San Francisco residents who hate freedom, liberty, and America
S.F. homeowners want property values reduced
Homeowners are flooding City Hall with so many requests to reduce their property values that the tax assessor said Wednesday his office may not be able to meet the demands.So far, Assessor-Recorder Phil Ting’s office has received about 1,000 requests for informal re-evaluations – three times the number filed last year. Friday is the deadline to request an informal property re-evaluation from the assessor.
“I’m worried that because we have such a huge influx we’ll not be able to get back to everyone,” Ting said. So far, San Francisco assessors have responded to informal requests from 285 property owners.
Dear selfish people on San Francisco. Please stop. You’re hurting San Francisco.
How will the Real Bay Area ever over take New York to become the most expensive city to live in, in America if you keep pulling stupid things like that! Seriously. Did you think about anyone else?
Sheesh. Some people!
August 18th, 2008 at 7:58 am
I can’t help but feel that this is rather ironic. I’m sure most of these fine folks were doing backflips when their property values were going through the roof. But now that things are different, they DEMAND to have their taxes lowered.
August 18th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Wouldn’t you take every opportunity possible to lower the taxes you pay? I don’t see anything hypocritical about this.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Wouldn’t you take every opportunity possible to lower the taxes you pay? I don’t see anything hypocritical about this.
This is San Francisco, they’d petition for a higher appraisal just so they’d have the most expensive TIC on the block!
August 18th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Are you guys idiots or what? Would you pay $20K for a car that sells for $15K?
Why would you pay prop taxes on a $500K house when your house is only valued at $400K??? Are you guys that retard?
August 18th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Let’s just say that I don’t feel exactly sorry for people who paid 800k-900k for a home, which in of itself was stupid to start with, and now Demand that their taxes be lowered. Obviously they saw nothing wrong with paying that much for a house and I assume were smart enough to know that the taxes would be high to begin with.
Of course I’m not arguing for the sake of what’s fair. But I can’t help but feel that there’s a touch of cynicism here, and if property values were still going up, nobody who bought these places would be bitchin’.
August 18th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
From Patrick.net –
Psychological insight into the housing crash from Peter C:
Denial: Example – “There is no bubble!”
Anger: Example – “The media is making all this up!”
Bargaining: Example – “OK there may be a bubble bursting in the East Bay but not in San Francisco or on the penninsula!”
Depression: Example – “I’m ruined! I’m no longer a ‘millionaire’.”
Acceptance: – Oh well, easy come, easy go. Hey what’s wrong with affordable housing”
August 18th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
The above says it all. This weekend there was an open house down the street from me. Nobody was there, but two or three neighbors were in front of it, comforting each other that at least Alameda hadn’t fallen as far as OTHER areas. Yes. What a great sense of community we have where everyone’s major concern is how much their little houses are worth. People from back in my neck of the woods didn’t make their house value their primary objective. The fact that people do here is clear indication of how overpriced they still are.
August 18th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Lionel, can’t resist jumping on this:
Denial – Steve
Anger – RE
Bargaining – WG
Acceptance – Madhaus
Some of them said exactly the same thing.
August 18th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
rick, LOL at your 5 stages of dealing with loss of Real Estate Equity. But who is Depression?
My entry:
Denial – RealEstater
Anger – CAResident
Bargaining – WillowGlenner (you nailed that one)
Depression – burbed
Acceptance – DreamT
August 18th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
And next, the five stages of RBA home purchase refusal!
Denial – Pralay
Anger – bob
Bargaining – sonarrat
Depression – steve
Acceptance – austindweller
August 18th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
I’ve gone on to the Acceptance phase, madhaus.
Also, anyone caught that there is now a rent bubble which closely mirrors what happened to values about 2 years ago? Suburbs like San Mateo and Campbell are getting as expensive as San Francisco, which is an artificially inflated market due to the allure of rent control, and San Jose.
August 18th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
#10
I think the angry crowd is those already moved out, austindweller should be one. RE is both Denial and Anger (he said exactly that MSM was causing all the RE trouble). But I do think that RE is better suited for Denial and CAResident/Eat Your Hearts Out are the anger folks.
Bob is depression for sure, by his value measure I think he would never buy a house here. Seems like you haven’t realized that steve is definitely on the equity side. I don’t think he’d ever agree that there is a bubble.
August 18th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
I think madhaus put it correctly. acceptance. I’ve accpeted that I am not made for RBA. BTW, I am happy that I am saving a lot of money here, paying no taxes, not under tension of how to survive in RBA if I were to lose my job in recession, not fearing that CA will bump up the income tax (cynic in me said “let the suckers suffer”).
August 18th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Forgot to mention, no worries that my rent would go up !!
August 18th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Why would I be depressed? I think it’s perfectly normal to mock things that are dumb, ridiculously high home prices tied to rose colored glasses and not to actual economics is just one of them. There’s plenty of other things I poke fun of too, but since housing is the general subject of this blog, I reserve my comments for housing here.
As I’ve mentioned a few times, the BA has been good to me; I’ve met my financial goal and can move at anytime to any number of other nice cities or suburbs and pretty much be set. To purchase here would derail that objective.Let me put it this way: I’m not exactly jealous of people who have houses here. Do I want that kind of mortgage? Nope.
Bottom line, I find myself caring less and less about home prices here because I’ve got other plans.
August 18th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
rick, if I recall correctly (and I may not), steve wants to buy in the RBA but is finding the prices just aren’t dropping yet, that’s why I put him in depression. The people I put on the equity side are current homeowners.
bob, if you were happy you wouldn’t spend so much energy on how much you hate it here. You wouldn’t tell us the same story again and again and again and again. There’s something going on with you, and it comes out as anger.
burbed does a great job mocking things here. Renter4 can make a great joke without telling people they’re stupid losers. Lots of great intentional humor on this site, also people like RE who add unintentional laffs.
You’re just another angry renter trying to tell us why you aren’t.
August 18th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Madhaus,
I spelled it out pretty reasonably above. If you want to say I’m angry- go for it. Arg. Hear me roar. Again, I don’t care. You mentioned you’re here because you “like real estate”. I’m here because I’m endlessly fascinated with the weird value system out here and how environments affect people, of which the BA is a perfect case in point.I’ve been here 9 years and this area still makes no sense. Nobody has made a compelling reason for me to believe it costs so much more here than anywhere else. Perhaps that’s the answer I’m looking for, and nothing more.
Either way- you can make all the little smart-alecky comments you want to. Actually, I welcome your snarky remarks.It makes for good entertainment for the rest of the blog to read.
August 18th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
madhaus – bump me back to Denial: I still haven’t lost any equity since I bought!
But if comps show I have, I’ll be right back to Acceptance where I belong.
bob – madhaus is entertaining. You’re not.
August 18th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
DreamT, you seem too go-with-the-equity-flow to spend much time in Denial. If you say you haven’t lost any equity yet, I believe you.
It’s not fair to tell bob I’m more entertaining than he is, though. After all, his avatar doesn’t have a guitar. Heck, it doesn’t even have a face. It looks like a snowman looking in the window through grey curtains.
August 18th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
madhaus – That much is true, I won’t fight equity facts.:) Despite my appraiser’s unbiaised and expert opinion, I doubt I’ve gained equity either.
bob’s very first e-mail was entertaining. Since then all he’s done are remixes, same instruments, same beat. After a few months of daily doses of bob, I’m just glad I live near Kaiser.
August 18th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
bob is very reasonable, logical and I share a lot of values with him.
August 18th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
AD – You’d probably make great roommates, especially if you can find his Off switch.
August 18th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
steve wants to buy in the RBA but is finding the prices just aren’t dropping yet, that’s why I put him in depression.
——-
And don’t forget that in last two years he is keeping 1.5 million under his mattress just for the purpose of buying a home in RBA. Even bank or stock market cannot touch it.
Unfortunately, after two years he finds that his 1.5m under his mattress “buys less” in RBA.
Definitely a reason for depression.
August 18th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Conclusion: Money does not grow under mattress.
August 18th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
RE is both Denial and Anger (he said exactly that MSM was causing all the RE trouble).
——-
Considering the fact that he claims himself as investor (that means he probably has rental properties) but has tremendous amount of anger towards renters, I wonder what kind of landlord he would make. Think about a landlord calling you everyday and say “Thanks for TV. You are thowing away money. When are going to buy your home in RBA? It’s great time to buy now.”
That would be nightmare for a renter.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
SF homeowners are only five months behind Larry Ellison. Nothing more, nothing less. Some people are less bright, hence little bit slow.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
RealEstater actually went on vacation this time. =(
Where is the entertainment value now?
WillowGlenner are you around? Can you play RealEstater2, or something?
August 18th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Yep these property owners sure are laughing all the way to the bank!
Not only can they now have their home’s value artificially depressed so they pay lower taxes, they can still sell like its 2005! Gosh its sweet to have real estate.
You just can’t lose. You really can’t. Should I say it again? It’s like, totally, impossible. Not only is it like, totally, impossible, anyone who says otherwise is, like, totally stupid.
This whole thing is a big joke. lol
August 18th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
#23, you mean after walking his dog in the neighborhood marking territory, and sneaking into every open houses, accumulating frequent flier miles and using them, he still handles tenants?
August 18th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Madhaus, I guess you do not see the irony of someone thinking:
. I think RBA is rising and will keep rising. Oh yeah.
And
. I am going to buy a decent house for 1.3M (that is selling for 1.7M now). I am fucked.
AT THE SAME TIME!
I would think one of the statement is fake or we are dealing with split personality here.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Oh, I love Pralay’s “Banglish” (English from Bangalore). Pralay, are you from Bangalore?
All – I do so miss the Bay Area, even though I didn’t live in the RBA. I lived in downtown San Jose for 9 years, I’ve been gone for 3 1/2 years, and I still can’t accept that I don’t live within an hour of the City anymore. To me, it’s the Last Great Place. Apologies to my numerous Montana relatives and everyone else that scoffs at the Bay Area mystique.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Pralay said:
Conclusion: Money does not grow under mattress.
Since RE isn’t here, I decree that is the quote of the day. Love it! It strikes me as rather funny and yet it’s completely true. Thanks!
August 18th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Oh yeah, back on topic. When I got home today I had a solicitation in the mail from some tax attorney or something that will file your assessment appeal for you. They only take a 45% cut of any savings they attain for you. Hmm, I spent about 30 minutes on it and got to keep 100%. The funniest part though is that they propose telling Los Gatos that my home is worth about 38% less (!) than they say it is. I’d buy an agressive 15% or so but that’s just wild.
The outfit is in SoCal – d’you suppose they figure things are as rough up here as down there?
August 18th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Oh, I love Pralay’s “Banglish” (English from Bangalore). Pralay, are you from Bangalore?
—–
No, I am not from Bangalore, but from northern part of India. Hinglish would be more appropriate.
August 18th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
There’s a series in the NY Times about the marketing of debt products, and how “second mortgages” were repackaged as “Home Equity Loans.”
But the thing that really got to me is the graphic showing that more than half the real estate value in the US is now mortgaged. This is not anything recent, the number of homes owned free and clear has been declining for decades. (click on the word debt to see the graphic) 53.8% of all real estate value is mortgage debt, 46.2% of all real estate value is equity, as of 1Q08.
Have any of you EVER been to a mortgage burning party? Or did they go out with the 1970s?
Will our neighbors lynch us if we hold one when we pay the thing off in 6 years?
Also, please check out excellent article in irvinehousingblog today, says affordability products make homes unaffordable.
August 18th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Pralay, just read Ian McDonald’s River of Gods, which takes place in India in 2047 (yes, Science Fiction). Among other things was introduced to the Hindi words lakh, crore, and arahb (sp?) which correspond to 10^5, 10^7, and 10^9. Useful words, how do I pronounce them? So much more compact than “ten thousand times.”
August 19th, 2008 at 12:06 am
“Have any of you EVER been to a mortgage burning party? Or did they go out with the 1970s?
…
Also, please check out excellent article in irvinehousingblog today, says affordability products make homes unaffordable.”
Very true. Like I’ve said before. Almost nobody buys homes thinking they will pay it off. The mentality with the younger crowd (40 and below) was that they would hold on to it for a couple years and sell at a guaranteed profit.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:45 am
madhaus and anon – you can only trade up for so long, at one point in your life the mortgage’ll have to be paid off. That’d be about 20 to 25 years prior to your expected retirement date (30y mortgage that is paid off early thanks to increasing wages). Around that time you’ll have to give up any idea of trading up. So it makes sense if you’re 25 not to expect to pay off your mortgage(s) but prepare the ground for trade-up. But if you’re 40 it does not any longer. A “couple years” is exaggerated, but expecting to trade up within 10 years sounds rather reasonable to me if you’re in your early 30s or younger.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:38 am
Its not surprising to me that less people actually own their own homes versus owing it to the bank. A few years ago I read that the avg Bay Area resident stays in a home for 5 years or less. Sort of pointless if you ask me, but nevertheless, people these days are simply less content to just buy a house and stay put. People trade houses around my hood quicker than some lease their cars. I’ve been in my neighborhood for 5 years, and in that time I’d say roughly 30-40% of the houses have changed hands… a few more than once, and in at least two cases so far for less than what the buyer actually paid. So the way I see it is that people these days are more like renters except instead of paying rent to a landlord, they’re paying rent to the bank.
August 19th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
No, DreamT. In the end a common thought is to actaully trade down. People often want a large home for children, and when they have grown up and moved out, there is no need for a 4,000 sqft home for an aging couple. The theory was that once you’ve worked your way up, then you simply unlock your stored equity and move to a smaller home.
Even if someone was 65, it made sense. All they had to do was put their name on a 2 million dollar home and they were earning $300,000 a year if they were so inclined.
It made sense for people who were 25 because there is (was) a bubble. It made sense for people who were 40 because of the bubble. It also made sense for people who were 60+ (I know a few who were caught with their pants down by buying investment property in flyoverland.)
Just because _you_ have visions of trading up doesn’t mean that this is what people are always seeking to do, DreamT.
Lol – Bob your rent to the bank analogy is spot on. The only distinction is that by pretend ownership, the tax deduction exists and the guaranteed appreciation went to the land owner pocket instead of the bank.
August 19th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
That final unlocking gives cash (for retirement) and pays off the smaller mortgage. This is really what I’m saying. Trying to trade up and stay there often results in being ‘house poor.’ Or, as Bob so eloquently puts it: Middle class paupers. Sometimes, they were upper class paupers
August 19th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
No, DreamT. In the end a common thought is to actaully trade down. People often want a large home for children, and when they have grown up and moved out, there is no need for a 4,000 sqft home for an aging couple.
Actually that’s not always true either. According to a WSJ article from 2 years ago, baby boomers without kids are upgrading to bigger housees because they don’t need to spend their money on their kids anymore.
Now’s their time to shine and show off to their friends and the world that they’ve made it big.
Consumption=wealth
August 19th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
I’m not surprised with the remark regarding boomers. Just two years ago, a report came out showing that the avg boomer has saved less than 40k for retirement. That’s awful, no matter how you cut it. Some of it might have to do with what’s being mentioned above, which is the desire to trade up, up up, and never simply make due.
If you look at what the trends in the size of houses has been since the 1950′s, the avg family home in 1957 was 700-800 square feet. Now it’s over 3,000. When I was a kid, if you owned a two story house, that was considered nice. Now it’s the norm. So in essence, Americans in general have wanted more and more, which means less and less for retirement. A house doesn’t equal retirement. These days you’d better have AT LEAST a million saved up by the time you’re 60 or you will be out of luck. In the BA, that trading up simply means you’re trading from a tiny little house or condo into a starter home.
Whatever happened to buying then adding on once there was a need for more room? In my mind, the best situation would be to buy the least amount of house needed on a good sized lot, and add more if needed. If not, well that means less to heat and cool and more for stuff like gardens and garages.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Oh come on bob, now you’re just showing yourself to be a curmudgeon. You don’t respect people who buy huge houses, but you don’t respect that you can’t buy a huge house in the Bay Area unless you make Corporate VP salary levels. My little Sunnyvale Shack is quite modest by almost anywhere else’s standards, so you should be showing me utmost respect for living a manageable lifestyle on one income so the kids don’t have to go into daycare.
People like RE think they’ve “succeeded” because they got to 94301 on 2 incomes and I don’t know how many trade-ups. Wonder how much his kids like going to study hall after school because no one’s at home for them.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Well, if that small shack had been bought for the cost of an actual shack and not the cost of a 4,000 square foot Mcmansion elsewhere, then perhaps I’d show some more Luv. If you spend a boatload of money on a tiny house, then that’s not really being modest.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
That’s just a bit wierd. What is going to happen when the values start going back up? That is a bad precedent to set. I agree with the other readers who are saying that when the property values were going up, there were no complaints. An article just came out on Data Quick today stating that SF’s median price from last July to this July only went down 6.3%, so how much can you possibly request the property taxes to be lowered by. I just think that you can’t change something like that. Besides, how long will it take to process all of that? The real estate market is changing all the time, so what happens if prices head up once the taxes are lowered if that were to happen?
August 19th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Melissa, the law allows the assessment to go down with home values. At a 6.8% decline, mostly only people who bought in the last two years will have a valid claim for a reduction.
The tax law also says the reduction is TEMPORARY so that when values go back up, you can jump back up to your original value plus the 2% per year allowable increase. Don’t worry, they’ll get their taxes from you – IF you’re a fairly recent buyer.
It seems more than fair to get a reduced assessment now. Those recent buyers are already getting hosed on the decreased home value. And getting hosed for paying WAY MORE in taxes than the neighbor who moved in 10 or 20 years ago. So why not?
Of course there aren’t complaints when values go up. That’s the whole blessing/curse of Prop 13. But keep in mind, those people generally don’t complain terribly when they move in and know their neighbor is paying 1/10th of the taxes the newbies will pay.
August 19th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
anon – “No, DreamT. In the end a common thought is to actaully trade down.”
How’s that contradicting my demonstration? “In the end” is when the mortgage is paid off, i.e. around 60-65 year old. And I agree about the thought of trading down in value (not necessarily in size), so you end up retired in a chalet near a lake for a fraction of what you rancher cost you.
So, let me know what the “No, DreamT” is in reference of…
August 19th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
so you end up retired in a chalet near a lake for a fraction of what you rancher cost you.
But that indicates that you’d be moving away from the Bay Area and somewhere assumed to be cheaper.Isn’t the BA perfect? Wouldn’t you be leaving the whole feel-good party by jumping ship?
Lottsa boomers from the East Coast and the West Coast are flooding into my parent’s neck of the woods for the same thing: a quite place on the lake. Ahh yess… back to simplicity. Only problem of course is that the closest hospital is 100 miles away. That and since EVERYONE over 60 wants to do the same thing, anything that looks like it is near water is getting expensive. (what is it with water anyway?)
When you get older, taking care of some big house is going to be problematic.My Gran Dad had a hell of a time keeping up with his little 800 sq foot house and acre of land. I couldn’t imagine him managing a 3,000 sq foot house.
And again, everyone talks about buying a house to make money for them. But what if you could simply just make and save money, THEN by the house you REALLY want in an area you really like versus struggling to “get in” and work your way up? It is entirely feasible.
August 19th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
bob – “Isn’t the BA perfect?” I already explained on this board my opinion that the BA was great mostly for young, world-class professionals, not retirees. You sound childish as usual.
Taking care of a good piece of land (1 acre is a bit much though don’t you think) is a full-time job. My parents love it, but they are not even 60 yet (early retirees, as they started teaching at 20). They’ll probably sell and move to a countryside downtown as they get older, still near the ocean, but walking distance to libraries and close by a hospital.
Why buy in the Bay Area in the meantime? It’s a prime place for career opportunities, no matter how you spin it. Deciding at 30 where you’ll want to be at 70? Come on bob, you cannot have that much of a tunnel vision. You seriously expect to know what the aspirations of your 70-year old incarnation will be? Your life must be really boring.
August 19th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Deciding at 30 where you’ll want to be at 70? Come on bob, you cannot have that much of a tunnel vision. You seriously expect to know what the aspirations of your 70-year old incarnation will be? Your life must be really boring.
My 70 year old incarnation can’t even tell me what instrument I’ll be playing in the future.
August 19th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
The tax law also says the reduction is TEMPORARY so that when values go back up, you can jump back up to your original value plus the 2% per year allowable increase.
Wow, is this true? That means they will screw u no matter what agony you’ve gone through with the downside.
August 19th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
The “No, DreamT” refers to your previous statement “you can only trade up for so long, at one point in your life the mortgage’ll have to be paid off.” This is incorrect. Plenty of people pass away without having ever paid off their homes.
Burbed, its true that a lot of people end up staying, but many many people in the high end communities (such as palo alto or Piedmont) in the bay area choose to either downgrade within the community or leave the community altogether. This is what I’ve seen from firsthand experience. What was the scope of the WSJ article? The entire nation or the ‘destination’ communities?
August 19th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
“Melissa Says:
August 19th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
An article just came out on Data Quick today stating that SF’s median price from last July to this July only went down 6.3%,”
The real numbers…
[T]he Bay Area’s median sales price down to $470,000 in July. That was 3.1 percent lower than $485,000 in June this year and 29.3 percent lower than the peak $665,000 median reached in July and June of 2007.
August 19th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
anon – “Plenty of people pass away without having ever paid off their homes.”
Let me qualify my #38 statements by preceding them with “For a financially responsible person…” which is what every person on this board aspires to be, notwithstanding others’ opinions. That said, reverse mortgages can be a very reasonable compromise in your late years, which shows your point above and mine aren’t incompatible.
My post was a refutation of your #37 where you state that people under 40 year old are not looking to pay off what they are purchasing. Your “No DreamT” did not turn out to be a refutation of my point.
August 19th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
My point is that for the past 10 or so years, damn near nobody was looking at actually paying mortgages off. They were looking at potential returns and then reselling
The younger crowd who tend to be more financially irresponsible and less risk averse were more guilty of this.
I’m not sure what your point is – you appear to be simply writing bullshit. You made an incorrect statement: ““you can only trade up for so long, at one point in your life the mortgage’ll have to be paid off.” I corrected it. Clear enough for you?
August 19th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
In Manhattan, boomers without children and families with children are moving back to the city.
Why the hell would you live out in the sticks, when you can live two blocks from a world class hospital, above a grocery store, and a subway ride from your friends. Oh no! No lake! Who the f cares.
This American addiction to driving that is oh so prevalent in the South is going to be downfall of this country. What, are you going to be 90 and drive yourself 20 miles to the grocery store? Don’t you guys read Fark and see all the articles about Florida? Farmers markets everywhere are trembling.
By the way, what’s the obsession about modding pick up trucks to be super loud? WTF.
August 19th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
anon – you’re entitled to your opinion, but I stand by what I wrote, continue to think it’s silly to expect retiring with an unpaid mortgage, and think you’re way out on a limb stating “damn near nobody was looking at actually paying mortgages off” (straight out of a troll’s mouth! Just look at these past 10 years’ turnover in my neighborhood).
It’s obvious you don’t get my point. My point is again that if you’re < 40, not planning to pay off the house is an EXPECTED strategy, for GOOD reasons. It’s not IRRESPONSIBLE and it’s not something to be GUILTY of. The people I know above 40 have all tried without exception to pay down their mortgage. Again you’re quite the troll, and it’s not the first time. But you lack Real Estater’s finesse.
August 19th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Knicksfan – what are you talking about? Living in the sticks versus living two blocks off a hospital? The world is black and white for you?
August 19th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
anon – you realize your pseudonym means ‘Baby Donkey’ in French (or less kindly, ‘Young Ass’)? You might not be as anonymous as you thought after all.
August 19th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Lionel, you are vying right up there with Bob as far as the resident blog “angry renter”. Please, lay off the agenda, ok? its pretty transparent. Its not anything new that the entire bay area is way down, we don’t care about Solano county and Contra costa here, lets stick to the program please.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
I am buying a musical instrument on a web site. It’s from a SF company. Their web site while checking out has an option box with 2 options:
1. I am a CA resident
2. I am not a CA resident.
If you choose first one, it adds 8.4% to the total otherwise adds 0%.
You guys have a blessed day in California.
August 19th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
austindweller – got my projector from Oregon just for that reason. And your point?
August 19th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Deciding at 30 where you’ll want to be at 70? Come on bob, you cannot have that much of a tunnel vision. You seriously expect to know what the aspirations of your 70-year old incarnation will be? Your life must be really boring.
Well, yes & no. At 70, I hope to not be dependent on my children. Maybe have a little something to leave them so they can buy their own crapshacks. And to not be someplace where I’ll fall and break my fragile old-lady hips. Easier to plan ahead so I’ll have some options rather than try and sort it out all out at 65.
August 19th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
I am buying a musical instrument on a web site. It’s from a SF company. Their web site while checking out has an option box with 2 options:
1. I am a CA resident
2. I am not a CA resident.
If you choose first one, it adds 8.4% to the total otherwise adds 0%.
Jeebus Krispy Kreme, austindweller! If you’re going to tell us you’re buying a musical instrument, why the FARK aren’t you telling us WHICH ONE? You think I care about the stupid sales tax? Heck no! I want to know what we’re going to jam on!
August 19th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Well, if I don’t pay sales tax I pay shipping cost. It boils down to same. Most of the photographics equipment I buy from NY (B&H). Shipping cost is more or less same as sales tax I would have paid if I bought here from local store.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
If austindweller is not angry, he is beyond angry. What’s his problem with all the Californians? I don’t think anybody here say “Tornado for you suckers!”
August 19th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Renter4 – criteria are fair game. What I meant was – purchasing the actual house at the actual location at 30 where you would plan to live in at 70? I don’t even know in which country I’ll be at 70, let alone in which city!
August 19th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
rick – we Californians have a reputation of ‘civilized folks’ to protect. Austindweller on the other hand, has to try and fit the archetypal redneck mold. Let’s encourage him, for it cannot be an easy task.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Pralay, just read Ian McDonald’s River of Gods, which takes place in India in 2047 (yes, Science Fiction). Among other things was introduced to the Hindi words lakh, crore, and arahb (sp?) which correspond to 10^5, 10^7, and 10^9. Useful words, how do I pronounce them? So much more compact than “ten thousand times.”
———
Heard about the book but never read. Probably due to the ego-factor “what is there to read; I from India, hence I know better anyway“. Probably due to another reason that in past I read couple of other books about India written by non-Indians (e.g. Forster, Kipling). They never impressed me. They never came out from typical colonial mindset where they look at India as either an place of Eastern Mysticism or a very poor country full of beggars and cows. There is nothing between this two extreme viewpoints.
Anyway, in India we learned math/number system with those words – lakh, crore etc. We learned million/billion only after entering college. Pronunciation of Indian words are similar to Latin/Spanish – what you see, you pronounce same way WITHOUT any exception. So door, poor, boor, moor – they all would be pronounced same way.
Lakh is laakh.
Crore is corrupted (by British) version of Sanskrit word koti.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
>purchasing the actual house at the actual location at 30 where you would plan to live in at 70
Oh that, sure. Must admit I wouldn’t mind a house by the lake, though.
>They never came out from typical colonial mindset where they look at India as either an place of Eastern Mysticism or a very poor country full of beggars and cows.
Well, Forster, maybe, I don’t know enough about him to say, but Kipling spent his early childhood in the subcontinent, and I think a lot of his youth & adulthood was spent in yearning for that warm and nurturing period of his life. The part of his youth that he spent in England was very traumatizing.
You could argue that his worst excesses were part of a love/hate thing; that he was more organically Indian than English, but was shut out from any real fulfillment of that part of his identity, because of the institutional racism that he bought into. I mean, I’m not arguing it, but you could.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Wow, I missed a lot.
rick (#52) – yes it’s true. So if you get your assessment dropped 15% and there’s a bubble next year that drives your house up in value 20%, then your assessment can go up 17%. (The 15% temporary reduction plus the 2% cap allowed.)
http://www.co.alameda.ca.us/forms/assessor/decline_market.pdf
August 19th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
I should add one more qualifier. Just because it’s temporary doesn’t mean you have to re-apply for a reduction every year if the market remains depressed/deflated/slow/un-bubble-like.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
that he was more organically Indian than English, but was shut out from any real fulfillment of that part of his identity,
————
Renter4,
Kipling’s Kim reveals his colonial viewpoint most where he justified British imperialism.
But you are right, although he grew up in India, he was never raised as Indian by his parents. He was still a British. There goes the identify crisis. I see many Indians immigrants in America are guilty of similar thing. Although their kids are growing up in America, but they want their kids to behave/grow in Indian way. There are some truths in ABCD. Others who don’t know what it means – ABCD stands for American Born Confused Desi. Desi is the word how one Indian refers to another Indian – which means “person from same country”. Some of the children are really confused and suffer from identity crisis.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
DreamT, lots of name calling. Call me a troll all you want, its no worse than you making personal responses to every single post you feel might be a dig on California. Its pretty obvious you didn’t like the word ‘No’ and ‘DreamT’ in the same post aren’t aren’t interested in refuting points.
Oh, and by the way, I think we all know that most mail order places charge taxes in California.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
anon – have a glass of wine. Yes, right now.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
a bit late, dont ya think?
August 19th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
No, I don’t think it’s a bit late. I guess it depends at what time you plan to sleep.
anon, you’re making points, true. But they aren’t refuting mine, and I don’t necessarily disagree with yours anyway. Just because you’re off-mark does not mean I have to now target where you aimed.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:09 am
Let’s all take a chill pill. Thanks!
August 20th, 2008 at 5:24 am
Sorry cals,
I couldn’t hide my happiness. BTW, shipping is free. Since I moved out I have saved quite a lot. And that is not “because of” or “in the form of” leverage or equity. It’s the real money in the bank. I am NOT taking joy in the misery of californians though a couple of times I did sound like that, especially the comment: “cynic in me says”. In fact, I am just happy or should I say overjoyed that it is all working very well for me. And I am not even a bit jealous. The comment came out of masochistic attitude that I have been noticing on this forum. Enjoying pain with the pretence of happiness. People pretend that they are living rich lives in CA. Most of them really don’t. Now don’t come out saying “I make this much and that much”, since there is no way to verify. Unless you are in the ranks of VP you are getting nothing in CA (Notice, I did not say Director). You are getting poorer in CA.
BTW, madhaus the instrument is Tabla. It’s an indian drum which is to be played with hands. Also some of the the money that I was paying in rent is going towards recreation, enjoying, learning different things, affording better quaality of life and still come ahead big time in saving. If your salary/income does not change and you move to a cheaper place, that iteself is a big boost.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:57 am
This American addiction to driving that is oh so prevalent in the South is going to be downfall of this country.
I’m betting $100 that you have never lived in the South. There are cities there just like there are in NY,CA, and FL. People have the choice of whether they want to live in the country or live in the city. My parents live in the country. One drives 9 miles to work, the other 11. Both drive cars that get over 30MPG. So what’s your point? It costs more money for some who drive more, but it also costs more money for some who live in expensive apartments in Manhattan. If its all about money, then I guess we’re all screwed aren’t we?
The whole superiority complex many city people have as if they lead more productive, wholesome, righteous lives is no different than the same people whom live in the country who feel the exact same way: both are wrong because we as people have choices to make where we choose to live work in our favor.
And DreamT, you seem to be flabbergasted that it could possibly be true that someone could buy a house at the age of 30 and actually live there for their entire lives. Well… my parents, grandparents, ( both sides), two Aunts, and one Uncle have all done exactly that. In fact, more than half of them did precisely what I’m doing, which is that they spent the first 10 years living in different parts of the country, renting and saving up money from the inflated city salaries, then move back closer to home and buy their homes outright. In other words, they did the opposite, which is to travel and see the country first, then settle down, often finding that where they left in the first place was actually just fine.
As you travel, you find that as much as people from large cities try to brand their particular city as the BEST place to live and utterly different than place A or B, you’ll find that there are actually more similarities than differences. Once you discover that, you can live pretty much anywhere contentedly.
There was a time in this country when the majority of people bought a house, took care of it, added on to it, raised kids in it, and died in it. That we now are suddenly expected to buy 3-4 homes in a lifetime isn’t something I religiously believe in.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:35 am
The whole superiority complex many city people have as if they lead more productive, wholesome, righteous lives is no different than the same people whom live in the country who feel the exact same way
That isn’t true bob. The coastal states, aka the “blue states” subsidize the red states. California gets back about .67 for every $1 we send to the federal government. It goes to the rural states who take in more than they produce.
If CA were a country, those of us that live here would be much better off, because we would not be subsidizing these “weak sisters”.
August 20th, 2008 at 10:01 am
WG,
Oh boy, here we go again with red state/ blue state bashing. That’s a pretty old, and unproven/dis-proven argument.In any regards, I am from the state of Tennessee. You can say you come from Mr. Blue state. That’s fine, but I think its arrogant to make blanket, generalized statements about 80% of the land mass of the USA. Secondly, if you want Obama to lose, then make sure and bring up the red state, blue state thing again. I personally know a few liberal democrats from back home who were royally pissed off about the whole color-coding hysteria. Its completely childish.
It also had nothing to do with what I was talking about, which was concerning living in a single house for your entire life and the choice to live in either a rural or metro setting, both of which are perfectly viable depending on your personal preference. Last time I looked, 70% of California is rural. My argument was also that there is a tendency on both sides of the fence to claim that one style of living is superior. The argument wasn’t state-specific.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
But bob, that in no way refutes WG’s statement (and it is true) that states like California subsidize more rural states. This is not “unproven/dis-proven argument.” It is completely true and completely proven.
austindweller, I’m not letting old age keep me from my preferred recreation, although not reading up to an expensive house means more money for good instruments. What are you planning to do with the tabla? Is it used for Indian dance performances? (I’ve seen some of those.) If we jam we can try raga tock.
Pralay, I’d actually love your take on River of Gods because I am not Indian and don’t know how well McDonald actually understood how a future India would be like. But I convinced my childrens’ pediatrician (Indian) to read it.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
typo: should have been raga rock.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
What are you planning to do with the tabla?
Of course first learn to play it properly. Here is a link for you to understand how this instrument is played. Usually played for accompaning vocal, but masters play solo too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXxJGtnOrOE
August 20th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
burbed, could you bring my last comment out of moderation?
August 21st, 2008 at 10:49 am
austindweller, cool link, that’s some wicked-ass drumming. So when you buy “a tabla” that means 2 drums? What is the bowed instrument the other dude was playing? Indian music has a bunch of quarter-tones so it has a different sound than western. I could play some of them on the guitar by taking a lower string and doing a quarter-bend, but not sure how to replicate that bowed sound. Might have to keep bending the same string to get all those tones.
August 21st, 2008 at 8:38 pm
The bowed instrument is called Sarangi. The maestro who is playing is perhaps the best one. In addition to notes it keeps the constant rhythm. Such accompanyment is called “lehara”. Usually Tabla keeps the rhythm and vocal singers/other instruments show the variations, but when played in solo there is usually sarangi or harmonium which keeps the rhythm and tabla shows the variations.
Instrument Tabla is a set of two drums tabla and dagga.