[urbanrealtor]

[quote=SDEaves]These income-qualified units are being sold for 20 percent less than regular sale units.
No holding clause but they would only be able to resell their unit to another income-qualified person/family.
When you go to sell your regular unit, would those affordable housing comps be excluded from comparison to the regular sale?
Seems like there should be some special provision to protect regular resale but not sure?[/quote]

Re resale:
Typically, the units I have dealt with, have a 40 year deed rider that ties the resale value of the property to the median county income. That means that if values spike, you sell at the income-defined price (which would be below market). Likewise, if the values tank, you sell ABOVE market (or, rather, fail to sell).

In other words, you have all the risk of being a homeowner with virtually none of the rewards (except static cost of housing). Without some speculative potential reward, there really is not a huge incentive to buy.

Re appraisal:
By definition, the affordable units are not open market sales. However, not all appraisers know about this program and not all listing agents mention it in the remarks. Therefore, I have had multiple appraisals plopped on my desk when my loan officer (who has the desk next to mine) says “What the fuck is this?!!!”.

In other words, it shouldn’t affect normal sales but in practice it does because the deed riders and restrictions don’t show on databases as they should.

I am a liberal and a believer in government helping the less privileged.
This is not an example of that help.
This is a terrible program and only will cause hurt to owners.
Avoid it.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=CA renter]The fairest tax of all is one where ALL income is taxed at the same, progressive rates.

Everyone is taxed the same under this plan, and nobody can claim that there is any favoritism. If you have income that is high enough to be taxed at an unusually high rate, get on your knees and thank God/your higher power that you are more fortunate than all those other people.[/quote]

That was originally to be one of the key provisions of Reagan’s tax reform.

I don’t think that selling stocks or houses or whatever should ever be taxed at a rate below what a McDonald’s worker pays.

Its just plain wrong.

[urbanrealtor]

In fairness to your concern here, the information I get is primarily anecdotal from accountants and attorneys.

Ergo, it is possible the the older version of which I was informed is ensconced in the a different part of the code or was overwritten by the 2007 code.

Or it could have just been erroneously cited (repeatedly) thus making me full of shit.

I really cannot say which.

[urbanrealtor]

If this is being handled as a normal escrow then probably yes.

Some banks for whatever reason think that they are better protected if they use a qc.

If it is a normal transfer of clear title then probably the escrow (or the bank) will have a preferred title of record.

Who is the bank and what is the situation?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Aecetia]Your mom sounds very responsible and reasonable.[/quote]

yeah?
Well your momma so….
Wait..
What were we talking about?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=CA renter]Good question, and I’ve often wondered how they were going to handle this going forward. Maybe they’ll extend it, but there’s not been much talk about it, which leads me to believe there’s a pretty good chance it will expire.

I’ve told everyone I know who’s been struggling with housing payments that they need to make a determination now, and if they intend to short sell or have it foreclosed on, they need to do so immediately.

Conspiracy time (just popped up right now)…maybe this is why they’re holding off on all the foreclosures. They know that people will be much less likely to let their homes go into foreclosure if they’re going to be responsible for possibly tens of thousands of dollars in taxes. Maybe the lenders are hoping this will keep people in debt slavery, even though it would have been better for them to dump their houses/loans pre-2013.

It will be interesting to see how this goes down.[/quote]

Actually the debt relief act only relates to shorts and dil’s.

Foreclosure already has had that provision for like 30 years.

Actually letting it sunset means making foreclosure more financially secure than short selling.

For that reason, I consider the sunset to be unlikely.

I suspect it will be extended with indefinite provisions.

My 2 bits.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=EconProf]Treehugger: there is another advantage to looking on your own and dealing only with the listing agent: they will work harder to get the deal through because they are not sharing the commission.
This is especially helpful since many sellers overestimate the value of their house and need to be brought down to earth by their agent.[/quote]
1st, regarding the above:
Econprof:
I really don’t understand how you can be (however briefly) a professor of a behavioral science when your grasp of incentives seems so clouded and poor. I have said this on multiple occasions before.

If an agent will try to get your offer through above others (which are probably higher), he is not acting in the best interest of his original client (the seller).
He is not working in the best interest of his client because of greed.
The idea that you will somehow come out the winner in a deal where you are banking on the help and assistance of someone who has just betrayed his duties seems to me illogical.

If he is fucking over his own client because he is greedy, then you are unlikely to find him to be working in your best interests.

2nd Regarding Ricechex’s question:

Buyer representation is important. Bad decisions resulting (in part) from bad buyer representation (or no representation) is the recipe for a future FB.

If your agent is rushing you or pushing you or making you feel uncomfortable, they are not doing their job and you should get a new agent.

Be direct and honest with the old agent.
However, if you are breaking up, then break up and don’t look back.
No professional (of any kind) should ever leave you dreading your appointments.

I wish you luck maam.

[urbanrealtor]

Funny:
I don’t have any sort of problem with a polygamous relationship but I do see logistical problems in making a legal union more than 2 people.
Specifically, if it is like say 5 people, wouldn’t that get weird as far as taxes and visitation rights?
I think once we get north of three we should start using other entity designators (eg: trust, or corp or what have you).

Thoughts?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=paramount][quote=briansd1]I was raised Catholic, but I’m atheist. Don’t believe in Jesus at all.[/quote]

Thread Hi-Jack.

There is strong (really indisputable) evidence that Jesus did live.[/quote]

Threadjack challenge accepted.

I don’t think that is what brian was saying but you are right.
Christian history is a hobby of mine.
Elaine Pagels is my favorite author on the subject.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_8?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=elaine+pagels&sprefix=elaine+p%2Caps%2C1795

I recommend her pieces on Satan and her exigesis/analysis of the Gospel of Judas Iscariot. I have not gotten a chance to read her work on Revelations

[urbanrealtor]

Killer episode.
I strongly recommend watching it if you hadn’t.
I have to say though, it makes the SEALs look a bit more like the keystone cops with really good training.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=paramount][quote=urbanrealtor]
Personally, I would sue first and ask questions later. Specifically, I would send a letter (or email or fax) to the landlord explaining why the “damages” were either antecedent to your possession or expected given the useful life and also explain the law. Then I would wait 1 week and sue. I would also mention in the letter that they had 7 days to respond before I sued.

I would then sue for $10k (max for small claims) and see if you get an offer to settle.

[/quote]

Never-mind personal responsibility…[/quote]

Dude, I do this for a living.
I manage and sell property every single day.
My post was a reference to the OP’s situation.
I didn’t really pay attention to yours.
I know the law on this stuff pretty well and I can assure you, a landlord if pretty fucked if they see the preservation of their asset–beyond standard life spans–as the responsibility of the tenant.
Lets give an example:
Today I took possession of a 1-bedroom in hillcrest.
The tenant had been there for about 12 years.
She was a 2-pack a day smoker.
The walls are basically covered in nicotine tar.
I inherited this management gig when my friend died a few weeks ago and left me in charge of his estate.
He knowingly rented to a tenant who smoked inside and he never forbade her from doing so.
The day after tomorrow, I am paying $550 to have the carpet pulled and to have nicotine abatement performed.
Then we will have the floors restained (the 20 year old carpet was covering gorgeous dark-stained hardwood) and walls re-painted.
The tenant will pay for none of this.
Why?
Because of personal responsibility.
The owner knew she was a smoker.
The 12 years of smoke and wear and tear are his responsibility.
A cost of doing business.
Its a 2 way street.

Another example:
In 2011, I did a move out walk thru for a house in La Jolla. The 10-month-old hardwood floors were so covered in scratches that they looked like elvish runes. The tenant had been there 6 months.
I advised (after getting an estimate) that the repairs would cost about $2000.
Why?
Again, personal responsibility.
The tenant knew the floors were pristine and new.
There was no reasonable expectation of wear and tear after such a short period of tenancy.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=briansd1]Back in the day, Jim Copley, Ernest Hahn and arnholt Smith entertained Nixon, ford and Reagan and were heavy lifters in politics.

Manchester is more of a businessman. But he did fund Prop 8.

The Reader and Voice of San Diego are great alternative local news outlets.[/quote]

I really like the Voice.
Except for the Brit.
And the Canadian.
And that Hispanic Italian guy with the charts.

[urbanrealtor]

Typically, carpet life is considered 5 years.
I have heard of courts shortening that to 3 years (as Barnaby mentioned).
I have never heard of that being 10 years (as paramount mentioned). If paramount could show me some data points on that I would be much obliged.
I have hears that paint life is considered 3 years and have seen judges rule that way before.

A deposit can be categorized as anything.
However, it is considered legally refundable under state law (barring legitimate deductions).
Many management companies will openly state that they automatically deduct for painting or what have you.
This is not legal an will not ever stand up in court.
Deposits can be deducted for the following 3 reasons:
1: Willful or negligent damage (beyond wear and tear).
2: Cleaning
3: Unpaid rent.

Any deduction needs a proof of damage (eg: a receipt from a cleaning service or handyman).
There are some exceptions if the amount is small and the landlord did the work themself.

Personally, I would sue first and ask questions later. Specifically, I would send a letter (or email or fax) to the landlord explaining why the “damages” were either antecedent to your possession or expected given the useful life and also explain the law. Then I would wait 1 week and sue. I would also mention in the letter that they had 7 days to respond before I sued.

I would then sue for $10k (max for small claims) and see if you get an offer to settle.

But that’s me and I have been to court several times. This type of thing is the most common case I watch when I sit in on cases. .

Again, your results may vary.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=afx114]Whenever I receive a too-firm handshake I assume the person is insecure and using their firmness to compensate. Kinda like nutz on a lifted truck. If you have to work so hard to prove how tough or serious you are, you probably aren’t that tough or serious.[/quote]

I would like to point out:
1: That I kissed your hand the first time I met you.
2: That I do have nuts on my Honda Accord.
3: You still talk to me with some regularity (or did I dream that?).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea]

Isn’t FDIC back stopped by Us taxpayers? Doesn’t markets treat FDIC like the arm of the federal govt.? Doesn’t govt./congress appoint FDIC members?

Saying FDIC is separate from taxpayers is about as true as saying that Fannie and Freddie were separate from taxpayers![/quote]

Thats true but not the entire story.
The FDIC is also funded heavily by banks.
While the banks have been (occasionally) subsidized by the gov’t, they are not state properties.

Ergo, there is some taxpayer money there but its not the same as a taxpayer insurance fund.

[Author]

Posts