Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 29, 2013 at 5:27 PM in reply to: $64,000 Question. What raises property values in HOA neighborhood? #760930
sdduuuude
ParticipantAn HOA intent on trying to do more than it should be doing under the guise of “raising property values” would definitely reduce the property value.
March 29, 2013 at 2:43 PM in reply to: San Diego State Aztec mens hoops tip off 4:10 pm for trip to sweet 16! #760924Participant[quote=spdrun]Never really understood American football or basketball. Give me a good baseball game, tennis match, or soccer game any time.[/quote]
Suggest you go to a live college basketball game some day. An important one like a conference final, a big rivalry or an NCAA tournament game. You’ll see. It’s the best live sporting event in the US, IMHO.
I can see how it isn’t so exciting on TV, but if you go, you’ll understand.
I used to watch alot of american football. Not so much anymore. Mostly watch soccer now, and the NCAA basketball tournament.
Bummer AZ lost in a heartbreaker last night.
Participant[quote=EJ]Putting green!
Or maybe it should be called a putting brown in this case :)[/quote]
Post of the week nominee.
I loooove this thread.Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=SD Squatter]”Possibilities are endless!”
http://www.sdlookup.com/Pictures-130014153
Well, I only see one possibility: wrecking ball.[/quote]
I think we have a winner here.
Yikes!!![/quote]
No, no, no. This thread is for bad pictures.
Those are very good pictures. Just a bad subject.Still – Yikes!!!
March 21, 2013 at 10:39 PM in reply to: I’m now officially Small Government on Police Funding #760818Participant[quote=all]Hunting down and persecuting thieves is a cost, handing out tickets brings in money. Unless you are the unlucky taxpayer who got robbed or received a ticket you are better of financially when cops focus on traffic citations.[/quote]
I think you have confused “you” (i.e. me) with “the cops”
Hunting down and persecuting theivs is a cost – to the cops, but it benefits me.
Paying traffic tickets brings in money – to the cops, but hurts me.
I think this is the OP’s point. They aren’t serving the people anymore. Just funding their own existence, which, if they aren’t reducing crime, isn’t really justified.
ParticipantThe city rule is that you have to be less than 180 days between inspections.
HOA rules may override this, but if there is no HOA, that is the only requirement I know of to enforce speed.
It means that it could go on for years. Even if there are only 5 or 6 inspections, you can always call for one, fail, and wait 180 days for the next one.
ParticipantShort-term rentals make the revenue and return on investment look pretty good, until you put a dollar value on your time. I know people who have one house on VRBO and it takes alot of their time. You never get a vacation from it.
March 12, 2013 at 10:18 AM in reply to: Inland Border Patrol, 4th Amendment rights, being a jerk…. etc. #760582ParticipantI love it. Very educational.
I agree that answering the simple question of citizenship does not strip you of your rights. If you were being detained without probable cause, that would be.
I think what these videos make clear is that the checkpoints are not actually unconstitutional but the officers aren’t always quite clear on the law. The police want to put up a front of being in control, but the reality of the situation is that they aren’t.
The supervisors get it but the worker-bees seem to be reluctant to let go of the power trip when confronted with the real limits of their authority. I love the guy that said “I order you to pull over to secondary.” He didn’t really get it.
So even I agree isn’t worth the hassle to avoid answering the simple citizenship question but I love the fact that these guys made the videos. They were sort-of being jerks, but did it to proving a point, and a very important one.
Consider it a reminder to all that these are voluntary check-point after all.
Well done !
ParticipantMar 11 CVMS: 45 total for sale
14 under $1M
31 over $1MParticipant[quote=spdrun]Bearishgurl reminds me of a cantankerous old broad from the Upper West Side that I know. Smart, opinionated, obnoxious, yet somehow endearing all the same.[/quote]
Interesting. She is starting to remind me of powayseller.
Participant[quote=EconProf]BearishGirl: Please reread and take to heart Ren’s comments about your posts. Your responses showed it had no impact on you. But it was constructive criticism and probably represents the feelings of many Piggs.
Anyone else agree?[/quote]+1
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=sdduuuude]Another reason to put the house in a corp is to shelter from property tax increases.
If you sell the company, which owns the house, it does not trigger a sale event on the house, so the property tax basis stays the same.[/quote]
By law, that’s not accurate. If more than 50% of corporate stock or ownership in an LLC is transferred (in a single year or cumulatively since 1975), and the corporation owns real estate in CA, that transfer must be disclosed and the property is re-assessed. As a practical matter, I don’t now how the state enforces this for foreign corporations, but for CA entities, it’s right on the tax return:
J 1. For this taxable year, was there a change in control
or majority ownership for this corporation or any of
its subsidiaries that owned or (under certain
circumstances) leased real property in California? . . . . . Yes No
2. For this taxable year, did this corporation or any of its
subsidiaries acquire control or majority ownership of
any other legal entity that owned or (under certain
circumstances) leased real property in California? . . . . . Yes No
3. If this corporation or any of its subsidiaries owned or
(under certain circumstances) leased real property in
California, has more than 50% of the voting stock of any
one of them cumulatively transferred in one or more
transactions since March 1, 1975, which was not
reported on a previous year’s tax return? . . . . . . Yes No[/quote]
Interesting. I thought I caught wind of some big campaign going on to make it so that you couldn’t use a corporation to pull this trick. Maybe it is not legal, but still done ?
ParticipantAnother reason to put the house in a corp is to shelter from property tax increases.
If you sell the company, which owns the house, it does not trigger a sale event on the house, so the property tax basis stays the same.
Participant[quote=edna_mode]yep, large numbers underwater. check.
Did that writer seriously use the word “disorientated”
-
AuthorPosts
