it The Radical Early Sex Education Agenda?
So, like I said (more succinctly) in my first post:
oblique mention to a youngster of two women adopting a child ==
an “agenda”, and also, “sickening”Sounds pretty anti-gay to me.[/quote]
See CDMA’s answer. Explained it very well.
[quote=CDMAEng]
Why did it have to be a “two mommies” scenario as the OP said? There is no other explanation to this other than to introduce the idea of a homosexual family to the reader. Simply… that is an agenda.But why bring sexual identity at all into this?
Why not simply say something like “a loving couple adopt a child”… Strip all sexual identity, hetro or homo, from the argument and leave “two loving people” in the story. [/quote]
Plus, I interpreted “still in her early years of elementary school” as well before 5th grade. Still, the point is – “the right age” for some may be too early for others.
November 14, 2013 at 11:01 AM in reply to: OT: The “Radical” Gay Agenda in California Public Schools #767867Participant[quote=flu]Meh, it doesn’t bother me…
But I would rather have preferred our educators to have have created math assignments that read something like:
If Joe maxes out and borrows $20000 on a credit card, and makes $20 a payment each month, how many months will it take Joe to pay off his credit card debt, assuming he doesn’t borrow any more money from it?
Of course, I have a feeling that sort of math question wouldn’t be allowed, because it would be flagged as borderline “family values” that shouldn’t be taught in a public school math class…[/quote]
Post of the month nominee !
November 14, 2013 at 10:45 AM in reply to: OT: The “Radical” Gay Agenda in California Public Schools #767864Participant[quote=sdduuuude]Just because he thinks they are radical doesn’t mean he is anti-homosexuals.[/quote]
Well, maybe against the radical ones with an agenda, which is likely not very many.
-
AuthorPosts
