Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
svelteParticipantI just want people who know how to balance a budget to run the country. No matter what their political stripe. I hate the thought of paying for today’s party tomorrow.
svelteParticipantI just want people who know how to balance a budget to run the country. No matter what their political stripe. I hate the thought of paying for today’s party tomorrow.
svelteParticipantAnd just a week ago, Brent Wilkes is sentenced to 12 years in the largest bribery case in the history of the US Congress for his interaction with our illustrious former representative Randy “Duke” Cunningham.
svelteParticipantAnd just a week ago, Brent Wilkes is sentenced to 12 years in the largest bribery case in the history of the US Congress for his interaction with our illustrious former representative Randy “Duke” Cunningham.
svelteParticipantAnd just a week ago, Brent Wilkes is sentenced to 12 years in the largest bribery case in the history of the US Congress for his interaction with our illustrious former representative Randy “Duke” Cunningham.
svelteParticipantAnd just a week ago, Brent Wilkes is sentenced to 12 years in the largest bribery case in the history of the US Congress for his interaction with our illustrious former representative Randy “Duke” Cunningham.
svelteParticipantAnd just a week ago, Brent Wilkes is sentenced to 12 years in the largest bribery case in the history of the US Congress for his interaction with our illustrious former representative Randy “Duke” Cunningham.
svelteParticipantYet the argument I think that FLU and others were making to Core Client, was that … the base instinct that drove the purchases was one of being able to take advantage of a speculative housing market.
Ahhhh, but here’s the rub that nobody seems to bring up around here.
If buying a home in 03 to 05 to capture speculative home price increases was “taking advantage of” the market, then selling a home in 05 to 06 and renting for a few years to permanently capture those speculative home price increases is also “taking advantage of” the market and is just as wrong!!
Think about it.
(my opinion: neither is wrong in a free market economy. But if you think one is wrong, you’re pretty much backed into thinking the other is wrong too!)
svelteParticipantYet the argument I think that FLU and others were making to Core Client, was that … the base instinct that drove the purchases was one of being able to take advantage of a speculative housing market.
Ahhhh, but here’s the rub that nobody seems to bring up around here.
If buying a home in 03 to 05 to capture speculative home price increases was “taking advantage of” the market, then selling a home in 05 to 06 and renting for a few years to permanently capture those speculative home price increases is also “taking advantage of” the market and is just as wrong!!
Think about it.
(my opinion: neither is wrong in a free market economy. But if you think one is wrong, you’re pretty much backed into thinking the other is wrong too!)
svelteParticipantYet the argument I think that FLU and others were making to Core Client, was that … the base instinct that drove the purchases was one of being able to take advantage of a speculative housing market.
Ahhhh, but here’s the rub that nobody seems to bring up around here.
If buying a home in 03 to 05 to capture speculative home price increases was “taking advantage of” the market, then selling a home in 05 to 06 and renting for a few years to permanently capture those speculative home price increases is also “taking advantage of” the market and is just as wrong!!
Think about it.
(my opinion: neither is wrong in a free market economy. But if you think one is wrong, you’re pretty much backed into thinking the other is wrong too!)
svelteParticipantYet the argument I think that FLU and others were making to Core Client, was that … the base instinct that drove the purchases was one of being able to take advantage of a speculative housing market.
Ahhhh, but here’s the rub that nobody seems to bring up around here.
If buying a home in 03 to 05 to capture speculative home price increases was “taking advantage of” the market, then selling a home in 05 to 06 and renting for a few years to permanently capture those speculative home price increases is also “taking advantage of” the market and is just as wrong!!
Think about it.
(my opinion: neither is wrong in a free market economy. But if you think one is wrong, you’re pretty much backed into thinking the other is wrong too!)
svelteParticipantYet the argument I think that FLU and others were making to Core Client, was that … the base instinct that drove the purchases was one of being able to take advantage of a speculative housing market.
Ahhhh, but here’s the rub that nobody seems to bring up around here.
If buying a home in 03 to 05 to capture speculative home price increases was “taking advantage of” the market, then selling a home in 05 to 06 and renting for a few years to permanently capture those speculative home price increases is also “taking advantage of” the market and is just as wrong!!
Think about it.
(my opinion: neither is wrong in a free market economy. But if you think one is wrong, you’re pretty much backed into thinking the other is wrong too!)
svelteParticipantThere was a study once that showed that, after 7 years, most of the surrounding population thought that a disaster that had happened couldn’t happen again (or something like that). I have found that to be true in areas I have lived.
I lived in an area that flooded from an overflowing river. It was the talk of the town for 3-4 years and people even soemewhat avoided buying there for that period of time. But by about the 7th year, no one talked about it, people were buying without giving it any thought, and new construction was even happening in the previously flooded area.
Think about what has happened here in San Diego with the 2003 Cedar Fire. People talked about it for 3-4 years, people planned their purchases based on fire danger, but it was getting rare to hear discussion about it when the 2007 Witch Creek Fire hit. I think we were on course for having the 03 Cedar Fire forgotten about by 2010 had it not been for the 2007 fire. Now, we’ll have to wait until about 2014 for people to return to that ‘it can’t happen here’ mentality.
This has been a long-winded way of saying, if ppl can forget about things that happen on that scale, they won’t be giving an accidental flooding in your folk’s home much thought. Especially if they keep the house longer than 7 years. 🙂
It sounds to me like the contractor is doing your parents right. If I were you, I’d pony up for a mold test when the work is complete (it is a new house, there should have been ZERO mold when you bought it, right?) as mold tests are becoming more popular and that is the one thing that could bite you come time to sell.
It’s your parents choice on whether they choose to disclose it when they sell, of course, but if I saw something that said “toilet overflowed and flooded the house 10 years ago so we completely reconstructed the flooring, etc and did a mold test” on the transaction paperwork, I doubt I would give it much weight and would probably see it as a bonus that the sellers were so up front.
I’m with Raybyrnes, I’d forget the lawsuit.
svelteParticipantThere was a study once that showed that, after 7 years, most of the surrounding population thought that a disaster that had happened couldn’t happen again (or something like that). I have found that to be true in areas I have lived.
I lived in an area that flooded from an overflowing river. It was the talk of the town for 3-4 years and people even soemewhat avoided buying there for that period of time. But by about the 7th year, no one talked about it, people were buying without giving it any thought, and new construction was even happening in the previously flooded area.
Think about what has happened here in San Diego with the 2003 Cedar Fire. People talked about it for 3-4 years, people planned their purchases based on fire danger, but it was getting rare to hear discussion about it when the 2007 Witch Creek Fire hit. I think we were on course for having the 03 Cedar Fire forgotten about by 2010 had it not been for the 2007 fire. Now, we’ll have to wait until about 2014 for people to return to that ‘it can’t happen here’ mentality.
This has been a long-winded way of saying, if ppl can forget about things that happen on that scale, they won’t be giving an accidental flooding in your folk’s home much thought. Especially if they keep the house longer than 7 years. 🙂
It sounds to me like the contractor is doing your parents right. If I were you, I’d pony up for a mold test when the work is complete (it is a new house, there should have been ZERO mold when you bought it, right?) as mold tests are becoming more popular and that is the one thing that could bite you come time to sell.
It’s your parents choice on whether they choose to disclose it when they sell, of course, but if I saw something that said “toilet overflowed and flooded the house 10 years ago so we completely reconstructed the flooring, etc and did a mold test” on the transaction paperwork, I doubt I would give it much weight and would probably see it as a bonus that the sellers were so up front.
I’m with Raybyrnes, I’d forget the lawsuit.
-
AuthorPosts
