27 thoughts on “IHB News 11-6-2010”

1. . November 6, 2010 at 8:10 pm

   WTF, $8,500 down payment on $278,000 way back in 2002? Damn, I sure missed the boat.
2. FoolishRenter November 6, 2010 at 9:06 pm

   Fallingstar says it all.
3. lee in irvine November 6, 2010 at 9:31 pm

   Yes … there’s a reason why the media is focused on The OC now. We are indeed one of the wealthiest counties in the country, yet HBO has zoned in on our town with a new documentary:

   Homeless: The Motel Kids of Orange County

   Is Orange County gonna become a town of only have’s and have not’s. Is the bedroom community that many of us grew up in, gone forever? Are cities like Lake Forest & Mission Viejo gonna become overrun with renters as investors wait for the next step down to seize opportunities.
   1. Swiller November 7, 2010 at 5:10 pm

      The answer is YES. Lake Forest is already referred to as the “Golden Ghetto” by OCSD,

      Mission Pendejo? …….accomplished

      Never forget, socialism is of the devil, naked capitalism and greed will “trickle down” all the wealth you could ever want, can’t you see how AWESOME this country has become since Reagan…hell since Nixon. Holy shit, if we don’t vote 100% republicans into office we will all die and starve without elite taskmasters to control our every freedom.

      Keep fear and bigotry alive. Maybe we should invade more innocent countries based on lies…er, ahem, I mean “bad intelligence”.
      1. Chris November 8, 2010 at 8:36 am

         Demos didn’t exactly reverse the trend either during the past 2 years.

         Well, if this is any comfort to you, at least it’s a full house Dems here in California. Furthermore, there’s no longer the Prop 13 constraint on CA budget. Whoopie.
         1. Swiller November 8, 2010 at 6:41 pm

            I hear you Chris, it’s why I’m a registered non-partisan voter. I tend to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal, there’s no room for me in either party. Tea Party doesn’t cut it by a long shot as it’s just another attempt by the far right wing to repress. SAD.
4. FoolishRenter November 7, 2010 at 1:57 am

   Home prices likely flat in 2011: NAR
   Five years from now, many will say 2010 was year to buy: economist

   http://www.marketwatch.com/story/home-prices-likely-to-stay-flat-in-2011-nar-2010-11-05?siteid=rss&rss=1

   If NAR say housing price to be flat and volume down, are there conversion factors to say:
   real price increase = +0.7 % NAR estimate – 5% factor?
   % # of sale for existing house = +7% NAR – 6% factor?

   As for low downpayment, the 3.5% down are still available and may go to zero down soon. What buyer with zero percent down will care with CA non-recourse loans about overbidding $50,000. Don’t pay and squat a year or two years. Free rent (with the saving/stimulus package), the saving can be used for per paid rent on the next place. I don’t know very many landlords that will turn down a year of prepaid rent. Credit can be rapidly repaired with the cash and all on the backs of the taxpayers and children.
   1. Swiller November 7, 2010 at 5:14 pm

      I have no problem with non-recourse loans….as long as the down payment is a minimum of 20%.

      The investor makes the huge profit margin, they should shoulder the highest risk, but with today’s bankster ass-kissing, people seem to believe investors are saviors and should bear zero chance at failure, but the working class stiff should be put in debtors prison. If that comes to pass, here’s to another civil war. (clink)
      1. FoolishRenter November 8, 2010 at 2:42 am

         Wsiller,
         I too have not problem with non-recourse loans as long as people benefitting have skin in the game. The wise borrower with less than 4% down or WS fund manager “investing” in with govt guarantee have no skin in the game. Borrower can just walk away with earning from squatting. Fund manager is using other peoples money, so down side is if interest rates goes up. The real winners are the banks who wrote the prior non-preforming loans who unloads the RE property as current loan values. The group that has real real skin in the game is the taxpayers, who only can lose (no winning possible). Looks like a rigged wheel to benefit the banks.
5. . November 7, 2010 at 3:52 am

   http://www.mybudget360.com/las-vegas-city-has-3-times-the-rentals-of-los-angeles-city-and-l-a-has-6-times-the-population-u-haul-rate-trends-and-home-sales/

   [quote]”Las Vegas city has 3 times the rentals of Los Angeles city and L.A. has 6 times the population – U-Haul rate trends and home sales higher in Las Vegas than peak months of the bubble driven by absentee investors.”[/quote]

   home sales in vegas today are higher than during the bubble.

   [img]http://www.mybudget360.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/las-vegas-housing-values.png[/img]

   [quote]And it is absolutely clear that it is investors that are buying these homes, not local demand.
   “In September 43 percent of all purchases were done via absentee buyers.”[/quote]
   1. Planet Reality November 7, 2010 at 4:16 am

      Now for the extra point plot Las Vegas unemployment simultaneously.

      If you want to go for the two point conversion also plot non-owner occupied, energy cost, hotel vacancies, and tax revenue.

      Buy now before there are no more renters left.
6. Annew3 November 7, 2010 at 5:39 am

   Finally, squatters are making news here on the East Coast. Housing coalition says “these are just people in need”
   Oh my… please. If you’re going to report these people as victims, at least provide us with a history of the mortgage activity. OC does not have the monopoly on gamers of the system 🙂
   Anne from New England

   http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/06/shattered-dreams-foreclosure-squatters/
7. Anonymous November 7, 2010 at 9:49 am

   Lotta Shady Canyon places on that list

   O.C.’s top-dollar short sales
   http://www.ocregister.com/articles/short-274543-room-built.html
8. Vincenzo November 7, 2010 at 10:38 am

   Any news on how the new old governor will raise taxes?

   It’s about time to repel Proposition 13 and raise property taxes. If somebody has $500,000 to buy a spot in the place with the best schools, he must finance these schools.
   1. Chris November 7, 2010 at 12:16 pm

      “If somebody has $500,000 to ***buy***…”

      You mean if somebody’s house is worth $500k when he/she bought it at a mere $7k back in Eisenhower era, correct?

      Prop 13 has no effect on those that have bought recently.
9. Laura Louzader November 7, 2010 at 2:00 pm

   Wasn’t Proposition 13 designed to keep taxes in line with what you paid for your house, so you couldn’t be taxed out of what you bought and paid for decades ago?

   The major reason to buy vs. rent is to be able to keep your housing expense level and predictable. These days that’s difficult, with ever mounting government expenditures and tax hikes. There is no advantage in buying a place over renting when your “rent” to your local government can escalate rapidly beyond your means, which has happened to a number of people I know here in IL.

   The property tax is a brutally regressive way to tax, and it’s one you have to come up with whether you can afford it or not. We need to consider dropping property taxes in favor of a local income tax, and we really need to put caps on SPENDING.
   1. Swiller November 7, 2010 at 5:30 pm

      Prop 13 is great for homeowners, however, just like most laws, the insidious corporations have benefited FAR more than your regular Joe.

      Example: Laura buys a home in 1978 for $50,000. In 20 years the home price went up to $800,000. Prop 13 saves the owner from getting taxed out of living in their property. They can increase the taxes 2% per year. Hooray!!

      Example: Disneyland has their business taxed in 1978 on a value of, let’s just say, 40 million dollars. Prop 13 passes and now it can only be raised 2% per year. However, because Disneyland is a business, they will continue to grow and develop their LAND, and the surrounding community up to the State level, will have to provide all the social structure around it (transportation, fire, police, energy, communications) yet Disneyland’s tax base will only go up 2% per year.

      Partial quote –

      “Buffett’s brief willingness to raise Prop. 13 and tax fairness issues was short-lived. Post-election, his frustration was still evident in his letter to Steiger: “My sympathies are clearly with the ‘non-billionaire’ family purchasing a $300,000 house in Chico today that faces real estate taxes marginally higher than those borne by this non-resident billionaire on his $4 million house in Laguna. This family, because of Proposition 13, has been selected to subsidize me.”

      Full story, if you desire to read it
      http://www.baycitizen.org/proposition-13/story/death-and-taxes-sfs-gold-coast/
      1. rkp November 7, 2010 at 7:13 pm

         Agree with swiller on this one. Prop 13 saves the corps huge amounts when it was supposed to help poor old ladies from getting kicked out of their house. What’s worse is that if a company buys another company, they still benefit from the old tax value of the company’s properties as its the company they bought, not the properties.
      2. HydroCabron November 8, 2010 at 2:05 am

         Ah, the poor little old ladies. One part of the argument I have never understood.

         If you’re living in a $600K house that you bought for $12000 in 1963, and you can’t make the property tax payments, then you can sell the house – which should certainly have no mortgage on it – and rent a beautiful place for the remainder of your days.

         If property taxes are too high, then lower them; if they’re a poor way to tax, then get rid of them. But don’t create squires who pay less by virtue of when they purchased.
         1. Anonymous November 8, 2010 at 6:55 am

            One simple solution to this I have seen elsewhere is to defer the increased taxes for little old ladies, then pay the tax in full upon sale of the home. Works well, Grandma can afford to stay in the house her husband built, die in it eventually, and the tax is still paid.
   2. Walter November 7, 2010 at 8:28 pm

      Or keep Prop 13 in place, but if you refi, and the total borrowed against the property it more then the current P 13 assessed value, reset the Prop 13 value to the new total loan amount.

      This is makes you pay something back if you continue to leverage up and get tax free money to spend and make the system less stable because of increase of leverage.
      1. winstongator November 8, 2010 at 2:30 am

         This is my favorite, and something I’ve mentioned here at least ten times. It is sensible, and the arguments against will sound very poorly reasoned very quickly.

         One way to make prop taxes progressive is to have a homestead exemption. Maybe 100-200k for a person’s primary residence. They have this in FL, but only on $50k of value.
         1. Walter November 8, 2010 at 8:54 pm

            How do we get this on the ballot? I doubt it will pass, but I am curious to see how many would vote for it after all we have been through.
10. Vincenzo November 8, 2010 at 1:57 am

    >You mean if somebody’s house is worth $500k when he/she bought it at a mere $7k back in Eisenhower era, correct?

    >Prop 13 has no effect on those that have bought recently.
    So, if he/she bought a mansion for $7k that worth $500k now, the property tax is ridiculous $70 per year, while it should be at least $5,000.
    I’m sure this little homeowner lady/mister receives enormous subsidies from Medi-cal, Medicare, etc paid by taxes.

    Actually, Proposition 13 has effect on the recent buyers. Their tax is only 1%, but there are workarounds in the form of pseudo-taxes like Mello-Roos.

    The main problem of Proposition 13 is that in order to raise any taxes the governor needs 2/3 of the legislature votes, but there is no such limit when somebody wants to increase spending.

    If California were the capitalist society, the taxes would be low, all people, even the poor, would pay equal share of taxes, schools and universities and hospitals would be private and require full pay.
11. FoolishRenter November 8, 2010 at 2:46 am

    Time to rewrite prop 13 to include only owner occupied property. This will level the playing field and increase the amount of property recycling in the market by having non-owner occuppied property sale instead of holding based on late 1970’s property taxes.
12. Marian November 8, 2010 at 4:40 am

    What should be implemented nation-wide:
    http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/judgments/2010/03/30/lone-star-secret

    Funny that the deregulation state has one of the best regulations in residential real estate.
13. Brad November 11, 2010 at 4:56 am

    Irvine Real Estate

Comments are closed.