[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)

[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)

[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)

[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)

[SK in CV]

[quote=investor] Someone mentioned, I think you, that you admire barney frank and dodd. How do you feel about franks promotion of easy mortgage loaning during the 1990’s and 2000’s that has lead directly to our current mess? I admit that bush should not have gone to war in iraq. Can you put aside your political leanings and admit that frank, for reasons of trying to promote black home ownership- a worthwhile goal- screwed up big time and should be kicked out of all power over banking in the US congress?

[/quote]

I don’t have any recollection of any legislation in the 90’s that lead to the current mess, other than the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act in 1999, which passed with a veto proof majority. Frank voted against it.

You’ll have to identify specifically his “promotion of easy mortgage loaning during the 1990’s and 2000’s that has lead directly to our current mess”, that can be laid at his feet, and not others, at least equally. Congress screwed up. As did another dozen groups, with even great responsibility. (as an aside, I have to laugh in this era of libertarian craziness, when conservatives blame the financial crisis on the government for not regulating business.)

Despite his support for both fannie and freddie, he attempted early this decade to limit their involvement in sub-prime lending by sponsoring bipartisan legislation with Mike Oxley, which never got a vote in the Senate and was opposed by the administration. Had it passed, it would have kept 10’s of thousands as renters instead of buyers who couldn’t afford their loans.

The whole fannie/freddie is to blame is a long debunked canard. (kinda like acorn and voter fraud) Neither ever made a single subprime loan. When subprime volume skyrocketed, their total loan portfolios shrunk as percentage of the market.

Frank isn’t perfect, far from it. He understand finance much better than most congressmen, but not as well as he should. But no, I don’t think he should be kicked out of all power over banking in congress. I’m not aware of any significant failures he’s had in that position that would warrant that. I’d be glad to rethink that position if you can identify them specifically.

[SK in CV]

[quote=investor] Someone mentioned, I think you, that you admire barney frank and dodd. How do you feel about franks promotion of easy mortgage loaning during the 1990’s and 2000’s that has lead directly to our current mess? I admit that bush should not have gone to war in iraq. Can you put aside your political leanings and admit that frank, for reasons of trying to promote black home ownership- a worthwhile goal- screwed up big time and should be kicked out of all power over banking in the US congress?

[/quote]

I don’t have any recollection of any legislation in the 90’s that lead to the current mess, other than the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act in 1999, which passed with a veto proof majority. Frank voted against it.

You’ll have to identify specifically his “promotion of easy mortgage loaning during the 1990’s and 2000’s that has lead directly to our current mess”, that can be laid at his feet, and not others, at least equally. Congress screwed up. As did another dozen groups, with even great responsibility. (as an aside, I have to laugh in this era of libertarian craziness, when conservatives blame the financial crisis on the government for not regulating business.)

Despite his support for both fannie and freddie, he attempted early this decade to limit their involvement in sub-prime lending by sponsoring bipartisan legislation with Mike Oxley, which never got a vote in the Senate and was opposed by the administration. Had it passed, it would have kept 10’s of thousands as renters instead of buyers who couldn’t afford their loans.

The whole fannie/freddie is to blame is a long debunked canard. (kinda like acorn and voter fraud) Neither ever made a single subprime loan. When subprime volume skyrocketed, their total loan portfolios shrunk as percentage of the market.

Frank isn’t perfect, far from it. He understand finance much better than most congressmen, but not as well as he should. But no, I don’t think he should be kicked out of all power over banking in congress. I’m not aware of any significant failures he’s had in that position that would warrant that. I’d be glad to rethink that position if you can identify them specifically.

[SK in CV]

[quote=investor] Someone mentioned, I think you, that you admire barney frank and dodd. How do you feel about franks promotion of easy mortgage loaning during the 1990’s and 2000’s that has lead directly to our current mess? I admit that bush should not have gone to war in iraq. Can you put aside your political leanings and admit that frank, for reasons of trying to promote black home ownership- a worthwhile goal- screwed up big time and should be kicked out of all power over banking in the US congress?

[/quote]

I don’t have any recollection of any legislation in the 90’s that lead to the current mess, other than the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act in 1999, which passed with a veto proof majority. Frank voted against it.

You’ll have to identify specifically his “promotion of easy mortgage loaning during the 1990’s and 2000’s that has lead directly to our current mess”, that can be laid at his feet, and not others, at least equally. Congress screwed up. As did another dozen groups, with even great responsibility. (as an aside, I have to laugh in this era of libertarian craziness, when conservatives blame the financial crisis on the government for not regulating business.)

Despite his support for both fannie and freddie, he attempted early this decade to limit their involvement in sub-prime lending by sponsoring bipartisan legislation with Mike Oxley, which never got a vote in the Senate and was opposed by the administration. Had it passed, it would have kept 10’s of thousands as renters instead of buyers who couldn’t afford their loans.

The whole fannie/freddie is to blame is a long debunked canard. (kinda like acorn and voter fraud) Neither ever made a single subprime loan. When subprime volume skyrocketed, their total loan portfolios shrunk as percentage of the market.

Frank isn’t perfect, far from it. He understand finance much better than most congressmen, but not as well as he should. But no, I don’t think he should be kicked out of all power over banking in congress. I’m not aware of any significant failures he’s had in that position that would warrant that. I’d be glad to rethink that position if you can identify them specifically.

[SK in CV]

[quote=investor] Someone mentioned, I think you, that you admire barney frank and dodd. How do you feel about franks promotion of easy mortgage loaning during the 1990’s and 2000’s that has lead directly to our current mess? I admit that bush should not have gone to war in iraq. Can you put aside your political leanings and admit that frank, for reasons of trying to promote black home ownership- a worthwhile goal- screwed up big time and should be kicked out of all power over banking in the US congress?

[/quote]

I don’t have any recollection of any legislation in the 90’s that lead to the current mess, other than the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act in 1999, which passed with a veto proof majority. Frank voted against it.

You’ll have to identify specifically his “promotion of easy mortgage loaning during the 1990’s and 2000’s that has lead directly to our current mess”, that can be laid at his feet, and not others, at least equally. Congress screwed up. As did another dozen groups, with even great responsibility. (as an aside, I have to laugh in this era of libertarian craziness, when conservatives blame the financial crisis on the government for not regulating business.)

Despite his support for both fannie and freddie, he attempted early this decade to limit their involvement in sub-prime lending by sponsoring bipartisan legislation with Mike Oxley, which never got a vote in the Senate and was opposed by the administration. Had it passed, it would have kept 10’s of thousands as renters instead of buyers who couldn’t afford their loans.

The whole fannie/freddie is to blame is a long debunked canard. (kinda like acorn and voter fraud) Neither ever made a single subprime loan. When subprime volume skyrocketed, their total loan portfolios shrunk as percentage of the market.

Frank isn’t perfect, far from it. He understand finance much better than most congressmen, but not as well as he should. But no, I don’t think he should be kicked out of all power over banking in congress. I’m not aware of any significant failures he’s had in that position that would warrant that. I’d be glad to rethink that position if you can identify them specifically.

[SK in CV]

[quote=investor] Someone mentioned, I think you, that you admire barney frank and dodd. How do you feel about franks promotion of easy mortgage loaning during the 1990’s and 2000’s that has lead directly to our current mess? I admit that bush should not have gone to war in iraq. Can you put aside your political leanings and admit that frank, for reasons of trying to promote black home ownership- a worthwhile goal- screwed up big time and should be kicked out of all power over banking in the US congress?

[/quote]

I don’t have any recollection of any legislation in the 90’s that lead to the current mess, other than the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act in 1999, which passed with a veto proof majority. Frank voted against it.

You’ll have to identify specifically his “promotion of easy mortgage loaning during the 1990’s and 2000’s that has lead directly to our current mess”, that can be laid at his feet, and not others, at least equally. Congress screwed up. As did another dozen groups, with even great responsibility. (as an aside, I have to laugh in this era of libertarian craziness, when conservatives blame the financial crisis on the government for not regulating business.)

Despite his support for both fannie and freddie, he attempted early this decade to limit their involvement in sub-prime lending by sponsoring bipartisan legislation with Mike Oxley, which never got a vote in the Senate and was opposed by the administration. Had it passed, it would have kept 10’s of thousands as renters instead of buyers who couldn’t afford their loans.

The whole fannie/freddie is to blame is a long debunked canard. (kinda like acorn and voter fraud) Neither ever made a single subprime loan. When subprime volume skyrocketed, their total loan portfolios shrunk as percentage of the market.

Frank isn’t perfect, far from it. He understand finance much better than most congressmen, but not as well as he should. But no, I don’t think he should be kicked out of all power over banking in congress. I’m not aware of any significant failures he’s had in that position that would warrant that. I’d be glad to rethink that position if you can identify them specifically.

[SK in CV]

I walk that bridge probably 5 times a week. Never had nor seen a problem. Worst thing that ever happened to me was i got rubbed by a wet dog. Last bad dog i saw on that beach (or south across the channel for that matter) was mine. He was about 9 months old. Seems little dog owners don’t like when big dogs take their little dogs heads in their mouths. Go figure. Mine hasn’t been back there since off lead. That was 8 years ago.

[SK in CV]

I walk that bridge probably 5 times a week. Never had nor seen a problem. Worst thing that ever happened to me was i got rubbed by a wet dog. Last bad dog i saw on that beach (or south across the channel for that matter) was mine. He was about 9 months old. Seems little dog owners don’t like when big dogs take their little dogs heads in their mouths. Go figure. Mine hasn’t been back there since off lead. That was 8 years ago.

[SK in CV]

I walk that bridge probably 5 times a week. Never had nor seen a problem. Worst thing that ever happened to me was i got rubbed by a wet dog. Last bad dog i saw on that beach (or south across the channel for that matter) was mine. He was about 9 months old. Seems little dog owners don’t like when big dogs take their little dogs heads in their mouths. Go figure. Mine hasn’t been back there since off lead. That was 8 years ago.

[SK in CV]

I walk that bridge probably 5 times a week. Never had nor seen a problem. Worst thing that ever happened to me was i got rubbed by a wet dog. Last bad dog i saw on that beach (or south across the channel for that matter) was mine. He was about 9 months old. Seems little dog owners don’t like when big dogs take their little dogs heads in their mouths. Go figure. Mine hasn’t been back there since off lead. That was 8 years ago.

[SK in CV]

I walk that bridge probably 5 times a week. Never had nor seen a problem. Worst thing that ever happened to me was i got rubbed by a wet dog. Last bad dog i saw on that beach (or south across the channel for that matter) was mine. He was about 9 months old. Seems little dog owners don’t like when big dogs take their little dogs heads in their mouths. Go figure. Mine hasn’t been back there since off lead. That was 8 years ago.

[SK in CV]

[quote=flu]
So at the risk of sounding really dumb (so be it),
I was just curious as someone knowledgeable in any one of those categories could kinda give an overview of that categories investment model, financing,etc to a completely clueless person like me…
with the exception of hotels(or any time of residential short term rentals),

a)public storage
b)office space
c)you mention mixed use? Can you elaborate?

[/quote]

No, I can’t 🙂

But maybe I can add a few words that might lead you in the right direction.

PS properties. Long time favorites of investment real estate packagers. If properties are in the right market, very reliable cash flow, rarely are there sudden changes in the market. When residential is bad, homeowners downsize, need some place to store their shit. When economy is good, same thing, people need somewhere to store their shit. Lower cost of construction. Don’t require prime locations. Low management and maintenance headaches. Tend to be lower leveraged investments. I think its hard to borrow much more than 65%-70% max. My recent experience is through a local investment group that’s been in the business for awhile. When I google “san diego self storage properties cash flow”, they’re the first company to come up. (Your results may vary) Not a referral, but my experience has been good.

Office Space – Go pick the brain of someone at CB Richard Ellis. 15-20 years ago, people made gigantous money in a similar rental market when stuff was going for 10 to 20% of previous comps. 600 B st downtown sold for like $6 million. Last time i saw it move, it was something like $105 million.

Mixed Use – Forget i said anything. I was just throwing out examples of different types. It came to mind because my sister is in escrow on a building with 2 retail units downstairs and i think 4 apartments upstairs. She’s going to occupy one of the retail spaces, so it may make sense for her. I think its a pretty rare kind of property in SD, except for maybe older stuff in Hillcrest and Bankers Hill. May be some opportunities, I have no idea, but this particular building makes no sense at all except for the special circumstances.

[Author]

Posts