[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]
In addition, I do not believe the “arms-length” transactions involving trustees sales, probate sales or purchase of REOs qualifies the property for the “Decline in Value Assessment Program” if the surrounding parcel map(s) do not qualify. Do not know about short-sales but would assume they DO QUALIFY. Any Piggs know??

[/quote]

I’m a bit confused by this. I don’t think the OP is requesting a decline in value assessment. I think it’s the inital assessment usually based on the actual price he paid. I do understand how the assessor can argue that a trustee sale is at something other than fair market value or arms length. Not so with a REO. A seller who typically lists the property in MLS. A buyer who makes an offer. Open market negotiaation. (I do know the reality is sometimes a bit different.) I’m not familar with the regulations on this but it does seem unreasonable for a REO sale to not be subject to the identical property tax valuation process as any other traditional sale. Anyone have any insight?

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]
In addition, I do not believe the “arms-length” transactions involving trustees sales, probate sales or purchase of REOs qualifies the property for the “Decline in Value Assessment Program” if the surrounding parcel map(s) do not qualify. Do not know about short-sales but would assume they DO QUALIFY. Any Piggs know??

[/quote]

I’m a bit confused by this. I don’t think the OP is requesting a decline in value assessment. I think it’s the inital assessment usually based on the actual price he paid. I do understand how the assessor can argue that a trustee sale is at something other than fair market value or arms length. Not so with a REO. A seller who typically lists the property in MLS. A buyer who makes an offer. Open market negotiaation. (I do know the reality is sometimes a bit different.) I’m not familar with the regulations on this but it does seem unreasonable for a REO sale to not be subject to the identical property tax valuation process as any other traditional sale. Anyone have any insight?

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]
In addition, I do not believe the “arms-length” transactions involving trustees sales, probate sales or purchase of REOs qualifies the property for the “Decline in Value Assessment Program” if the surrounding parcel map(s) do not qualify. Do not know about short-sales but would assume they DO QUALIFY. Any Piggs know??

[/quote]

I’m a bit confused by this. I don’t think the OP is requesting a decline in value assessment. I think it’s the inital assessment usually based on the actual price he paid. I do understand how the assessor can argue that a trustee sale is at something other than fair market value or arms length. Not so with a REO. A seller who typically lists the property in MLS. A buyer who makes an offer. Open market negotiaation. (I do know the reality is sometimes a bit different.) I’m not familar with the regulations on this but it does seem unreasonable for a REO sale to not be subject to the identical property tax valuation process as any other traditional sale. Anyone have any insight?

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]
In addition, I do not believe the “arms-length” transactions involving trustees sales, probate sales or purchase of REOs qualifies the property for the “Decline in Value Assessment Program” if the surrounding parcel map(s) do not qualify. Do not know about short-sales but would assume they DO QUALIFY. Any Piggs know??

[/quote]

I’m a bit confused by this. I don’t think the OP is requesting a decline in value assessment. I think it’s the inital assessment usually based on the actual price he paid. I do understand how the assessor can argue that a trustee sale is at something other than fair market value or arms length. Not so with a REO. A seller who typically lists the property in MLS. A buyer who makes an offer. Open market negotiaation. (I do know the reality is sometimes a bit different.) I’m not familar with the regulations on this but it does seem unreasonable for a REO sale to not be subject to the identical property tax valuation process as any other traditional sale. Anyone have any insight?

[SK in CV]

Trend has been up for 6 months or so. The neighborhood those two homes are in had a big drop off beginning about 18 months ago as i recall. Then prices picked up again but still way below where they were. The Winstanley house was on the high side, but not outrageously so. Consistent with the upward trend. The Wyngate house was very high, but has a stunning view that probably added $200,000 to the sales price.

[SK in CV]

Trend has been up for 6 months or so. The neighborhood those two homes are in had a big drop off beginning about 18 months ago as i recall. Then prices picked up again but still way below where they were. The Winstanley house was on the high side, but not outrageously so. Consistent with the upward trend. The Wyngate house was very high, but has a stunning view that probably added $200,000 to the sales price.

[SK in CV]

Trend has been up for 6 months or so. The neighborhood those two homes are in had a big drop off beginning about 18 months ago as i recall. Then prices picked up again but still way below where they were. The Winstanley house was on the high side, but not outrageously so. Consistent with the upward trend. The Wyngate house was very high, but has a stunning view that probably added $200,000 to the sales price.

[SK in CV]

Trend has been up for 6 months or so. The neighborhood those two homes are in had a big drop off beginning about 18 months ago as i recall. Then prices picked up again but still way below where they were. The Winstanley house was on the high side, but not outrageously so. Consistent with the upward trend. The Wyngate house was very high, but has a stunning view that probably added $200,000 to the sales price.

[SK in CV]

Trend has been up for 6 months or so. The neighborhood those two homes are in had a big drop off beginning about 18 months ago as i recall. Then prices picked up again but still way below where they were. The Winstanley house was on the high side, but not outrageously so. Consistent with the upward trend. The Wyngate house was very high, but has a stunning view that probably added $200,000 to the sales price.

[SK in CV]

[quote=investor] Barney frank was also having an affair with the head of either freddie or fannie at the same time they were being pressured to allow low income people (minorities amoung them) access to mortgages that they could not pay back. [/quote]

In debate we’d say that begs the question. In court we’d say you are presuming facts not yet in evidence.

Frank acknowledged his relationships, it wasn’t an affair. Both were single, and it lasted most of the ’90s. How was that relationship even related to the subprime crisis? (It ended many years ago.)

I’m reasonably sure there is no evidence that either Fannie or Freddie were ever “pressured to allow low income people (minorities amoung them) access to mortgages that they could not pay back”. Who is “they” that applied the pressure for that specific action? Precisely when do you believe this happened? Was it when Frank was sponsoring legislation to limit that very thing in 2004? Or was it in 2002 when the foreclosure rate on almost all loans was close to zero? Or was it even earlier, while he was voting against Gramm–Leach–Bliley and he actually had a relationship with a Fannie employee?

[SK in CV]

[quote=investor] Barney frank was also having an affair with the head of either freddie or fannie at the same time they were being pressured to allow low income people (minorities amoung them) access to mortgages that they could not pay back. [/quote]

In debate we’d say that begs the question. In court we’d say you are presuming facts not yet in evidence.

Frank acknowledged his relationships, it wasn’t an affair. Both were single, and it lasted most of the ’90s. How was that relationship even related to the subprime crisis? (It ended many years ago.)

I’m reasonably sure there is no evidence that either Fannie or Freddie were ever “pressured to allow low income people (minorities amoung them) access to mortgages that they could not pay back”. Who is “they” that applied the pressure for that specific action? Precisely when do you believe this happened? Was it when Frank was sponsoring legislation to limit that very thing in 2004? Or was it in 2002 when the foreclosure rate on almost all loans was close to zero? Or was it even earlier, while he was voting against Gramm–Leach–Bliley and he actually had a relationship with a Fannie employee?

[SK in CV]

[quote=investor] Barney frank was also having an affair with the head of either freddie or fannie at the same time they were being pressured to allow low income people (minorities amoung them) access to mortgages that they could not pay back. [/quote]

In debate we’d say that begs the question. In court we’d say you are presuming facts not yet in evidence.

Frank acknowledged his relationships, it wasn’t an affair. Both were single, and it lasted most of the ’90s. How was that relationship even related to the subprime crisis? (It ended many years ago.)

I’m reasonably sure there is no evidence that either Fannie or Freddie were ever “pressured to allow low income people (minorities amoung them) access to mortgages that they could not pay back”. Who is “they” that applied the pressure for that specific action? Precisely when do you believe this happened? Was it when Frank was sponsoring legislation to limit that very thing in 2004? Or was it in 2002 when the foreclosure rate on almost all loans was close to zero? Or was it even earlier, while he was voting against Gramm–Leach–Bliley and he actually had a relationship with a Fannie employee?

[SK in CV]

[quote=investor] Barney frank was also having an affair with the head of either freddie or fannie at the same time they were being pressured to allow low income people (minorities amoung them) access to mortgages that they could not pay back. [/quote]

In debate we’d say that begs the question. In court we’d say you are presuming facts not yet in evidence.

Frank acknowledged his relationships, it wasn’t an affair. Both were single, and it lasted most of the ’90s. How was that relationship even related to the subprime crisis? (It ended many years ago.)

I’m reasonably sure there is no evidence that either Fannie or Freddie were ever “pressured to allow low income people (minorities amoung them) access to mortgages that they could not pay back”. Who is “they” that applied the pressure for that specific action? Precisely when do you believe this happened? Was it when Frank was sponsoring legislation to limit that very thing in 2004? Or was it in 2002 when the foreclosure rate on almost all loans was close to zero? Or was it even earlier, while he was voting against Gramm–Leach–Bliley and he actually had a relationship with a Fannie employee?

[SK in CV]

[quote=investor] Barney frank was also having an affair with the head of either freddie or fannie at the same time they were being pressured to allow low income people (minorities amoung them) access to mortgages that they could not pay back. [/quote]

In debate we’d say that begs the question. In court we’d say you are presuming facts not yet in evidence.

Frank acknowledged his relationships, it wasn’t an affair. Both were single, and it lasted most of the ’90s. How was that relationship even related to the subprime crisis? (It ended many years ago.)

I’m reasonably sure there is no evidence that either Fannie or Freddie were ever “pressured to allow low income people (minorities amoung them) access to mortgages that they could not pay back”. Who is “they” that applied the pressure for that specific action? Precisely when do you believe this happened? Was it when Frank was sponsoring legislation to limit that very thing in 2004? Or was it in 2002 when the foreclosure rate on almost all loans was close to zero? Or was it even earlier, while he was voting against Gramm–Leach–Bliley and he actually had a relationship with a Fannie employee?

[SK in CV]

Insightful comment.

Specially this part.
[quote=deriving drunk]
In my experience, most dog attacks occur on their home turf, be it their home or immediate surrounds, ie they are defending in a territorial manner. Occasionally packs will feed off each other’s energy, etc. Is it a real risk? Sure, but extremely uncommon.

[/quote]

I’ll expand that a bit to include the event the OP described where a dog on lead was involved with a dog off lead and violence erupted. Dog behaviorists use the term barrier agression. Dogs will often display agression on one side of a fence towards a percieved threat on the opposite side of the fence. But home territory is only a piece of that puzzle. Same thing can occur when one is on lead and one isn’t. (Or two on lead, for that matter.) The one on lead has greater exposure to threats, and is much more likely to display agression. In most cases, it has nothing to do with obedience, it’s temperment. Which makes it extraordinarily risky walking a dog on lead through a dog park with dogs off lead, even with a well trained dog. (I know all hell would break loose if I tried that with my main dog.) A few dozen dogs off lead are unlikely to fight. (not never, just unlikely)

[Author]

Posts