[temeculaguy]

Thanks Bugs, I needed a slap or something to make me finish the marathon, even waiting six months which I probably will and things going down say 50k they will for both and the question remains, do you get all you want or all you need and keep the change, I can have either now, the heavy lifting is over. Freeways and services are the same all the linked ones are within 1 mile of each other, here are two more in the 250 range, different concessions, 2 car garage, smaller but more efficient. Whn they are 200 and 250, I’ll still have to decide. I think i only want a view because I’ve never had one. I’ve had pools, big lots and a few other things and I don’t want those anymore, I rent with a view now and still kinda dig it, but it’s still the honeymoon phase with that feature.

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Temecula/45646-Seagull-Way-92592/home/6645225

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Temecula/33142-Kennedy-Ct-92592/home/6473160

[temeculaguy]

Thanks Bugs, I needed a slap or something to make me finish the marathon, even waiting six months which I probably will and things going down say 50k they will for both and the question remains, do you get all you want or all you need and keep the change, I can have either now, the heavy lifting is over. Freeways and services are the same all the linked ones are within 1 mile of each other, here are two more in the 250 range, different concessions, 2 car garage, smaller but more efficient. Whn they are 200 and 250, I’ll still have to decide. I think i only want a view because I’ve never had one. I’ve had pools, big lots and a few other things and I don’t want those anymore, I rent with a view now and still kinda dig it, but it’s still the honeymoon phase with that feature.

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Temecula/45646-Seagull-Way-92592/home/6645225

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Temecula/33142-Kennedy-Ct-92592/home/6473160

[temeculaguy]

Thanks Bugs, I needed a slap or something to make me finish the marathon, even waiting six months which I probably will and things going down say 50k they will for both and the question remains, do you get all you want or all you need and keep the change, I can have either now, the heavy lifting is over. Freeways and services are the same all the linked ones are within 1 mile of each other, here are two more in the 250 range, different concessions, 2 car garage, smaller but more efficient. Whn they are 200 and 250, I’ll still have to decide. I think i only want a view because I’ve never had one. I’ve had pools, big lots and a few other things and I don’t want those anymore, I rent with a view now and still kinda dig it, but it’s still the honeymoon phase with that feature.

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Temecula/45646-Seagull-Way-92592/home/6645225

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Temecula/33142-Kennedy-Ct-92592/home/6473160

[temeculaguy]

Thanks Bugs, I needed a slap or something to make me finish the marathon, even waiting six months which I probably will and things going down say 50k they will for both and the question remains, do you get all you want or all you need and keep the change, I can have either now, the heavy lifting is over. Freeways and services are the same all the linked ones are within 1 mile of each other, here are two more in the 250 range, different concessions, 2 car garage, smaller but more efficient. Whn they are 200 and 250, I’ll still have to decide. I think i only want a view because I’ve never had one. I’ve had pools, big lots and a few other things and I don’t want those anymore, I rent with a view now and still kinda dig it, but it’s still the honeymoon phase with that feature.

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Temecula/45646-Seagull-Way-92592/home/6645225

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Temecula/33142-Kennedy-Ct-92592/home/6473160

[temeculaguy]

Slightly different scenario, this is no way a defense of rural or agricultual areas but a theory regarding areas that were once nice and fall from grace as opposed to just an area that is, was and may always be poor. Hillcrest very well could have been next, in the 1980’s it was going to crap, creeping in from North Park (which fit the theory as well) but both benefitted from revitalization, being a little hip and being the gay area is the X factor, that is the antidote to pedestrian ghetto theory. Golden hill was once a nice area too. Having mixed use zoning can go either way. Kensington became hip, while city heights went bad. Downtown was once a mess, then hip and cool, it can always go back up or down. Rancho Bernardo or Scripps has no advantage over any of these areas or any ghetto, in fact climate and location are inferior. they are some of the older examples of this type of planning and I’ll bet it never goes ghetto, while the mixed use areas can go either way in the next 30 years, it’s all about zoning and planning. Or I could be wrong.

[temeculaguy]

Slightly different scenario, this is no way a defense of rural or agricultual areas but a theory regarding areas that were once nice and fall from grace as opposed to just an area that is, was and may always be poor. Hillcrest very well could have been next, in the 1980’s it was going to crap, creeping in from North Park (which fit the theory as well) but both benefitted from revitalization, being a little hip and being the gay area is the X factor, that is the antidote to pedestrian ghetto theory. Golden hill was once a nice area too. Having mixed use zoning can go either way. Kensington became hip, while city heights went bad. Downtown was once a mess, then hip and cool, it can always go back up or down. Rancho Bernardo or Scripps has no advantage over any of these areas or any ghetto, in fact climate and location are inferior. they are some of the older examples of this type of planning and I’ll bet it never goes ghetto, while the mixed use areas can go either way in the next 30 years, it’s all about zoning and planning. Or I could be wrong.

[temeculaguy]

Slightly different scenario, this is no way a defense of rural or agricultual areas but a theory regarding areas that were once nice and fall from grace as opposed to just an area that is, was and may always be poor. Hillcrest very well could have been next, in the 1980’s it was going to crap, creeping in from North Park (which fit the theory as well) but both benefitted from revitalization, being a little hip and being the gay area is the X factor, that is the antidote to pedestrian ghetto theory. Golden hill was once a nice area too. Having mixed use zoning can go either way. Kensington became hip, while city heights went bad. Downtown was once a mess, then hip and cool, it can always go back up or down. Rancho Bernardo or Scripps has no advantage over any of these areas or any ghetto, in fact climate and location are inferior. they are some of the older examples of this type of planning and I’ll bet it never goes ghetto, while the mixed use areas can go either way in the next 30 years, it’s all about zoning and planning. Or I could be wrong.

[temeculaguy]

Slightly different scenario, this is no way a defense of rural or agricultual areas but a theory regarding areas that were once nice and fall from grace as opposed to just an area that is, was and may always be poor. Hillcrest very well could have been next, in the 1980’s it was going to crap, creeping in from North Park (which fit the theory as well) but both benefitted from revitalization, being a little hip and being the gay area is the X factor, that is the antidote to pedestrian ghetto theory. Golden hill was once a nice area too. Having mixed use zoning can go either way. Kensington became hip, while city heights went bad. Downtown was once a mess, then hip and cool, it can always go back up or down. Rancho Bernardo or Scripps has no advantage over any of these areas or any ghetto, in fact climate and location are inferior. they are some of the older examples of this type of planning and I’ll bet it never goes ghetto, while the mixed use areas can go either way in the next 30 years, it’s all about zoning and planning. Or I could be wrong.

[temeculaguy]

Slightly different scenario, this is no way a defense of rural or agricultual areas but a theory regarding areas that were once nice and fall from grace as opposed to just an area that is, was and may always be poor. Hillcrest very well could have been next, in the 1980’s it was going to crap, creeping in from North Park (which fit the theory as well) but both benefitted from revitalization, being a little hip and being the gay area is the X factor, that is the antidote to pedestrian ghetto theory. Golden hill was once a nice area too. Having mixed use zoning can go either way. Kensington became hip, while city heights went bad. Downtown was once a mess, then hip and cool, it can always go back up or down. Rancho Bernardo or Scripps has no advantage over any of these areas or any ghetto, in fact climate and location are inferior. they are some of the older examples of this type of planning and I’ll bet it never goes ghetto, while the mixed use areas can go either way in the next 30 years, it’s all about zoning and planning. Or I could be wrong.

[temeculaguy]

kewp, you hate the burbs, we know you are rooting for it to take the ghetto population but it wont. There are places in the I.E. and in S.D. that will be attractive to poor people….the same places that they are already in. Why would they leave their current ghetto, prices and rents will go down or stay the same, there will no longer be redevelopment pushing them out. If you ever really spend time in the ghetto, you can gain an appreciation for what it is that attracts them to a specific area and Temecula/Murrieta has very little to offer them. I have detailed it on another thread, master planned areas purposely design against it, older mixed use areas are ripe for it. If you can’t walk to a liquor store, check cashing place or a minimum wage job, from a cheap place to live it repels them. Most ghetto inhabitants lack consistent vehicle licensing and insurance, walking distance is key. Zoning is the best defense a community can have.

There will always be poor people all over but in order to proliferate and reach the tipping point where they scare off everyone else, it takes the right lack of zoning, not just cheap housing. Those used SUV’s still need a license and insurance, when they cops pull them over they actually lose the car for a month, have to pay a grand to get it back plus insurance and most never get it back. That’s a hell of a tax that drives them into mixed use places where houses are next to stores. Look at the rotton part of any of the larger S.D. burbs (Esco, San Marcos, Vista). The ghetto part is always where you are with a few hundred yards of stores. There are examples within those same cities where rent is the same but a few miles from basic services and they just don’t go to hell because that couple of miles is an eternity to a permanent pedestrian.

Excellent rule of thumb for the future of any development or area, if you can get by without a car, it’s in the “risk” category. Look at the coastal areas, can you get by in Imperial Beach without a car? yeah. Can it be done in Del Mar? not really. More of Oceanside can be pedestrian than La Costa, compare most any two areas and apply the pedestrian principle, it’s better than tarot cards for telling the future. Land use is far more important than price when determining potential decay.

[temeculaguy]

kewp, you hate the burbs, we know you are rooting for it to take the ghetto population but it wont. There are places in the I.E. and in S.D. that will be attractive to poor people….the same places that they are already in. Why would they leave their current ghetto, prices and rents will go down or stay the same, there will no longer be redevelopment pushing them out. If you ever really spend time in the ghetto, you can gain an appreciation for what it is that attracts them to a specific area and Temecula/Murrieta has very little to offer them. I have detailed it on another thread, master planned areas purposely design against it, older mixed use areas are ripe for it. If you can’t walk to a liquor store, check cashing place or a minimum wage job, from a cheap place to live it repels them. Most ghetto inhabitants lack consistent vehicle licensing and insurance, walking distance is key. Zoning is the best defense a community can have.

There will always be poor people all over but in order to proliferate and reach the tipping point where they scare off everyone else, it takes the right lack of zoning, not just cheap housing. Those used SUV’s still need a license and insurance, when they cops pull them over they actually lose the car for a month, have to pay a grand to get it back plus insurance and most never get it back. That’s a hell of a tax that drives them into mixed use places where houses are next to stores. Look at the rotton part of any of the larger S.D. burbs (Esco, San Marcos, Vista). The ghetto part is always where you are with a few hundred yards of stores. There are examples within those same cities where rent is the same but a few miles from basic services and they just don’t go to hell because that couple of miles is an eternity to a permanent pedestrian.

Excellent rule of thumb for the future of any development or area, if you can get by without a car, it’s in the “risk” category. Look at the coastal areas, can you get by in Imperial Beach without a car? yeah. Can it be done in Del Mar? not really. More of Oceanside can be pedestrian than La Costa, compare most any two areas and apply the pedestrian principle, it’s better than tarot cards for telling the future. Land use is far more important than price when determining potential decay.

[temeculaguy]

kewp, you hate the burbs, we know you are rooting for it to take the ghetto population but it wont. There are places in the I.E. and in S.D. that will be attractive to poor people….the same places that they are already in. Why would they leave their current ghetto, prices and rents will go down or stay the same, there will no longer be redevelopment pushing them out. If you ever really spend time in the ghetto, you can gain an appreciation for what it is that attracts them to a specific area and Temecula/Murrieta has very little to offer them. I have detailed it on another thread, master planned areas purposely design against it, older mixed use areas are ripe for it. If you can’t walk to a liquor store, check cashing place or a minimum wage job, from a cheap place to live it repels them. Most ghetto inhabitants lack consistent vehicle licensing and insurance, walking distance is key. Zoning is the best defense a community can have.

There will always be poor people all over but in order to proliferate and reach the tipping point where they scare off everyone else, it takes the right lack of zoning, not just cheap housing. Those used SUV’s still need a license and insurance, when they cops pull them over they actually lose the car for a month, have to pay a grand to get it back plus insurance and most never get it back. That’s a hell of a tax that drives them into mixed use places where houses are next to stores. Look at the rotton part of any of the larger S.D. burbs (Esco, San Marcos, Vista). The ghetto part is always where you are with a few hundred yards of stores. There are examples within those same cities where rent is the same but a few miles from basic services and they just don’t go to hell because that couple of miles is an eternity to a permanent pedestrian.

Excellent rule of thumb for the future of any development or area, if you can get by without a car, it’s in the “risk” category. Look at the coastal areas, can you get by in Imperial Beach without a car? yeah. Can it be done in Del Mar? not really. More of Oceanside can be pedestrian than La Costa, compare most any two areas and apply the pedestrian principle, it’s better than tarot cards for telling the future. Land use is far more important than price when determining potential decay.

[temeculaguy]

kewp, you hate the burbs, we know you are rooting for it to take the ghetto population but it wont. There are places in the I.E. and in S.D. that will be attractive to poor people….the same places that they are already in. Why would they leave their current ghetto, prices and rents will go down or stay the same, there will no longer be redevelopment pushing them out. If you ever really spend time in the ghetto, you can gain an appreciation for what it is that attracts them to a specific area and Temecula/Murrieta has very little to offer them. I have detailed it on another thread, master planned areas purposely design against it, older mixed use areas are ripe for it. If you can’t walk to a liquor store, check cashing place or a minimum wage job, from a cheap place to live it repels them. Most ghetto inhabitants lack consistent vehicle licensing and insurance, walking distance is key. Zoning is the best defense a community can have.

There will always be poor people all over but in order to proliferate and reach the tipping point where they scare off everyone else, it takes the right lack of zoning, not just cheap housing. Those used SUV’s still need a license and insurance, when they cops pull them over they actually lose the car for a month, have to pay a grand to get it back plus insurance and most never get it back. That’s a hell of a tax that drives them into mixed use places where houses are next to stores. Look at the rotton part of any of the larger S.D. burbs (Esco, San Marcos, Vista). The ghetto part is always where you are with a few hundred yards of stores. There are examples within those same cities where rent is the same but a few miles from basic services and they just don’t go to hell because that couple of miles is an eternity to a permanent pedestrian.

Excellent rule of thumb for the future of any development or area, if you can get by without a car, it’s in the “risk” category. Look at the coastal areas, can you get by in Imperial Beach without a car? yeah. Can it be done in Del Mar? not really. More of Oceanside can be pedestrian than La Costa, compare most any two areas and apply the pedestrian principle, it’s better than tarot cards for telling the future. Land use is far more important than price when determining potential decay.

[temeculaguy]

kewp, you hate the burbs, we know you are rooting for it to take the ghetto population but it wont. There are places in the I.E. and in S.D. that will be attractive to poor people….the same places that they are already in. Why would they leave their current ghetto, prices and rents will go down or stay the same, there will no longer be redevelopment pushing them out. If you ever really spend time in the ghetto, you can gain an appreciation for what it is that attracts them to a specific area and Temecula/Murrieta has very little to offer them. I have detailed it on another thread, master planned areas purposely design against it, older mixed use areas are ripe for it. If you can’t walk to a liquor store, check cashing place or a minimum wage job, from a cheap place to live it repels them. Most ghetto inhabitants lack consistent vehicle licensing and insurance, walking distance is key. Zoning is the best defense a community can have.

There will always be poor people all over but in order to proliferate and reach the tipping point where they scare off everyone else, it takes the right lack of zoning, not just cheap housing. Those used SUV’s still need a license and insurance, when they cops pull them over they actually lose the car for a month, have to pay a grand to get it back plus insurance and most never get it back. That’s a hell of a tax that drives them into mixed use places where houses are next to stores. Look at the rotton part of any of the larger S.D. burbs (Esco, San Marcos, Vista). The ghetto part is always where you are with a few hundred yards of stores. There are examples within those same cities where rent is the same but a few miles from basic services and they just don’t go to hell because that couple of miles is an eternity to a permanent pedestrian.

Excellent rule of thumb for the future of any development or area, if you can get by without a car, it’s in the “risk” category. Look at the coastal areas, can you get by in Imperial Beach without a car? yeah. Can it be done in Del Mar? not really. More of Oceanside can be pedestrian than La Costa, compare most any two areas and apply the pedestrian principle, it’s better than tarot cards for telling the future. Land use is far more important than price when determining potential decay.

[temeculaguy]

I’d say go with Rich’s guy, already one poster backed up the advice and if he had screwed someone, the peanut gallery here would have tore him a new one. I plan on using a few of the pro’s that are regulars on this site in future transactions because their reputation is much more on the line in this forum than some clown with an ad on the radio.

As far as combining insurance and investments, i’ve never found them to be the best way to go and I made a few errors as a young man when it came to whole or universal policies. If she has no dependants that she supports, much life insurance isn’t really needed, if she does have dependants reliant on her for financial support, term is usually the best bet. For long term or nursing care, a combination of a nest egg and some specific insurance for that is better. The fact that she wont be needing that care in the near future will make it much cheaper, easier to get and she can keep it, if she needed it very soon, she wouldn’t be able to get it or it would be expensive. It isn’t the best play in the market but i have it and it makes me feel good. I bought it in my early 30’s from someone who I still trust and the payments are negligible and there is a sunset clause so I actually stop paying for it this year or next but the coverage stays in effect forever. At the time I had a relative that works in hospital administration and specialized in nursing home placements and benefits analysis, I ran it by them and they were familiar with the plan and company behind it, at the time they endorsed it. I’d name it but it isn’t publicly available at those rates because it was an employer subsidized thing, which is what made it pencil out since I wasn’t really laying out all the cash but using credits ( I tend not to scrutinize free money like I do my money). My relative isn’t in that specialty anymore but calling a nursing home billing department and asking wouldn’t hurt, they know the medicare/priv insurance stuff and you can probably sweet talk some advice that even the sellers of a plan don’t understand. The crappy thing about insurance is that karma usually wins. I visited a long time friend in the hospital today who is way to young to be as sick as he is and while he is adequately insured he didn’t take the policy i did when he had the chance and looks like he will need it. I’ll probably get hit by a bus and never get to utilize it, so can’t win anyway, it just helps you sleep.

[Author]

Posts