[urbanrealtor]

[quote=SD Realtor]I am not so sure it is a good idea to presume the courts will choose to enforce/not enforce anything. Playing it safe from the beginning to me makes more sense. Additionally it is always such fun to spend time going to court fighting off something stupid that your tenant did.

As others have implied, having a very strict lease requiring the tenant to comply with all hoa bylaws and ccrs is a good idea. Furthermore there is usually a notice of violation of the hoa when the unit is in violation. You may want to even put in the lease that upon notification of violation the tenant has x number of days to remedy the violation or else the tenant is in default.[/quote]

I agree.
While the pound of cure is generally effective, it is far more certain to require the ounce of prevention.

Out of curiosity, was the HOA required to send a violation (per their rules)?
If so, did they?
Also, does anyone know the statutes regarding notice?
I seem to recall they are pretty restrictive for the HOA.

[urbanrealtor]

The point is this:
If the requirement is fundamentally unfair (eg: $1000 because a tenant left a bbq on a patio for a week) the courts will decline to enforce it.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=EconProf]HOA boards do not have a legal relationship with tenants of their complex, but with owners. So they have to rely on owners to inform their tenants of the rules and make sure they follow them.
I used to own condos in San Diego and always made sure tenants got a list of HOA rules and regulations of the complex that they would need to comply with. Too few owners do this, which is one reason condo buildings with high concentrations of renters acquire a bad reputation, go downhill, and are avoided by lenders.[/quote]
I am not a lawyer.
I am, however, an expert on real property contracts and a former HOA president.

It is often the case that parts of a CC&Rs are unenforceable or voidable.

Let’s take 2 examples:
1: I closed a deal for a Pigg a few years ago (this person can feel free to chime in) that had an HOA requirement that the owners be of a certain race. That is an extreme example and obviously unworkable.

2: I (while still a secretary on an HOA board) sued the HOA for damage to my unit. There was a storm and the drain outside my unit had not been maintained. The drain backed up and flooded my unit (specifically the nursery where my son was sleeping). This resulted in 3 weeks in a hotel and replacing carpet and other flooring. The judge took all of 5 min to rule. The HOA attempted to rely on a stipulation in the CC&R’s stating that the individual owner had to pay for all interior repairs irrespective of culpability.

Obviously, the judge thought that was horse shit.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=paramount][quote=urbanrealtor]

Your version of morality is nuts and a pretty good example of why having kids should require a license.[/quote]

No License needed.

The one thing that is needed is NOT to be gay.

I’ve never heard of one gay couple creating a child of and on their own. Have you? Anyone else?

Ah, silence….that’s what I thought.[/quote]

So your QED moment is proving that homos can’t biologically procreate?

You certainly remain true to form sir.

Nothing like responding to an (admittedly obvious) assertion that you are not a moral person with a counter that 2 dudes don’t have a womb.

Again, I am truly sorry you are in charge of anyone’s upbringing.

Truly.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=SD Realtor]Except I know the end users. Once more don’t try to tell me what I do and where my products go.

Furthermore I marvel at how the point is conveniently ignored because it is much easier to not address the point but attack the person bringing it up because he doesn’t agree with the policies implemented by the administration.

Very well done by many of you.

Excellent strategy.[/quote]

Jesus Adam.

Take a xanax and relax a little.

The points you were making (or so it appeared) were that:

A: There was a systematic deception in jobs data.
“Census ‘faked’ 2012 election jobs report”

B: That people vote from self-interest.
“the party…who (provides) the most…will…win election”

Regarding A:
The first point is in conspiracy-theory land at present. It may turn out to have value but a back-page from the NYP is not a route to wider acceptance.
All I did was point that out.
I don’t consider this a valuable enough assertion to warrant debate (as I feel about many of your assertions).

Regarding B:
The assertion about voting self-interest in some objective sense is facile and non-credible.
My example of you is not an “attack” on your character nor is it a statement about your customer base. I don’t have any opinions on either of those topics (mostly).
It is an explicit statement by me that your industries (electrical engineering and real estate) are heavily subsidized (not you or your firm per se).
You have not countered that and (I suspect) cannot do so reliably.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=SD Realtor]Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t. It may indeed be traceable to somewhere in the administration. Same thing with the IRS scandal that wasn’t a scandal.

It doesn’t matter at this point.

The balance of the numbers imply that there is such a vast number of people receiving entitlements, that the party or person who continues to provide the most for them will pretty much win each election regardless of any other factors.[/quote]

Which does not explain why every 3rd government contractor has a Ron Paul sticker. Same with Realtors. Same with engineers.

You are an example of the wrongness of your assertion.

You work in 2 taxpayer-subsidized industries.

Yet you lean toward lower taxes and less government.

(kind of like our pensioning hypocrite Econprof)

Also, I am not sure an MSM tabloid is a great example of how to back up an assertion.

Its a bit like citing Sean Hannity in a women’s rights discussion (or really any discussion).

[urbanrealtor]

On a more serious note:

How is the example in the original post about sexuality at all?

It seems like its about family structure.

If that is the outrage being addressed then, again, I don’t get it.

If it was 5-year-olds watching lezbo porn that would be offensive (though I might have to screen it privately first to be sure).

I mean same sex relationships are all over the place these days (in public as opposed to in the past when it was secret).

I find the idea that discussions of family structure (in its various forms) will be off the table to be non-credible.

Further, unlike hets, who can have babies just by having sex, homos need to consciously decide to reproduce.

I would argue that this selects for a more affluent and nurturing population of parents on the aggregate.

I don’t know if that makes them better (or worse) parents but they are (by definition) pretty dedicated.

[urbanrealtor]

Also, “secular progressive religion” is your best counter?

And truly, if you ever meet Rich in person, you will find his youthful appearance striking and upsetting.

Very creepy.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=paramount][quote=SK in CV] Hence, you’re homophobic. I’m not sure why you won’t just acknowledge it. Your words make it pretty clear.[/quote]

It’s amazing how deeply the gay agenda has brainwashed the masses.

The message is: If you don’t agree with or embrace my view of homosexuality or how it’s being taught, you must be a homophobe and a hater. Or a troll. Or whatever.

Stop imposing your secular progressive religion on others.

Why not learn to exercise some tolerance for the views others might have without the need for personal attacks.[/quote]

I have missed Paramount’s posts soooo much.

Damn.

My thoughts:

1: AFX is gay (his wife told me).

2: Rich is gay (which is why he drives a gay car and has like 2% body fat).

3: Paramount is gayer than anyone else here. But closeted.

4: I mean seriously:
Who cares?
My sons are 2 and 5 years old.
Each has friends with same sex parents.
Kids are always interested in that shit.
One of my agents (who has a kid at the daycare where my younger son goes) describes his 4-year-old’s best friend shouting “but he NEEDS a mommy!!” (cuz my agent is a homo).
The same girl once asked me where my hair had gone.
Kids pay attention to things (including family structure).
It happens.
Last I checked this did not lead either of my sons to don a leather harness or a ball gag.
However, the visual that creates does make me giggle.

Paramount, stay in Temecula and let us decent folk get on with our lives free of ignorant people who think they are moral (when they aren’t).

Your version of morality is nuts and a pretty good example of why having kids should require a license.

[urbanrealtor]

In response to the original post:

The fundamental problem with your argument here is that it supposes a basic lack of agency.

The previous run up had actual human beings consciously deciding to allow that run up.

I don’t think they perceived the possible outcomes but it didn’t just come like a bolt from the blue.

The housing markets is probably only second to the nuclear fuel market in terms of federal intervention.

The entire demand side of the debt market is run by congress and the entities it supports.

While down payment amounts may reduce (and they aren’t currently), there has been very little move to open up lending to NINJAs and liar loans. That level of poor risk management is what drove the previous bubble and I have not seen a lot of movement towards it. None in fact.

EG:
Last week, 3% conventional loan origination was discontinued.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=EconProf]$10 per hour minimum wage.
Yep. That will sure help those minority teenagers get their first job.[/quote]

You want to be snarky but there are always lots of minimum wage jobs.
Even at that price.

Its 8 bucks an hour now and no shortage of fast food positions.

And its not like CPI (or whichever inflation metric you use) is blowing up.

Its not as stimulative as UI or as inflationary as “pallets of money on the corner” (oh my!) but it does increase aggregate effective demand at the lower end.

Not a particularly bad thing.

Businesses that pay minimum are generally among the most profitable in the aggregate (eg: fast food, discount retail, basic service).

Think of it this way:
How many McDonald’s are going to feel that much?

Having spent many hours reviewing books at a McD’s I strongly doubt it will mean jack or shit.

My 2 bits.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=CA renter]Funny, I was just thinking about TG yesterday. Wish he would come back, at least once or twice a month just to honor us with a post or tow.

But I’m awfully glad that scaredy has decided joined us again. 🙂

And even though flu likes to stir the pot, I missed him as well. Glad to have you back, flu.

Oh, and brian, too. Hi, brian/FIH![/quote]

This sentimental stuff is getting kinda barfy.
I am calling Powayseller in the morning just to have her respond.

Then I am calling Marion.

Probably just to hang up though.

Note: I did actually track her down though.

Honestly, I have been surprised at how well I get along in real life with the piggs I have argued with. Even Josh. Which is amazing considering our conversations.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=CardiffBaseball]Speaking of which we apparently vastly underestimated the will of the Egyptian people.

Pretty damn impressive site over there today if you ask me. I am sure it’s going to get nasty outside of Cairo over the next several weeks but I found this very inspiring.[/quote]
Maybe I am missing something.
There were big protests and then the military performed a coup that removed a democratically elected leader.

What more is going on that other see and I don’t?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=HLS]I don’t think that you are being told the facts.
This doesn’t make sense.
If it is not a foreclosure, and the seller doesn’t have a crazy loan, then the seller doesn’t have a ‘bank’.
They have a LOAN SERVICER, (which may happen to be a bank)
I have NEVER heard of a loan servicer that will not provide a payoff statement.[/quote]
I agree in that there is probably more here than meets the eye.
However, I am less skeptical than Sheldon.
It sounds as if the owner is in distress (unable to pay) with positive equity (he owes less than the market value).
Your mention of unpaid taxes is why I say that.
In those situations, the banks sometimes (though not always) fast track it for foreclosure (even in violation of the TD or state law).
If that is the case, the bureaucratic mess on the lending end may add considerable time to the process.
Also, lots of servicers sell non-performing notes.
As an example: If chase is selling the mortgage to Wells recovery as a non-performing note at a discount, then there may be a crazy period of confusion as nobody knows who actually owns the paper or what department is in charge when you ask for a payoff.
I have seen that before.

My 2 bits

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Jazzman: In all honesty, do you see a favorable outcome to the US Government attempting to seize 300 million firearms, even if done in phases?

As a nation, we’re confronting the reality that our government is all too willing to abridge our rights, and engage in all manner of conduct antithetical to the Constitution and Bill of Rights and you feel that wholesale disarmament of the citizenry is a good thing?

I’d ask that you be objective and see how terribly wrong this could go. With various pieces of legislation either on the books or in the works (NDAA, AUMF, CISPA, etc), we’re now seeing the 1st, 4th and 6th Amendments under assault as well.

I’m sorry, but pushing more power to the federal government just doesn’t seem like a good idea.[/quote]
I don’t think that seizing guns is a good idea.
Once they are that common they are.
I think guns should be just as easy to get and use as cars.
And just as easy to lose (or lose rights to) as cars.

[Author]

Posts