Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 4, 2013 at 3:27 PM in reply to: Which public schools are better: Carmel Valley or La Jolla #762429
SK in CV
Participant[quote=DaCounselor]
Keeping with the original intent of this thread, I still don’t see any basis to support the idea that the LJ public schools can match those in CV or the other top areas.[/quote]To the contrary, I think there’s no evidence that the quality of education is significantly different between LJ and Carmel Valley. Smart kids with involved parents equals successful students. It isn’t teachers and it isn’t schools that make successful students. Both areas have smart kids and involved parents, as well as schools that provide an environment to allow the students to thrive.
Participant[quote=SD Realtor]Sure Christian immigrants are doing great in other worlds especially in places like Egypt. They are having the time of their life.[/quote]
In fairness, I don’t think there have been too many Christian immigrants to Egypt recently. Though probably a few more than Jewish immigrants.
May 29, 2013 at 3:23 PM in reply to: Which public schools are better: Carmel Valley or La Jolla #762277ParticipantIf you can afford a $1.2 million dollar house, you can afford private school for your kids. You might choose to spend your money on a house instead.
Both areas have outstanding public schools. Neither is likely to disappoint. The difference is insignificant.
Participant[quote=spdrun]I meant > 8% unleveraged return. About 16-17% leveraged /w 25% down.[/quote]
In the original post you said 8% cash on cash, which would mean based on however you bought. If you’re getting 16-17% cash on cash, that’s pretty damn good.
The cap rate should be based on today’s cash flow. Cap rate is a method of valuing current cash flow. If it’s worth more than what you paid (which by all indications, it is), then the effective cap rate would be less than your cash on cash return.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=desmond][quote=patb]If the guy is broke after 8 years in office, it means he wasn’t on the take.[/quote]
Right, he just wasn’t smart enough to take the right things. It was more important for him to be “seen in L.A. today” than to worry about tomorrow. Same goes for the way he ran the city.[/quote]Agreed. I have no idea how he managed to remain mayor for so long. If he truly is personally broke, that explains why L.A. is such a mess. It’s always seemed like he was more into the “celebrity” of being a mayor, rather than committing himself to taking care of the city and its inhabitants.[/quote]
That makes sense. Except that LA isn’t in that big of a mess. It’s expected to have a budget surplus this year, and its pension funding is relatively healthy compared to many cities, and one of the best cities in the country for funding future retiree health care costs. The whole “LA is going bankrupt” originated with groups with a clear political agenda. Those predictions a few years ago look pretty foolish now.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=t36tran]…Why would Blue Anchor, an outside party with no ownership stake want 45K paid directly to them to settle all the secondary liens? Why would I trust them to do so?…[/quote]
Because it would appear that the seller (and title co) would be on the hook if they didn’t do what you paid them $45K to do. In addition, your escrow company couldn’t prepare your file to close if all the conditions of escrow had not been met.
[/quote]
Why would there be any reason for this to be handled outside of escrow? Is there any good reason for secondary liens not be paid through escrow in the more standard manner, with the buyer receiving title, free of all liens except taxes? If the facilitator actually negotiated payoffs of other loans, there would be no reason not to properly document it.
In fact, if this purchase included a new mortgage, I’m pretty sure the fine print in standard loan docs require that everything go through escrow, or at least be included in the escrow closing statement.
ParticipantBG, It’s unclear to me whether that extra cash was outside of escrow. Maybe our poster can clarify. At least once, he indicated, though vaguely, that it was through escrow.
I’d like to know if these intermediary “short sale specialists” are common. If they’re involved in negotiating loan transfers or payoffs, they’re required to be either licensed RE brokers, or licensed lenders through the DOC. I suspect lawyers are allowed to do it too.
If these intermediaries are common, it’s just one more indication of how totally inept lenders are. They’re doing thousands of short sales. They should have people in house to do this sort of thing, rather than pay a 3rd party extra cash. This may be a perfectly normal short sale transaction, but based on info provided, it smells very fishy.
ParticipantSorry to hear this. I was hoping someone with short sale experience would chime in on this. It seemed kind of strange with the terms changing at the last minute, but having never been through it, anything is possible. Glad you ended up with someone experienced that could help spot the problems.
I’m curious if this is common. Anyone else ever heard of something like this happening?
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
SK: The FBI agent in question is a former counterterrorism expert named Tim Clemente.
The US Government, or more correctly the NSA, has been eavesdropping for years on private conversations, both judicially (Echelon/Carnivore) and extra-judicially (AT&T Room 641a in San Francisco).
The NSA facility at Camp Williams in Utah further enhances these capabilities.[/quote]
Exactly the guy. The only part that surprised me was the claim that they can hit rewind, and go back and find and listen to conversations in the past. They must be paying a fortune for their dropbox account.
added: I wonder if they could send me a recording of a phone call I had with my ex-wife when she promised she’d get her own cell phone plan. Two years ago.
Participant[quote=CA renter]SK,
That’s not how I understand it.
[/quote]
I’m not sure what incident you’re referring to. The one that’s been discussed here is phone records. Not tapped phone lines.
That said, there have been recent allegations by a former FBI agent that all phone calls (and texts, and emails) are recorded and stored, and can be accessed by law enforcement at a later date.
Participant[quote=CA renter]The govt doesn’t need warrants, silly-billies!
…
All wiretapping of American citizens by the National Security Agency requires a warrant from a three-judge court set up under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. After the 9/11 attacks, Congress passed the Patriot Act, which granted the President broad powers to fight a war against terrorism. The George W. Bush administration used these powers to bypass the FISA court and directed the NSA to spy directly on al Qaeda in a new NSA electronic surveillance program. Reports at the time indicate that an “apparently accidental” “glitch” resulted in the interception of communications that were purely domestic in nature.[5] This action was challenged by a number of groups, including Congress, as unconstitutional.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy
…..It’s just an “accident” when they tap phone lines of American citizens or residents who might be “domestic terrorists.”[/quote]
This particular incident has nothing to do with wiretaps. Only phone records.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
Absolutely, SK. The records came from the phone companies. But shouldn’t the AP have been sent a notice that their records were being sought X number of days ahead of the service of the SDT(s) with the reason why they were being sought? Was “procedure” followed correctly by the US AG?[/quote]Technically, the records didn’t belong to AP, so no. Records belonged to all the phone companies.
Horrible precedent. I don’t think there’s any legal redress.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]I’d be curious as to what was found in those two months phone records of 20 reporters that would rise to the level of “leaking US secrets” and “cooperating with spies.”
Since hardly any or none of them possess any type of security clearance, the CIA/US AG sure seem to be giving these lowly news reporters a lot of credit.
I would be surprised to learn if any “untoward” numbers at all were dialed/rec’d from in that thick stack of phone bills for 20 rptrs x 2 mos, lol. If they were, how would any of these peons’ KNOW the caller/callee was a spy??
This whole debacle may very well have been “engineered” for naught, IMHO.[/quote]
They KNOW a secret was leaked. AP reported it, and refused to divulge their source. Phone records would show calls made to or received from assets numbers. Except I’m hoping that spooks know to use a burner phone for that kind of stuff. I know I always do.
SCOTUS said years ago that no warrant is required for phone records, no expectation of privacy because callers are telling the service providers who they’re calling. Still would have been a good idea.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
No, the US AG is part of the Presidential Cabinet. Under normal circumstances, an entity or person wishing to subpoena phone records would be required to send a “Notice to Consumer” or similar notice to the entity or individual for whom records were being sought a certain number of days in advance of the deadline for those records to be produced. This is to give the individual or entity served enough time to file a motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum.This wasn’t done in this case. I don’t know what special powers the US AG’s Office would possess in order to get around this procedure.
Perhaps the semi-well-versed-in-Constitutional-law Pigg SK in CV can shed some light on how/why the AG got the AP to cooperate with their (improper?) SDT in the absence of proper notice, since Pigg scaredycat/Walter has been ignoring us of late.
Certainly the AP has permanent counsel chained to their ankle. There is much to learn here as to why Holder is seemingly large and in charge … but um, really isn’t.
Holder’s Lackey, Cole, stated that two months of phone records were obtained from the AP by subpoena
It is CLEAR here that the US AG was “representing” the CIA in the “acquisition” of the AP’s phone records of 20 of its reporters.[/quote]
I suspect the phone records didn’t come from AP. In fact, that’s gotta be the case, otherwise they (AP) wouldn’t have been surprised when they were notified after the fact. They probably came from numerous phone companies, which were served with the subpoenas. I can’t f’ing believe they didn’t get a warrant, but at least so far, there’s no indication that they did.
I’m guessing it’s the FBI that’s doing the investigation, not the CIA. More likely than not, the leak that they were investigating was a CIA leak, so they want some independence. Plus, I don’t think the CIA can legally do investigations domestically, except on TV.
-
AuthorPosts
