Endless Arguments

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 2:14:46 PM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Tuesday, 27 August 2019 16:43:37 UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 8:08:43 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 8/27/2019 7:00 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

He is talking about people who have owned their homes for "a decade or more," and a assuming a fifteen or thirty year mortgage, then they have considerable equity -- which was the point of the post.

Correct. Most of us in this area never expected the astronomical
increases in real estate prices that have occurred. We are
multi-millionaires on paper, living in 1960's tract homes on small lots.

We have a lot of retired seniors in my community. Back when they
purchased their homes, this area was not high-cost and many had blue
collar jobs, or lower paying white collar jobs like school teachers.
they were not tech executives. Their homes are paid off and live off of
Social Security and perhaps a small pension, but are living in houses
that would sell for $2-3 million.

Some seniors struggling financially despite their equity. Local
non-profits assist some of these seniors with home maintenance and repairs.

The trouble locally here is that they seem to be purposely making home maintenance so expensive that they are forcing seniors to sell out. Because of the 2012 water shortage they kicked the price of water up and installed steps. To water and keep a lawn not is almost too expensive for many. I covered the front yard with wood chips and it looked great until I discovered that those chips were half weed seeds. I have been fighting a losing battle ever since.

In California a lot of homes burned to the ground because wood chips used for ground cover burned readily and hot.

Cheers

I don't know where you got that idea. Those wood chips readily absorb moisture from the ground they are covering plus most of them are treated with flame resistant dyes. The real problem is that the entire neighborhood is now infested with weeds totally foreign to the area.

This is a null argument. People do not live that long and then houses are on the market to new buyers. Inheritance of commercial properties usually ends up with that property back on the market.

In the end the ONLY thing that Prop 13 does is allow seniors to buy down and hold a profit for their waning years.

The arguments against Prop 13 are all based in socialist jargon.

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 4:20:02 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 3:54:54 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 8/27/2019 9:31 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/27/2019 10:17 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Tuesday, 27 August 2019 11:08:43 UTC-4, smsÂ* wrote:
On 8/27/2019 7:00 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

He is talking about people who have owned their homes for "a decade
or more," and a assuming a fifteen or thirty year mortgage, then
they have considerable equity -- which was the point of the post.

Correct. Most of us in this area never expected the astronomical
increases in real estate prices that have occurred. We are
multi-millionaires on paper, living in 1960's tract homes on small lots.

We have a lot of retired seniors in my community. Back when they
purchased their homes, this area was not high-cost and many had blue
collar jobs, or lower paying white collar jobs like school teachers..
they were not tech executives. Their homes are paid off and live off of
Social Security and perhaps a small pension, but are living in houses
that would sell for $2-3 million.

Some seniors struggling financially despite their equity. Local
non-profits assist some of these seniors with home maintenance and
repairs.

One of the problems I've seen sometimes when house and property values
increase a lot over the years is that the original now retire
purchaser living in that house has a heck of a time meeting the
increased taxes payments and/or the increase in utilities costs. A lot
of timesÂ* that causes them to have to sell.

Cheers

Howard Jarvis' argument exactly.

Well not quite. That argument definitely got Prop 13 passed. But the big
proponents of Prop 13 were commercial property owners. They now manage
to transfer ownership of their property without ever having it
reassessed to current market value.

The 2% annual increase limit for owner-occupied residential properties
is reasonable though there were enormous unintended consequences.

Not so reasonable is the same limit for commercial property and
income-generating rental property.

In 2020 there will be a ballot measure to do a "split-roll" for Prop 13,
eliminating commercial properties over a certain value from the 2%
limit, but retaining the protections for all residential property. It
needs to pass by 50%. You will see huge expenditures on both sides of
this proposition.

What Minnesota did to protect seniors from being taxed out their homes
was much more logical with their "Senior Citizens' Property Tax Deferral
Program
https://www.revenue.state.mn.us/senior-citizens-property-tax-deferral-program.
This was a preemptive strike against a Prop 13 like constitutional
amendment.

Great. A state reverse mortgage. The real remedy is to have reasonable tax rates and a greater share of the total cost for emergency services, schools, libraries, etc., paid from general funds. I don't know why property owners alone should be saddled with the cost of communal infrastructure. Renters do no pay a commensurate share since commercial multi-family is typically valued based on cash flows so, for example, a four-plex on the wrong side of the tracks that houses twelve to sixteen people may have a lower market/assessed value than a single family home with two retirees in a decent neighborhood -- and yet the four-plex will produce and infinitely greater burden on public services.

-- Jay Beattie.

What are you talking about Jay? Renters represent income which is taxed at a higher rate than property.

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 7:39:32 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/27/2019 3:43 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 8:08:43 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 8/27/2019 7:00 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

He is talking about people who have owned their homes for "a decade or more," and a assuming a fifteen or thirty year mortgage, then they have considerable equity -- which was the point of the post.

Correct. Most of us in this area never expected the astronomical
increases in real estate prices that have occurred. We are
multi-millionaires on paper, living in 1960's tract homes on small lots.

We have a lot of retired seniors in my community. Back when they
purchased their homes, this area was not high-cost and many had blue
collar jobs, or lower paying white collar jobs like school teachers.
they were not tech executives. Their homes are paid off and live off of
Social Security and perhaps a small pension, but are living in houses
that would sell for $2-3 million.

Some seniors struggling financially despite their equity. Local
non-profits assist some of these seniors with home maintenance and repairs.

The trouble locally here is that they seem to be purposely making home maintenance so expensive that they are forcing seniors to sell out. Because of the 2012 water shortage they kicked the price of water up and installed steps. To water and keep a lawn not is almost too expensive for many. I covered the front yard with wood chips and it looked great until I discovered that those chips were half weed seeds. I have been fighting a losing battle ever since.


I used to pull weeds in parking lot and sidewalk cracks.

Get a $25 weed sprayer (made in USA. Probably cheaper from
our sworn enemies) and a gallon of glyphosate. Page through
the thick volume of warnings to the mixing directions and
follow them. Stuff's like magic when you actually follow
directions and it goes a long way.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

ACE hardware sells a spray bottle of the stuff. But it takes forever to work and in the meantime the entire lawn looks like a patch of weeds.

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 10:12:25 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 8/27/2019 4:20 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 3:54:54 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 8/27/2019 9:31 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/27/2019 10:17 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Tuesday, 27 August 2019 11:08:43 UTC-4, smsÂ* wrote:
On 8/27/2019 7:00 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

He is talking about people who have owned their homes for "a decade
or more," and a assuming a fifteen or thirty year mortgage, then
they have considerable equity -- which was the point of the post.

Correct. Most of us in this area never expected the astronomical
increases in real estate prices that have occurred. We are
multi-millionaires on paper, living in 1960's tract homes on small lots.

We have a lot of retired seniors in my community. Back when they
purchased their homes, this area was not high-cost and many had blue
collar jobs, or lower paying white collar jobs like school teachers..
they were not tech executives. Their homes are paid off and live off of
Social Security and perhaps a small pension, but are living in houses
that would sell for $2-3 million.

Some seniors struggling financially despite their equity. Local
non-profits assist some of these seniors with home maintenance and
repairs.

One of the problems I've seen sometimes when house and property values
increase a lot over the years is that the original now retire
purchaser living in that house has a heck of a time meeting the
increased taxes payments and/or the increase in utilities costs. A lot
of timesÂ* that causes them to have to sell.

Cheers

Howard Jarvis' argument exactly.

Well not quite. That argument definitely got Prop 13 passed. But the big
proponents of Prop 13 were commercial property owners. They now manage
to transfer ownership of their property without ever having it
reassessed to current market value.

The 2% annual increase limit for owner-occupied residential properties
is reasonable though there were enormous unintended consequences.

Not so reasonable is the same limit for commercial property and
income-generating rental property.

In 2020 there will be a ballot measure to do a "split-roll" for Prop 13,
eliminating commercial properties over a certain value from the 2%
limit, but retaining the protections for all residential property. It
needs to pass by 50%. You will see huge expenditures on both sides of
this proposition.

What Minnesota did to protect seniors from being taxed out their homes
was much more logical with their "Senior Citizens' Property Tax Deferral
Program
https://www.revenue.state.mn.us/senior-citizens-property-tax-deferral-program.
This was a preemptive strike against a Prop 13 like constitutional
amendment.

Great. A state reverse mortgage.

That's not really a fair description.

The real remedy is to have reasonable tax rates and a greater share of the total cost for emergency services, schools, libraries, etc., paid from general funds.

Yes, that's what Minnesota is trying to do. But they are offering a
lifeline to those that can't pay those reasonable tax rates.

I don't know why property owners alone should be saddled with the cost of communal infrastructure. Renters do no pay a commensurate share since commercial multi-family is typically valued based on cash flows so, for example, a four-plex on the wrong side of the tracks that houses twelve to sixteen people may have a lower market/assessed value than a single family home with two retirees in a decent neighborhood -- and yet the four-plex will produce and infinitely greater burden on public services.

Yes, that's a big problem. That's one reason that Prop 13 should not
apply to income-producing rental properties. The property owner is
charging market rent but not paying market property tax rates though
they are presumably paying state and federal income taxes on the profit.
But with deductions for mortgage interest and depreciation they may not
be paying much in those taxes either. Even though such a change would
negatively affect me personally, I think that it would be fair thing to
do. You'd probably have a lot of rental property owners deciding to exit
the rental business and sell their rental units, including doing condo
conversions. You already see these conversions when a city adopts rent
control. It's good to have more owner-occupied properties, but the
low-income renters that are forced out are negatively affected, see
https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/04/03/mountain-view-approves-razing-rent-controlled-units-for-homes-worth-1-5-million/.

The REAL problem is that city counsels are incompetent. If they have a dollar they spend two and how that growth will cover it. In California there isn't any Democrat controlled city that doesn't do that.

On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 9:04:05 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 4:20:02 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 3:54:54 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 8/27/2019 9:31 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/27/2019 10:17 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Tuesday, 27 August 2019 11:08:43 UTC-4, smsÂ* wrote:
On 8/27/2019 7:00 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

He is talking about people who have owned their homes for "a decade
or more," and a assuming a fifteen or thirty year mortgage, then
they have considerable equity -- which was the point of the post..

Correct. Most of us in this area never expected the astronomical
increases in real estate prices that have occurred. We are
multi-millionaires on paper, living in 1960's tract homes on small lots.

We have a lot of retired seniors in my community. Back when they
purchased their homes, this area was not high-cost and many had blue
collar jobs, or lower paying white collar jobs like school teachers.
they were not tech executives. Their homes are paid off and live off of
Social Security and perhaps a small pension, but are living in houses
that would sell for $2-3 million.

Some seniors struggling financially despite their equity. Local
non-profits assist some of these seniors with home maintenance and
repairs.

One of the problems I've seen sometimes when house and property values
increase a lot over the years is that the original now retire
purchaser living in that house has a heck of a time meeting the
increased taxes payments and/or the increase in utilities costs. A lot
of timesÂ* that causes them to have to sell.

Cheers

Howard Jarvis' argument exactly.

Well not quite. That argument definitely got Prop 13 passed. But the big
proponents of Prop 13 were commercial property owners. They now manage
to transfer ownership of their property without ever having it
reassessed to current market value.

The 2% annual increase limit for owner-occupied residential properties
is reasonable though there were enormous unintended consequences.

Not so reasonable is the same limit for commercial property and
income-generating rental property.

In 2020 there will be a ballot measure to do a "split-roll" for Prop 13,
eliminating commercial properties over a certain value from the 2%
limit, but retaining the protections for all residential property. It
needs to pass by 50%. You will see huge expenditures on both sides of
this proposition.

What Minnesota did to protect seniors from being taxed out their homes
was much more logical with their "Senior Citizens' Property Tax Deferral
Program
https://www.revenue.state.mn.us/senior-citizens-property-tax-deferral-program.
This was a preemptive strike against a Prop 13 like constitutional
amendment.

Great. A state reverse mortgage. The real remedy is to have reasonable tax rates and a greater share of the total cost for emergency services, schools, libraries, etc., paid from general funds. I don't know why property owners alone should be saddled with the cost of communal infrastructure. Renters do no pay a commensurate share since commercial multi-family is typically valued based on cash flows so, for example, a four-plex on the wrong side of the tracks that houses twelve to sixteen people may have a lower market/assessed value than a single family home with two retirees in a decent neighborhood -- and yet the four-plex will produce and infinitely greater burden on public services.

-- Jay Beattie.

What are you talking about Jay? Renters represent income which is taxed at a higher rate than property.

State income tax revenue is typically not dedicated to the same public expenses as property taxes, e.g. schools. And depending on who is in the multi-family property, they may or may not be net payers of state income tax. Two parents with four children probably produce little revenue for the state and consume considerable resources. We have agreed as a society to pay for the education of those children, but it makes no sense to me that the obligation should fall mostly or solely on property owners.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 8/28/2019 11:06 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 7:39:32 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/27/2019 3:43 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 8:08:43 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 8/27/2019 7:00 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

He is talking about people who have owned their homes for "a decade or more," and a assuming a fifteen or thirty year mortgage, then they have considerable equity -- which was the point of the post.

Correct. Most of us in this area never expected the astronomical
increases in real estate prices that have occurred. We are
multi-millionaires on paper, living in 1960's tract homes on small lots.

We have a lot of retired seniors in my community. Back when they
purchased their homes, this area was not high-cost and many had blue
collar jobs, or lower paying white collar jobs like school teachers.
they were not tech executives. Their homes are paid off and live off of
Social Security and perhaps a small pension, but are living in houses
that would sell for $2-3 million.

Some seniors struggling financially despite their equity. Local
non-profits assist some of these seniors with home maintenance and repairs.

The trouble locally here is that they seem to be purposely making home maintenance so expensive that they are forcing seniors to sell out. Because of the 2012 water shortage they kicked the price of water up and installed steps. To water and keep a lawn not is almost too expensive for many. I covered the front yard with wood chips and it looked great until I discovered that those chips were half weed seeds. I have been fighting a losing battle ever since.


I used to pull weeds in parking lot and sidewalk cracks.

Get a $25 weed sprayer (made in USA. Probably cheaper from
our sworn enemies) and a gallon of glyphosate. Page through
the thick volume of warnings to the mixing directions and
follow them. Stuff's like magic when you actually follow
directions and it goes a long way.


ACE hardware sells a spray bottle of the stuff. But it takes forever to work and in the meantime the entire lawn looks like a patch of weeds.


Yes, ACE brand is better value than RoundUp brand.

Mix exactly as in the directions (when I didn't do that it
was ineffective). Takes 2~3 days to kill and stays clear for
a month or so in humid WI, maybe longer in an arid area.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Wednesday, 28 August 2019 14:45:43 UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/28/2019 11:06 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 7:39:32 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/27/2019 3:43 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 8:08:43 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 8/27/2019 7:00 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

He is talking about people who have owned their homes for "a decade or more," and a assuming a fifteen or thirty year mortgage, then they have considerable equity -- which was the point of the post.

Correct. Most of us in this area never expected the astronomical
increases in real estate prices that have occurred. We are
multi-millionaires on paper, living in 1960's tract homes on small lots.

We have a lot of retired seniors in my community. Back when they
purchased their homes, this area was not high-cost and many had blue
collar jobs, or lower paying white collar jobs like school teachers.
they were not tech executives. Their homes are paid off and live off of
Social Security and perhaps a small pension, but are living in houses
that would sell for $2-3 million.

Some seniors struggling financially despite their equity. Local
non-profits assist some of these seniors with home maintenance and repairs.

The trouble locally here is that they seem to be purposely making home maintenance so expensive that they are forcing seniors to sell out. Because of the 2012 water shortage they kicked the price of water up and installed steps. To water and keep a lawn not is almost too expensive for many. I covered the front yard with wood chips and it looked great until I discovered that those chips were half weed seeds. I have been fighting a losing battle ever since.


I used to pull weeds in parking lot and sidewalk cracks.

Get a $25 weed sprayer (made in USA. Probably cheaper from
our sworn enemies) and a gallon of glyphosate. Page through
the thick volume of warnings to the mixing directions and
follow them. Stuff's like magic when you actually follow
directions and it goes a long way.


ACE hardware sells a spray bottle of the stuff. But it takes forever to work and in the meantime the entire lawn looks like a patch of weeds.


Yes, ACE brand is better value than RoundUp brand.

Mix exactly as in the directions (when I didn't do that it
was ineffective). Takes 2~3 days to kill and stays clear for
a month or so in humid WI, maybe longer in an arid area.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Plus wear a really good hazmat capable respirator filter system when spraying that stuff, so that you don't end up getting a weird cancer in the future.

Cheers

On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 13:35:37 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 6:02:46 AM UTC-7, news18 wrote:

Naah, I'm self contained and don't need to preen.

Considering that the rest of your comments showed that you're a moron
I'm not very surprised that a halfwit like you thinks yourself modesty.

Surplus letters mthere Tom

On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 10:46:43 -0700, Andre Jute wrote:

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 2:12:49 PM UTC+1, news18 wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 12:59:36 -0700, Andre Jute wrote:

On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 6:42:45 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 8/26/2019 1:33 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, 25 August 2019 22:06:53 UTC-4, news18 wrote:
On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 08:54:14 -0700, Andre Jute wrote:
nothing of value, again.

Trolls seldom post anything of value.

+1


--
- Frank Krygowski

And another two rabbits, Rideablot and the wannabe bullyboy,
Krygowski, both long since frightened off by the truth, cowering in
the dark at the back of their hutches, muttering under their breath
at me.

Mutter on, rabbits.

Andre Jute Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.
-- Julie Ward Howe

wikipedia Man strikes again.

Can you really think of nothing better to do with your time than to
hound someone who did you no harm -- on the contrary, someone from whom
you stole?

I'm sorry your life and ambitions didn't pan out as you desired, but the
visible evidence, in this thread and elsewhere, is that you did it to
yourself for lack of moral fibre.

Andre Jute Charisma is the art of infuriating the unworthy by simply
existing

My score ratchets up!