On Mon, 01 Jun 2015 14:45:33 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:
>
> I don't need to know much about real estate to know I wouldn't even
> consider buying that house. Can't fit the dining room table & chairs so
> that's an immediate *bzzzzt.* Have to duck in the upstairs bedrooms
> with slanted ceilings? No thanks. I also wouldn't want to have to deal
> with a barn and outbuildings. I don't own livestock and never plan to.
>
Agree! Land is just land and that house is either a major remodel or
it's a tear down (depending on who buys the property). Considering
the age of the structure (fairly new) and where it's located, I vote
for tear down. Property without a permanent structure can't be
financed the same way a property with one is, so buildings (no matter
how dilapidated) are often left standing just to attract a buyer and
the property is sold for land value.


--

sf

On Mon, 01 Jun 2015 18:40:59 -0600, graham > wrote:

> I sold my house in Dalkeith (Perth) in 1975 for about $50k. Last year it
> sold for $3.4million. It's on the market again, presumably they couldn't
> really afford it.

I've noticed that a home can go through multiple owners until it finds
someone stable who loves it. Divorce, medical catastrophy, job change
- sh*t happens.

--

sf

On 2/06/2015 10:17 AM, wrote:
> On Sun, 31 May 2015 22:18:47 -0400, Nancy Young <replyto@inemail>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/31/2015 6:27 PM, wrote:
>>
>>> use of space. Property is so cheap in the U.S compared to Aus though,
>>> you wouldn't find a property like that here for that price.
>>
>> Real estate prices vary wildly depending on the location,
>> you can't look at one listing and compare it to Australia's
>> prices. That amount of land would go for millions in some
>> places in the US.
>
> I realise that, and it also applies to Australia, much like anywhere
> else of course. I live in an area that has amongst the cheapest real
> estate in Australia, and yet that rural property in the posted link
> would be regarded as being something of a bargain here.

There's a reason why it's cheap! No one wants to live there. I can't say
as I blame them.
>
> Places like Sydney have amongst the highest prices in the world. My
> Grandmother's very ordinary bungalow in Sydney's western suburbs is
> now worth close to AUD$900000, which blows my mind considering what it
> was worth 20 or 30 years ago.
>
>> I'm sure it's the same in Australia, some areas are more
>> expensive than others.
>
> For sure.
>


--

Xeno.

On Fri, 29 May 2015 19:38:42 -0700, sf > wrote:

>where I mentioned that median rents in SF were around $3500. Here's
>the latest: A new study by Zillow shows San Francisco's median rent
>is now $4,225 a month and rents throughout the Bay Area are up an
>average 15% over last year.

And typically that's for a small and grungy two-bedroom.

Actually, it may not be that much lower here in west LA for larger,
newer units, fortunately most of the older ones still go for a lot
less.

J.


>
>GAG! I'm glad I own my own home and don't need to deal with that.
>

On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 2:00:16 AM UTC-4, sf wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Jun 2015 14:45:33 -0400, jmcquown >
> wrote:
> >
> > I don't need to know much about real estate to know I wouldn't even
> > consider buying that house. Can't fit the dining room table & chairs so
> > that's an immediate *bzzzzt.* Have to duck in the upstairs bedrooms
> > with slanted ceilings? No thanks. I also wouldn't want to have to deal
> > with a barn and outbuildings. I don't own livestock and never plan to.
> >
> Agree! Land is just land and that house is either a major remodel or
> it's a tear down (depending on who buys the property). Considering
> the age of the structure (fairly new) and where it's located, I vote
> for tear down. Property without a permanent structure can't be
> financed the same way a property with one is, so buildings (no matter
> how dilapidated) are often left standing just to attract a buyer and
> the property is sold for land value.

What major remodel does it require? Granted, at this stage of my
life I wouldn't buy a two-story house. But overall it seemed
adequate. The kitchen was far better than mine, and the
dining room might actually be a little bigger. That house was
2600 square feet. Mine is 1200.

Cindy Hamilton

On 6/1/2015 9:48 PM, Jeßus wrote:
> We have a segment of property euphemistically referred to as
> 'McMansions'. These houses are typically built in newer suburbs, and
> are massively oversized houses whose only purpose seems to be as
> status symbols.

Yes, we call them 'McMansions' here in the US, too. My middle brother
built a 'McMansion'. I have no idea why a single man would build a five
bedroom house but he did. He already had a very nice three bedroom
house in a good neighborhood. Seems it was all about keeping up with
the Joneses. Or perhaps keeping up with the people he worked with. His
boss's wife was an interior decorator. Yeah, the writing was on the
wall with that one. Must build a bigger house. And pay her to pick out
furnishings.

Jill

On 6/2/2015 1:19 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 2:00:16 AM UTC-4, sf wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 Jun 2015 14:45:33 -0400, jmcquown >
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't need to know much about real estate to know I wouldn't even
>>> consider buying that house. Can't fit the dining room table & chairs so
>>> that's an immediate *bzzzzt.* Have to duck in the upstairs bedrooms
>>> with slanted ceilings? No thanks. I also wouldn't want to have to deal
>>> with a barn and outbuildings. I don't own livestock and never plan to.
>>>
>> Agree! Land is just land and that house is either a major remodel or
>> it's a tear down (depending on who buys the property). Considering
>> the age of the structure (fairly new) and where it's located, I vote
>> for tear down. Property without a permanent structure can't be
>> financed the same way a property with one is, so buildings (no matter
>> how dilapidated) are often left standing just to attract a buyer and
>> the property is sold for land value.
>
> What major remodel does it require? Granted, at this stage of my
> life I wouldn't buy a two-story house. But overall it seemed
> adequate. The kitchen was far better than mine, and the
> dining room might actually be a little bigger. That house was
> 2600 square feet. Mine is 1200.
>
> Cindy Hamilton
>
I already explained what I don't care for about it. Personally, I don't
like houses with a bunch of small rooms. It appeared rather chopped up.
That style was early century farmhouse so it looked like something
from 1920 rather than 1986. My dining table wouldn't fit in that space.
I don't want to deal with mowing a lot of land or paying someone to
tear down (or restore) dilapidated outbuildings. I don't need them.
Everyone is different. That sort of country living is not my style. I
did say the kitchen was nice.

Jill
I also wouldn't want to deal

On 5/29/2015 9:38 PM, sf wrote:
> where I mentioned that median rents in SF were around $3500. Here's
> the latest: A new study by Zillow shows San Francisco's median rent
> is now $4,225 a month and rents throughout the Bay Area are up an
> average 15% over last year.
>
> GAG! I'm glad I own my own home and don't need to deal with that.
>
>

What in the world are these skyrocketing values doing to your property
taxes? Yikes.

On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 1:36:21 PM UTC-4, jmcquown wrote:
> On 6/2/2015 1:19 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 2:00:16 AM UTC-4, sf wrote:
> >> On Mon, 01 Jun 2015 14:45:33 -0400, jmcquown >
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I don't need to know much about real estate to know I wouldn't even
> >>> consider buying that house. Can't fit the dining room table & chairs so
> >>> that's an immediate *bzzzzt.* Have to duck in the upstairs bedrooms
> >>> with slanted ceilings? No thanks. I also wouldn't want to have to deal
> >>> with a barn and outbuildings. I don't own livestock and never plan to.
> >>>
> >> Agree! Land is just land and that house is either a major remodel or
> >> it's a tear down (depending on who buys the property). Considering
> >> the age of the structure (fairly new) and where it's located, I vote
> >> for tear down. Property without a permanent structure can't be
> >> financed the same way a property with one is, so buildings (no matter
> >> how dilapidated) are often left standing just to attract a buyer and
> >> the property is sold for land value.
> >
> > What major remodel does it require? Granted, at this stage of my
> > life I wouldn't buy a two-story house. But overall it seemed
> > adequate. The kitchen was far better than mine, and the
> > dining room might actually be a little bigger. That house was
> > 2600 square feet. Mine is 1200.
> >
> > Cindy Hamilton
> >
> I already explained what I don't care for about it. Personally, I don't
> like houses with a bunch of small rooms. It appeared rather chopped up.
> That style was early century farmhouse so it looked like something
> from 1920 rather than 1986. My dining table wouldn't fit in that space.
> I don't want to deal with mowing a lot of land or paying someone to
> tear down (or restore) dilapidated outbuildings. I don't need them.
> Everyone is different. That sort of country living is not my style. I
> did say the kitchen was nice.
>
> Jill
> I also wouldn't want to deal

Not every house is suitable for every person. For example, if one
prefers an open plan, then either buy a house that already has one,
or commit to remodeling.

My point was, I didn't see anything that would REQUIRE major remodeling.
It's optional. I'm sure someone will fall in love with
that house and buy it.

I swear, you and sf sound like Julie.

Cindy Hamilton

On Tue, 02 Jun 2015 12:49:45 -0500, Moe DeLoughan >
wrote:

> On 5/29/2015 9:38 PM, sf wrote:
> > where I mentioned that median rents in SF were around $3500. Here's
> > the latest: A new study by Zillow shows San Francisco's median rent
> > is now $4,225 a month and rents throughout the Bay Area are up an
> > average 15% over last year.
> >
> > GAG! I'm glad I own my own home and don't need to deal with that.
> >
> >
>
> What in the world are these skyrocketing values doing to your property
> taxes? Yikes.

Not a lot, thanks to prop 13. We (and the big businesses it was meant
to ultimately benefit) still haven't moved.

--

sf

On 6/2/2015 3:35 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 1:36:21 PM UTC-4, jmcquown wrote:
>> On 6/2/2015 1:19 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 2:00:16 AM UTC-4, sf wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 01 Jun 2015 14:45:33 -0400, jmcquown >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't need to know much about real estate to know I wouldn't even
>>>>> consider buying that house. Can't fit the dining room table & chairs so
>>>>> that's an immediate *bzzzzt.* Have to duck in the upstairs bedrooms
>>>>> with slanted ceilings? No thanks. I also wouldn't want to have to deal
>>>>> with a barn and outbuildings. I don't own livestock and never plan to.
>>>>>
>>>> Agree! Land is just land and that house is either a major remodel or
>>>> it's a tear down (depending on who buys the property). Considering
>>>> the age of the structure (fairly new) and where it's located, I vote
>>>> for tear down. Property without a permanent structure can't be
>>>> financed the same way a property with one is, so buildings (no matter
>>>> how dilapidated) are often left standing just to attract a buyer and
>>>> the property is sold for land value.
>>>
>>> What major remodel does it require? Granted, at this stage of my
>>> life I wouldn't buy a two-story house. But overall it seemed
>>> adequate. The kitchen was far better than mine, and the
>>> dining room might actually be a little bigger. That house was
>>> 2600 square feet. Mine is 1200.
>>>
>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>>
>> I already explained what I don't care for about it. Personally, I don't
>> like houses with a bunch of small rooms. It appeared rather chopped up.
>> That style was early century farmhouse so it looked like something
>> from 1920 rather than 1986. My dining table wouldn't fit in that space.
>> I don't want to deal with mowing a lot of land or paying someone to
>> tear down (or restore) dilapidated outbuildings. I don't need them.
>> Everyone is different. That sort of country living is not my style. I
>> did say the kitchen was nice.
>>
>> Jill
>> I also wouldn't want to deal
>
> Not every house is suitable for every person. For example, if one
> prefers an open plan, then either buy a house that already has one,
> or commit to remodeling.
>
> My point was, I didn't see anything that would REQUIRE major remodeling.
> It's optional. I'm sure someone will fall in love with
> that house and buy it.
>
> I swear, you and sf sound like Julie.
>
> Cindy Hamilton
>
Oh god, not that! The difference is we wouldn't buy it and then bitch
and moan about it.

Jill

On Tue, 02 Jun 2015 13:30:48 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

>On 6/1/2015 9:48 PM, Jeßus wrote:
>> We have a segment of property euphemistically referred to as
>> 'McMansions'. These houses are typically built in newer suburbs, and
>> are massively oversized houses whose only purpose seems to be as
>> status symbols.
>
>Yes, we call them 'McMansions' here in the US, too. My middle brother
>built a 'McMansion'. I have no idea why a single man would build a five
>bedroom house but he did.

Good grief. Was he expecting to start a family soon or what?

>He already had a very nice three bedroom
>house in a good neighborhood. Seems it was all about keeping up with
>the Joneses.

That's about all I can put it down to - keeping up with the Jones.

I have a cousin who is married with two kids, they have a Mcmansion
which is just huge. Whenever I am there, all I think about is the
extra cleaning, maintenance and running costs (such as heating or
cooling). The hallways alone take up a lot of area, with acres of
floor tiles to clean. It's pretty much everything I *don't* want in a
home.


>Or perhaps keeping up with the people he worked with. His
>boss's wife was an interior decorator. Yeah, the writing was on the
>wall with that one. Must build a bigger house. And pay her to pick out
>furnishings.

Great.

On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 4:41:43 PM UTC-4, jmcquown wrote:
> On 6/2/2015 3:35 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 1:36:21 PM UTC-4, jmcquown wrote:
> >> On 6/2/2015 1:19 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 2:00:16 AM UTC-4, sf wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 01 Jun 2015 14:45:33 -0400, jmcquown >
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't need to know much about real estate to know I wouldn't even
> >>>>> consider buying that house. Can't fit the dining room table & chairs so
> >>>>> that's an immediate *bzzzzt.* Have to duck in the upstairs bedrooms
> >>>>> with slanted ceilings? No thanks. I also wouldn't want to have to deal
> >>>>> with a barn and outbuildings. I don't own livestock and never plan to.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Agree! Land is just land and that house is either a major remodel or
> >>>> it's a tear down (depending on who buys the property). Considering
> >>>> the age of the structure (fairly new) and where it's located, I vote
> >>>> for tear down. Property without a permanent structure can't be
> >>>> financed the same way a property with one is, so buildings (no matter
> >>>> how dilapidated) are often left standing just to attract a buyer and
> >>>> the property is sold for land value.
> >>>
> >>> What major remodel does it require? Granted, at this stage of my
> >>> life I wouldn't buy a two-story house. But overall it seemed
> >>> adequate. The kitchen was far better than mine, and the
> >>> dining room might actually be a little bigger. That house was
> >>> 2600 square feet. Mine is 1200.
> >>>
> >>> Cindy Hamilton
> >>>
> >> I already explained what I don't care for about it. Personally, I don't
> >> like houses with a bunch of small rooms. It appeared rather chopped up.
> >> That style was early century farmhouse so it looked like something
> >> from 1920 rather than 1986. My dining table wouldn't fit in that space.
> >> I don't want to deal with mowing a lot of land or paying someone to
> >> tear down (or restore) dilapidated outbuildings. I don't need them.
> >> Everyone is different. That sort of country living is not my style. I
> >> did say the kitchen was nice.
> >>
> >> Jill
> >> I also wouldn't want to deal
> >
> > Not every house is suitable for every person. For example, if one
> > prefers an open plan, then either buy a house that already has one,
> > or commit to remodeling.
> >
> > My point was, I didn't see anything that would REQUIRE major remodeling.
> > It's optional. I'm sure someone will fall in love with
> > that house and buy it.
> >
> > I swear, you and sf sound like Julie.
> >
> > Cindy Hamilton
> >
> Oh god, not that! The difference is we wouldn't buy it and then bitch
> and moan about it.

You got me there. Conceded without argument.

Cindy Hamilton

On 6/2/2015 4:46 PM, Jeßus wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Jun 2015 13:30:48 -0400, jmcquown >
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/1/2015 9:48 PM, Jeßus wrote:
>>> We have a segment of property euphemistically referred to as
>>> 'McMansions'. These houses are typically built in newer suburbs, and
>>> are massively oversized houses whose only purpose seems to be as
>>> status symbols.
>>
>> Yes, we call them 'McMansions' here in the US, too. My middle brother
>> built a 'McMansion'. I have no idea why a single man would build a five
>> bedroom house but he did.
>
> Good grief. Was he expecting to start a family soon or what?
>
He didn't even have a girlfriend much less plans for a family.

> That's about all I can put it down to - keeping up with the Jones.
>
That's exactly what it was.

> I have a cousin who is married with two kids, they have a Mcmansion
> which is just huge. Whenever I am there, all I think about is the
> extra cleaning, maintenance and running costs (such as heating or
> cooling). The hallways alone take up a lot of area, with acres of
> floor tiles to clean. It's pretty much everything I *don't* want in a
> home.
>
I don't want to think about what it cost to heat & cool it.

To be honest, my house is too big for one person. But one of the 3
bedrooms is in use daily as a TV room/den. My desk is in the corner of
the "formal" living room, so that space also isn't a total waste. I
sleep in the master and use both bathrooms. It's also all one level, no
stairs to climb. My electric and water bills are not excessive.
They're about on par with what I paid in my 2 bedroom 2 bath apartment.
So yes, I make pretty good use of the space I have.

Jill

On Tue, 2 Jun 2015 12:35:29 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 1:36:21 PM UTC-4, jmcquown wrote:
>> On 6/2/2015 1:19 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 2:00:16 AM UTC-4, sf wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 01 Jun 2015 14:45:33 -0400, jmcquown >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I don't need to know much about real estate to know I wouldn't even
>> >>> consider buying that house. Can't fit the dining room table & chairs so
>> >>> that's an immediate *bzzzzt.* Have to duck in the upstairs bedrooms
>> >>> with slanted ceilings? No thanks. I also wouldn't want to have to deal
>> >>> with a barn and outbuildings. I don't own livestock and never plan to.
>> >>>
>> >> Agree! Land is just land and that house is either a major remodel or
>> >> it's a tear down (depending on who buys the property). Considering
>> >> the age of the structure (fairly new) and where it's located, I vote
>> >> for tear down. Property without a permanent structure can't be
>> >> financed the same way a property with one is, so buildings (no matter
>> >> how dilapidated) are often left standing just to attract a buyer and
>> >> the property is sold for land value.
>> >
>> > What major remodel does it require? Granted, at this stage of my
>> > life I wouldn't buy a two-story house. But overall it seemed
>> > adequate. The kitchen was far better than mine, and the
>> > dining room might actually be a little bigger. That house was
>> > 2600 square feet. Mine is 1200.
>> >
>> > Cindy Hamilton
>> >
>> I already explained what I don't care for about it. Personally, I don't
>> like houses with a bunch of small rooms. It appeared rather chopped up.
>> That style was early century farmhouse so it looked like something
>> from 1920 rather than 1986. My dining table wouldn't fit in that space.
>> I don't want to deal with mowing a lot of land or paying someone to
>> tear down (or restore) dilapidated outbuildings. I don't need them.
>> Everyone is different. That sort of country living is not my style. I
>> did say the kitchen was nice.
>>
>> Jill
>> I also wouldn't want to deal
>
>Not every house is suitable for every person. For example, if one
>prefers an open plan, then either buy a house that already has one,
>or commit to remodeling.
>
>My point was, I didn't see anything that would REQUIRE major remodeling.
>It's optional. I'm sure someone will fall in love with
>that house and buy it.
>
>I swear, you and sf sound like Julie.
>
>Cindy Hamilton

Two imbeciles who know absolutely ZERO about real estate, one has a
husband who bought her a house or she'd be homeless, the other
fortunately inherited a house or she'd either be homeless or go back
to selling her ass to pay rent, not that at her age now her ass is
worth enough to pay rent. There's not a thing wrong with that house,
a three bedroom three full bath house at 2,600 sq ft it's rooms are
large, and it's a contemporary built at a time when there were still
skilled home builders... it's also in an excellent location... neither
of those pinheads can afford to buy that house, or any house on their
own... the two together couldn't afford more than a corrugated carton
under bridge. There are many useless low/no earner kept wimmins like
them who boast about granite someone else paid for who would otherwise
reside in an abused women's homeless shelter. Were I younger and
looking for a home and didn't mind stairs I'd buy that property... I'd
not be surprised if it's already sold.

Anyway, that's a great property, it will sell for two, maybe three
times that price when that no marketable skills obamination economy
ruination creep is history... the Flubadub would make a better
Comander In Chief.

"Cindy Hamilton" > wrote in message
...
> On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 1:36:21 PM UTC-4, jmcquown wrote:
>> On 6/2/2015 1:19 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 2:00:16 AM UTC-4, sf wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 01 Jun 2015 14:45:33 -0400, jmcquown >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I don't need to know much about real estate to know I wouldn't even
>> >>> consider buying that house. Can't fit the dining room table & chairs
>> >>> so
>> >>> that's an immediate *bzzzzt.* Have to duck in the upstairs bedrooms
>> >>> with slanted ceilings? No thanks. I also wouldn't want to have to
>> >>> deal
>> >>> with a barn and outbuildings. I don't own livestock and never plan
>> >>> to.
>> >>>
>> >> Agree! Land is just land and that house is either a major remodel or
>> >> it's a tear down (depending on who buys the property). Considering
>> >> the age of the structure (fairly new) and where it's located, I vote
>> >> for tear down. Property without a permanent structure can't be
>> >> financed the same way a property with one is, so buildings (no matter
>> >> how dilapidated) are often left standing just to attract a buyer and
>> >> the property is sold for land value.
>> >
>> > What major remodel does it require? Granted, at this stage of my
>> > life I wouldn't buy a two-story house. But overall it seemed
>> > adequate. The kitchen was far better than mine, and the
>> > dining room might actually be a little bigger. That house was
>> > 2600 square feet. Mine is 1200.
>> >
>> > Cindy Hamilton
>> >
>> I already explained what I don't care for about it. Personally, I don't
>> like houses with a bunch of small rooms. It appeared rather chopped up.
>> That style was early century farmhouse so it looked like something
>> from 1920 rather than 1986. My dining table wouldn't fit in that space.
>> I don't want to deal with mowing a lot of land or paying someone to
>> tear down (or restore) dilapidated outbuildings. I don't need them.
>> Everyone is different. That sort of country living is not my style. I
>> did say the kitchen was nice.
>>
>> Jill
>> I also wouldn't want to deal
>
> Not every house is suitable for every person. For example, if one
> prefers an open plan, then either buy a house that already has one,
> or commit to remodeling.
>
> My point was, I didn't see anything that would REQUIRE major remodeling.
> It's optional. I'm sure someone will fall in love with
> that house and buy it.
>
> I swear, you and sf sound like Julie.

Oh please!

On 6/2/2015 5:57 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Jun 2015 12:35:29 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> > wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 1:36:21 PM UTC-4, jmcquown wrote:
>>> On 6/2/2015 1:19 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 2:00:16 AM UTC-4, sf wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 01 Jun 2015 14:45:33 -0400, jmcquown >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't need to know much about real estate to know I wouldn't even
>>>>>> consider buying that house. Can't fit the dining room table & chairs so
>>>>>> that's an immediate *bzzzzt.* Have to duck in the upstairs bedrooms
>>>>>> with slanted ceilings? No thanks. I also wouldn't want to have to deal
>>>>>> with a barn and outbuildings. I don't own livestock and never plan to.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Agree! Land is just land and that house is either a major remodel or
>>>>> it's a tear down (depending on who buys the property). Considering
>>>>> the age of the structure (fairly new) and where it's located, I vote
>>>>> for tear down. Property without a permanent structure can't be
>>>>> financed the same way a property with one is, so buildings (no matter
>>>>> how dilapidated) are often left standing just to attract a buyer and
>>>>> the property is sold for land value.
>>>>
>>>> What major remodel does it require? Granted, at this stage of my
>>>> life I wouldn't buy a two-story house. But overall it seemed
>>>> adequate. The kitchen was far better than mine, and the
>>>> dining room might actually be a little bigger. That house was
>>>> 2600 square feet. Mine is 1200.
>>>>
>>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>>>
>>> I already explained what I don't care for about it. Personally, I don't
>>> like houses with a bunch of small rooms. It appeared rather chopped up.
>>> That style was early century farmhouse so it looked like something
>>> from 1920 rather than 1986. My dining table wouldn't fit in that space.
>>> I don't want to deal with mowing a lot of land or paying someone to
>>> tear down (or restore) dilapidated outbuildings. I don't need them.
>>> Everyone is different. That sort of country living is not my style. I
>>> did say the kitchen was nice.
>>>
>>> Jill

> Two imbeciles who know absolutely ZERO about real estate, one has a
> husband who bought her a house or she'd be homeless, the other
> fortunately inherited a house or she'd either be homeless or go back
> to selling

<snip crude lies>

I sure as hell don't want to be your neighbor, Sheldon. I'm definitely
not buying acres of land just so I can post pictures of a tractor.

Jill

On 5/30/2015 7:54 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> On Fri, 29 May 2015 19:38:42 -0700, sf > wrote:
>
>> where I mentioned that median rents in SF were around $3500. Here's
>> the latest: A new study by Zillow shows San Francisco's median rent
>> is now $4,225 a month and rents throughout the Bay Area are up an
>> average 15% over last year.
>>
>> GAG! I'm glad I own my own home and don't need to deal with that.
>>
>
> Wages must be very good in that area. In many places people buy a
> decent house and don't even earn $4225 a month.
>
That always made me sad for my sister. Her credit was very bad and at
the end she had to have a co-signer, but she paid about 2x for rent on a
condo that I pay in mortgage for a house.

--
ღ.¸¸.œ«*¨`*œ¶
Cheryl

On 5/30/2015 9:14 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:

> Most people don't exert much effort into real estate hunting... where
> I live if one put in the effort there are very nice homes on large
> properties, just have to be ready to move fast, found this listing
> yesterday near where I have acreage, an excellent location:
> http://peakrealtyny.idxbroker.com/id.../56-PANTING-RD

It's really beautiful except for the stuffed heads. It makes me want to
sell and move in a heartbeat, but I doubt I'd get the same pay up there.

--
ღ.¸¸.œ«*¨`*œ¶
Cheryl

On 6/2/2015 1:49 PM, Moe DeLoughan wrote:
> On 5/29/2015 9:38 PM, sf wrote:
>> where I mentioned that median rents in SF were around $3500. Here's
>> the latest: A new study by Zillow shows San Francisco's median rent
>> is now $4,225 a month and rents throughout the Bay Area are up an
>> average 15% over last year.
>>
>> GAG! I'm glad I own my own home and don't need to deal with that.
>>
>>
>
> What in the world are these skyrocketing values doing to your property
> taxes? Yikes.

If the property value goes up, the tax rate comes down. The budget
determines that. Individual properties may fluctuate the value increase
though.

On Tue, 02 Jun 2015 20:45:15 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

> > Two imbeciles who know absolutely ZERO about real estate, one has a
> > husband who bought her a house or she'd be homeless, the other
> > fortunately inherited a house or she'd either be homeless or go back
> > to selling
>
> <snip crude lies>

You didn't snip all of the lies.

--

sf

On Fri, 29 May 2015 19:38:42 -0700, sf > wrote:

>where I mentioned that median rents in SF were around $3500. Here's
>the latest: A new study by Zillow shows San Francisco's median rent
>is now $4,225 a month and rents throughout the Bay Area are up an
>average 15% over last year.
>
>GAG! I'm glad I own my own home and don't need to deal with that.
>

You read a story like the following link will take you to, and you say
to yourself, how can people go through life and be so incredibly
stupid by the time they reach retirement age? Some of them act like
they are playing the lottery with their homes.


http://bigstory.ap.org/article/39c19...d-housing-debt


Obviously, the Bankers act like pigs at the trough writing mortgages
to people who clearly are not qualified for the loans. If we put a few
thousand mortgage bankers in the Federal Penetentiary for 50 years
without possibility of parole, some of this idiotic monetary policy
will cease.


William

On 6/3/2015 8:35 AM, William wrote:

> You read a story like the following link will take you to, and you say
> to yourself, how can people go through life and be so incredibly
> stupid by the time they reach retirement age? Some of them act like
> they are playing the lottery with their homes.
>
>
> http://bigstory.ap.org/article/39c19...d-housing-debt
>
>
> Obviously, the Bankers act like pigs at the trough writing mortgages
> to people who clearly are not qualified for the loans. If we put a few
> thousand mortgage bankers in the Federal Penetentiary for 50 years
> without possibility of parole, some of this idiotic monetary policy
> will cease.
>
>
> William
>
>

Some is the fault of greedy bankers. Some is the fault of mortgage
brokers that lied about the applicants income. Most of the fault is the
homeowners that looked at their house as an ATM and kept taking cash
out. It was so easy to get a home equity loan or line of credit.

I'm not a financial wizard, but I did know that the house should be paid
for before retirement age and to be essentially debt free. It is dumb to
take equity money for a 2 week vacation and pay it back with interest
over the nest 10 or 20 years, but people did thing like that.

On 3/06/2015 10:58 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 6/3/2015 8:35 AM, William wrote:
>
>> You read a story like the following link will take you to, and you say
>> to yourself, how can people go through life and be so incredibly
>> stupid by the time they reach retirement age? Some of them act like
>> they are playing the lottery with their homes.
>>
>>
>> http://bigstory.ap.org/article/39c19...d-housing-debt
>>
>>
>>
>> Obviously, the Bankers act like pigs at the trough writing mortgages
>> to people who clearly are not qualified for the loans. If we put a few
>> thousand mortgage bankers in the Federal Penetentiary for 50 years
>> without possibility of parole, some of this idiotic monetary policy
>> will cease.
>>
>>
>> William
>>
>>
>
> Some is the fault of greedy bankers. Some is the fault of mortgage
> brokers that lied about the applicants income. Most of the fault is the
> homeowners that looked at their house as an ATM and kept taking cash
> out. It was so easy to get a home equity loan or line of credit.
>
> I'm not a financial wizard, but I did know that the house should be paid
> for before retirement age and to be essentially debt free. It is dumb to
> take equity money for a 2 week vacation and pay it back with interest
> over the nest 10 or 20 years, but people did thing like that.

People are still doing that! A couple we know borrowed $100,000 some 20
years back. They *still* owe $200,000 on the house now! As you
suggested, they used it as an ATM. The husband is now about 70 and still
has to work. His wife, who is about 55, is also working and it looks
like they will never be able to pay it off.

Two things here.. People need to learn how to set priorities. Then they
need to learn how to stick to their goals. When I borrowed money for a
housing loan in 1986, my critical priority was to get the housing loan
paid off. That was achieved in 13 years. By the way, we bought the bare
minimum that suited our needs - a small timber cottage. No McMansion for
us. Along the way we also invested in another house in a nearby street.
That one, whilst not a startling performer in the investment stakes,
took care of itself and, given recent rampant increases in house prices,
looks like it might turn out to be a capital gains win.

Bought an investment unit in 2000 which we sold in 2003 for a modest
gain. We have also sold our primary residence twice now, each time
getting a newer and larger house.

Sounds easy, doesn't it? Well, just after we bought our first home,
interest rates climbed through the roof during the 90s and, in order to
maintain our roof over our head, I took on part time jobs. When other
people were losing their homes, we managed to keep ours. Had I been
forced to sell, We would not be homeowners today.

One more thing people of today would be wise to do. That is, *buy what
you need*! Instead, too many people, the young especially, buy what they
want and, as always, what they want is way above their needs and their
affordability range.

We could have bought as our first home a nice new 4 bedroom brick home
in a new suburb as so many of our friends did. Instead we bought a run
down 2 bedroom timber cottage in need of renovation in a leafy
established urban area. We couldn't even afford to do any renovations
for 16 years until we had paid the mortgage off and divested ourselves
of the investment unit. We spent a mere $20,000 on renovating our home
over a two year span and sold it for 4.5 times more than we paid for it.
One of our friends who bought a nice new 4 bedroom home in a new suburb
didn't even make three times their original buy price when they sold
after a similar span of time and they spent a hell of a lot more on
extensions to their house - double garage, extra bedroom, etc.

Buy what you need and can afford, set priorities and stick to goals.
Simple? Obviously not given the number of people under mortgage stress
these days!

--

Xeno.

On 02/06/2015 9:50 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 6/2/2015 1:49 PM, Moe DeLoughan wrote:
>> On 5/29/2015 9:38 PM, sf wrote:
>>> where I mentioned that median rents in SF were around $3500. Here's
>>> the latest: A new study by Zillow shows San Francisco's median rent
>>> is now $4,225 a month and rents throughout the Bay Area are up an
>>> average 15% over last year.
>>>
>>> GAG! I'm glad I own my own home and don't need to deal with that.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> What in the world are these skyrocketing values doing to your property
>> taxes? Yikes.
>
> If the property value goes up, the tax rate comes down.

The taxes here are based on the market value of the property on June 1st
of the previous year. With the setbacks in the oil industry, my house
has dropped in value since then.
Graham

On 03/06/2015 6:58 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 6/3/2015 8:35 AM, William wrote:
>
>> You read a story like the following link will take you to, and you say
>> to yourself, how can people go through life and be so incredibly
>> stupid by the time they reach retirement age? Some of them act like
>> they are playing the lottery with their homes.
>>
>>
>> http://bigstory.ap.org/article/39c19...d-housing-debt
>>
>>
>>
>> Obviously, the Bankers act like pigs at the trough writing mortgages
>> to people who clearly are not qualified for the loans. If we put a few
>> thousand mortgage bankers in the Federal Penetentiary for 50 years
>> without possibility of parole, some of this idiotic monetary policy
>> will cease.
>>
>>
>> William
>>
>>
>
> Some is the fault of greedy bankers. Some is the fault of mortgage
> brokers that lied about the applicants income. Most of the fault is the
> homeowners that looked at their house as an ATM and kept taking cash
> out. It was so easy to get a home equity loan or line of credit.
>
I occasionally listen to a talk radio station and am pi$$ed off by the
number
of ads from home equity loan companies aimed at less well off, getting them
ever deeper into debt.
Graham

On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 08:35:07 -0400, William > wrote:

> Obviously, the Bankers act like pigs at the trough writing mortgages
> to people who clearly are not qualified for the loans. If we put a few
> thousand mortgage bankers in the Federal Penetentiary for 50 years
> without possibility of parole, some of this idiotic monetary policy
> will cease.

We baled out the Wall Street whales and they're back at it again.

--

sf

"Xeno" > wrote in message
...
> On 3/06/2015 10:58 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 6/3/2015 8:35 AM, William wrote:
>>
>>> You read a story like the following link will take you to, and you say
>>> to yourself, how can people go through life and be so incredibly
>>> stupid by the time they reach retirement age? Some of them act like
>>> they are playing the lottery with their homes.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://bigstory.ap.org/article/39c19...d-housing-debt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Obviously, the Bankers act like pigs at the trough writing mortgages
>>> to people who clearly are not qualified for the loans. If we put a few
>>> thousand mortgage bankers in the Federal Penetentiary for 50 years
>>> without possibility of parole, some of this idiotic monetary policy
>>> will cease.
>>>
>>>
>>> William
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Some is the fault of greedy bankers. Some is the fault of mortgage
>> brokers that lied about the applicants income. Most of the fault is the
>> homeowners that looked at their house as an ATM and kept taking cash
>> out. It was so easy to get a home equity loan or line of credit.
>>
>> I'm not a financial wizard, but I did know that the house should be paid
>> for before retirement age and to be essentially debt free. It is dumb to
>> take equity money for a 2 week vacation and pay it back with interest
>> over the nest 10 or 20 years, but people did thing like that.
>
> People are still doing that! A couple we know borrowed $100,000 some 20
> years back. They *still* owe $200,000 on the house now! As you suggested,
> they used it as an ATM. The husband is now about 70 and still has to work.
> His wife, who is about 55, is also working and it looks like they will
> never be able to pay it off.

We bought our house so late in life we probably will never pay it off. But
we couldn't have bought a house any sooner because of my husband having to
move so frequently.
>
> Two things here.. People need to learn how to set priorities. Then they
> need to learn how to stick to their goals. When I borrowed money for a
> housing loan in 1986, my critical priority was to get the housing loan
> paid off. That was achieved in 13 years. By the way, we bought the bare
> minimum that suited our needs - a small timber cottage. No McMansion for
> us. Along the way we also invested in another house in a nearby street.
> That one, whilst not a startling performer in the investment stakes, took
> care of itself and, given recent rampant increases in house prices, looks
> like it might turn out to be a capital gains win.
>
> Bought an investment unit in 2000 which we sold in 2003 for a modest gain.
> We have also sold our primary residence twice now, each time getting a
> newer and larger house.
>
> Sounds easy, doesn't it? Well, just after we bought our first home,
> interest rates climbed through the roof during the 90s and, in order to
> maintain our roof over our head, I took on part time jobs. When other
> people were losing their homes, we managed to keep ours. Had I been forced
> to sell, We would not be homeowners today.
>
> One more thing people of today would be wise to do. That is, *buy what you
> need*! Instead, too many people, the young especially, buy what they want
> and, as always, what they want is way above their needs and their
> affordability range.

Oh gawd! There is a Bothell community group on Facebook. At least once a
week, a young person will post that they are moving out and they need...and
then they post a list of all the things that they need. They don't want to
buy them. They want these things to be given to them. Furniture, dishes,
you name it! Sometimes they aren't picky. But a recent list included a
cream colored bedroom set and espresso colored living room furniture.
Another woman asked for beds and other things for her kids, for free and in
excellent condition. The weird thing is that they often *get* these things!
When I moved out, I had my bed, dresser, some floor pillows and kitchen
things.
>
> We could have bought as our first home a nice new 4 bedroom brick home in
> a new suburb as so many of our friends did. Instead we bought a run down 2
> bedroom timber cottage in need of renovation in a leafy established urban
> area. We couldn't even afford to do any renovations for 16 years until we
> had paid the mortgage off and divested ourselves of the investment unit.
> We spent a mere $20,000 on renovating our home over a two year span and
> sold it for 4.5 times more than we paid for it. One of our friends who
> bought a nice new 4 bedroom home in a new suburb didn't even make three
> times their original buy price when they sold after a similar span of time
> and they spent a hell of a lot more on extensions to their house - double
> garage, extra bedroom, etc.
>
> Buy what you need and can afford, set priorities and stick to goals.
> Simple? Obviously not given the number of people under mortgage stress
> these days!

These days, younger people want it all and want it now.

On Tue, 02 Jun 2015 17:07:12 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

<major snippage>

>To be honest, my house is too big for one person. But one of the 3
>bedrooms is in use daily as a TV room/den. My desk is in the corner of
>the "formal" living room, so that space also isn't a total waste. I
>sleep in the master and use both bathrooms. It's also all one level, no
>stairs to climb.

I live alone most of the time and my house is pretty much just right
for me in terms of size. Three bedrooms and on the small side, really.
Easy to keep warm in winter. It does have a large kitchen though, and
that was one of the things that sold me on the place.

>My electric and water bills are not excessive.
>They're about on par with what I paid in my 2 bedroom 2 bath apartment.
> So yes, I make pretty good use of the space I have.

Sounds like it is working well for you.
I haven't seen a water or electricity bill in years

On 03/06/2015 4:39 PM, wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Jun 2015 17:07:12 -0400, jmcquown >
> wrote:
>
> <major snippage>
>
>> To be honest, my house is too big for one person. But one of the 3
>> bedrooms is in use daily as a TV room/den. My desk is in the corner of
>> the "formal" living room, so that space also isn't a total waste. I
>> sleep in the master and use both bathrooms. It's also all one level, no
>> stairs to climb.
>
> I live alone most of the time and my house is pretty much just right
> for me in terms of size. Three bedrooms and on the small side, really.
> Easy to keep warm in winter. It does have a large kitchen though, and
> that was one of the things that sold me on the place.
>
>> My electric and water bills are not excessive.
>> They're about on par with what I paid in my 2 bedroom 2 bath apartment.
>> So yes, I make pretty good use of the space I have.
>
> Sounds like it is working well for you.
> I haven't seen a water or electricity bill in years
>
Mine is way too big for one person but I kept it after divorce and I use
2 bedrooms as offices. Apart from the stress of downsizing, I wouldn't
save a helluva lot on taxes and utilities. A small bungalow would be
preferable, renovated to have a super kitchen. There's no way I ever
want to share a wall with others so a condo is out.
Graham

--

On Tue, 02 Jun 2015 22:57:51 -0400, Cheryl >
wrote:

>On 5/30/2015 9:14 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
>> Most people don't exert much effort into real estate hunting... where
>> I live if one put in the effort there are very nice homes on large
>> properties, just have to be ready to move fast, found this listing
>> yesterday near where I have acreage, an excellent location:
>> http://peakrealtyny.idxbroker.com/id.../56-PANTING-RD
>
>It's really beautiful except for the stuffed heads. It makes me want to
>sell and move in a heartbeat, but I doubt I'd get the same pay up there.

Albany is the state capital with lots of all kinds of industry... pay
is better than in and around most large cities... that property is
only a straight half hour drive from downtown. I live a little more
than an hour away and many of my neighbors commute into Albany for
work, all kinds of jobs. NY's Capital district is booming... that
corridor between downtown and northwestern Albany county is where all
the professionals are now residing, as the farmers leave they move in.
I bought 91 acres of the most pristine farmland in Knox, it's the
highest point in the county with views that go on forever...
http://i61.tinypic.com/256usdc.jpg

On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 16:47:25 -0600, graham > wrote:

>On 03/06/2015 4:39 PM, wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Jun 2015 17:07:12 -0400, jmcquown >
>> wrote:
>>
>> <major snippage>
>>
>>> To be honest, my house is too big for one person. But one of the 3
>>> bedrooms is in use daily as a TV room/den. My desk is in the corner of
>>> the "formal" living room, so that space also isn't a total waste. I
>>> sleep in the master and use both bathrooms. It's also all one level, no
>>> stairs to climb.
>>
>> I live alone most of the time and my house is pretty much just right
>> for me in terms of size. Three bedrooms and on the small side, really.
>> Easy to keep warm in winter. It does have a large kitchen though, and
>> that was one of the things that sold me on the place.
>>
>>> My electric and water bills are not excessive.
>>> They're about on par with what I paid in my 2 bedroom 2 bath apartment.
>>> So yes, I make pretty good use of the space I have.
>>
>> Sounds like it is working well for you.
>> I haven't seen a water or electricity bill in years
>>
>Mine is way too big for one person but I kept it after divorce and I use
>2 bedrooms as offices. Apart from the stress of downsizing, I wouldn't
>save a helluva lot on taxes and utilities. A small bungalow would be
>preferable, renovated to have a super kitchen.

Yes, it may not be worth all the upheaval to move to a smaller place,
and financially you wouldn't be much better off (as you mention).

>There's no way I ever
>want to share a wall with others so a condo is out.

Been there and done that in the past, you always have to be mindful
about noise. Since moving here seven years ago, I've gotten back into
hifi and consequently fairly loud music at times, which is not a
problem here (no neighbours within earshot). It's great to be able to
do that again, although not so great for the bank balance.

On Wed, 3 Jun 2015 15:35:51 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>We bought our house so late in life we probably will never pay it off. But
>we couldn't have bought a house any sooner because of my husband having to
>move so frequently.

What happened to your husband's income during those years? No savings
to purchase outright or at least keep any borrowing to a minimum?
Didn't you say previously that you own a 2014 model car?
If so, I think I see the problem...

>These days, younger people want it all and want it now.

Your post suggests it isn't just young people.

"Jeßus" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 3 Jun 2015 15:35:51 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>>We bought our house so late in life we probably will never pay it off.
>>But
>>we couldn't have bought a house any sooner because of my husband having to
>>move so frequently.
>
> What happened to your husband's income during those years? No savings
> to purchase outright or at least keep any borrowing to a minimum?
> Didn't you say previously that you own a 2014 model car?
> If so, I think I see the problem...

What happened to his income? He was in the military. He was paid well but
we are certainly not wealthy in any way shape or form. And the VA still
owes us a substantial sum of money that I've been told we might never get.
We also had to keep a cushion of money because we had to pay OOP for things
that we eventually got paid back for but that could take months. For
instance, when we first moved here, our prescriptions for a month cost over
$2,000. I had to pay OOP for that and wait to get paid back for it. Yes,
we have insurance but at least at that point in time when a military person
moved from one area to another, that was what happened until all of the
paperwork had been put in place at the new duty station. I think things
have changed since. At least before I left NY, they had a meeting with the
spouses and we were told that they were taking steps so that would no longer
happen. And cross country moves are not cheap either.

Also, my husband had to move to CA and also NY for work while we stayed here
in WA.

Yes, I have a bare bones 2014 car. I had to have a vehicle right away and
at the time, that was cheaper than buying a slightly newer, used car. Yes,
I could have gotten something cheaper from my BIL but he is in PA and to get
a car from PA to WA is a problem. Also a problem, the rust that comes from
a car that has been in PA. Cars that come from here do not rust out like
that because we don't salt our roads here. Rust was a big problem with my
van. This is the first brand new car I have ever owned and I am 55! I
didn't even want a new car. I have never wanted a new one. But there were
no used cars that fit my parameters in my price range at the time that I
needed a car. And I didn't have the time to wait and try to find something
different. I am disabled and we're not on a bus route. So a care is
necessary for me.
>
>>These days, younger people want it all and want it now.
>
> Your post suggests it isn't just young people.

Hardly.

On Wed, 3 Jun 2015 19:00:04 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>the VA still owes us a substantial sum of money that I've been told we might never get.

I have a really hard time wrapping my head around the fact that THE
GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD might screw veterans out of money owed
to them.

Can someone explain this please?

Doris

"Doris Night" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 3 Jun 2015 19:00:04 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>>the VA still owes us a substantial sum of money that I've been told we
>>might never get.
>
> I have a really hard time wrapping my head around the fact that THE
> GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD might screw veterans out of money owed
> to them.
>
> Can someone explain this please?
>
> Doris

OMG. Seriously? Is that not on your news over there? I don't think
anybody here can explain it. We just know that it is. This won't
necessarily explain it but here are some links.

http://cironline.org/reports/map-whe...log-worst-3792

http://www.cbsnews.com/feature/va-hospitals-scandal/

On 4/06/2015 8:35 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>
> "Xeno" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 3/06/2015 10:58 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 6/3/2015 8:35 AM, William wrote:
>>>
>>>> You read a story like the following link will take you to, and you say
>>>> to yourself, how can people go through life and be so incredibly
>>>> stupid by the time they reach retirement age? Some of them act like
>>>> they are playing the lottery with their homes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://bigstory.ap.org/article/39c19...d-housing-debt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Obviously, the Bankers act like pigs at the trough writing mortgages
>>>> to people who clearly are not qualified for the loans. If we put a few
>>>> thousand mortgage bankers in the Federal Penetentiary for 50 years
>>>> without possibility of parole, some of this idiotic monetary policy
>>>> will cease.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> William
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Some is the fault of greedy bankers. Some is the fault of mortgage
>>> brokers that lied about the applicants income. Most of the fault is the
>>> homeowners that looked at their house as an ATM and kept taking cash
>>> out. It was so easy to get a home equity loan or line of credit.
>>>
>>> I'm not a financial wizard, but I did know that the house should be paid
>>> for before retirement age and to be essentially debt free. It is dumb to
>>> take equity money for a 2 week vacation and pay it back with interest
>>> over the nest 10 or 20 years, but people did thing like that.
>>
>> People are still doing that! A couple we know borrowed $100,000 some
>> 20 years back. They *still* owe $200,000 on the house now! As you
>> suggested, they used it as an ATM. The husband is now about 70 and
>> still has to work. His wife, who is about 55, is also working and it
>> looks like they will never be able to pay it off.
>
> We bought our house so late in life we probably will never pay it off.
> But we couldn't have bought a house any sooner because of my husband
> having to move so frequently.

That's a bit of a furphy. You could have just as easily bought an
investment property, rented it out and allowed it to pay itself off, for
the most part, then moved in when your "moving" circumstances altered
and allowed it. That would have allowed you to keep up with the housing
market.
>>
>> Two things here.. People need to learn how to set priorities. Then
>> they need to learn how to stick to their goals. When I borrowed money
>> for a housing loan in 1986, my critical priority was to get the
>> housing loan paid off. That was achieved in 13 years. By the way, we
>> bought the bare minimum that suited our needs - a small timber
>> cottage. No McMansion for us. Along the way we also invested in
>> another house in a nearby street. That one, whilst not a startling
>> performer in the investment stakes, took care of itself and, given
>> recent rampant increases in house prices, looks like it might turn out
>> to be a capital gains win.
>>
>> Bought an investment unit in 2000 which we sold in 2003 for a modest
>> gain. We have also sold our primary residence twice now, each time
>> getting a newer and larger house.
>>
>> Sounds easy, doesn't it? Well, just after we bought our first home,
>> interest rates climbed through the roof during the 90s and, in order
>> to maintain our roof over our head, I took on part time jobs. When
>> other people were losing their homes, we managed to keep ours. Had I
>> been forced to sell, We would not be homeowners today.
>>
>> One more thing people of today would be wise to do. That is, *buy what
>> you need*! Instead, too many people, the young especially, buy what
>> they want and, as always, what they want is way above their needs and
>> their affordability range.
>
> Oh gawd! There is a Bothell community group on Facebook. At least once
> a week, a young person will post that they are moving out and they
> need...and then they post a list of all the things that they need. They
> don't want to buy them. They want these things to be given to them.
> Furniture, dishes, you name it! Sometimes they aren't picky. But a
> recent list included a cream colored bedroom set and espresso colored
> living room furniture. Another woman asked for beds and other things for
> her kids, for free and in excellent condition. The weird thing is that
> they often *get* these things! When I moved out, I had my bed, dresser,
> some floor pillows and kitchen things.

When I moved out at age 21 I took nothing from home with me apart from
what was mine. Besides, I was traveling and that type of accoutrement
was more than a little difficult to carry. When I married at age 28 and
settled down, my mother gave me a few items of cutlery, crockery and
some beaten up old pots and pans. That was it. We STILL have many of
those items of cutlery in our day to day use drawer. When we married I
bought some cheap furniture at a sale and had an old dining table given
to us. The cheap chairs didn't last but the dining table was with us
until we moved in here 2 years ago. I tried to give it away but had not
takers so I eventually cut it up. We borrowed a fridge for the first
year and bought a new one in 1987. We still had that fridge until the
27/05/2015. Yes, just a few days back! The old fridge, a Kelvinator, was
still working after 34 years but its time was nigh. It was not an auto
defrost so was a pain since moving here into this high humidity area and
required a manual defrost every month or so. As well, it was showing
signs of needing new capacitors in the compressor and was losing
efficiency. I had to keep the temp setting at 8.5 on a scale of 9 just
to keep icecream from getting mushy so that told me our old faithful
fridge had earned its retirement (recycling).

I have never been one to buy new where SH was just as good nor have I
been one to toss out appliances and the like that are still serviceable.
>>
>> We could have bought as our first home a nice new 4 bedroom brick home
>> in a new suburb as so many of our friends did. Instead we bought a run
>> down 2 bedroom timber cottage in need of renovation in a leafy
>> established urban area. We couldn't even afford to do any renovations
>> for 16 years until we had paid the mortgage off and divested ourselves
>> of the investment unit. We spent a mere $20,000 on renovating our home
>> over a two year span and sold it for 4.5 times more than we paid for
>> it. One of our friends who bought a nice new 4 bedroom home in a new
>> suburb didn't even make three times their original buy price when they
>> sold after a similar span of time and they spent a hell of a lot more
>> on extensions to their house - double garage, extra bedroom, etc.
>>
>> Buy what you need and can afford, set priorities and stick to goals.
>> Simple? Obviously not given the number of people under mortgage stress
>> these days!
>
> These days, younger people want it all and want it now.

Blame the marketing gurus for that. They have it down to a fine art,
brand image and all that! ;-)

--

Xeno.

On Wed, 3 Jun 2015 15:35:51 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

> These days, younger people want it all and want it now.

That's fine if they can afford it. I bought a house I knew I could
die in - minimal steps to the front door, master bedroom on the main
floor, space between houses (this is San Francisco, so that's
unusual). I got it all. I had to give up "sunshine", but that was
the trade off. All in all, it was a good choice. We lived off one
paycheck for a couple of years, in a very nice, but not very expensive
apartment a block away from where my husband worked and had only one
car. We walked to restaurants. Nice area for the newly married and
we saved a lot of money so we could put 20% down on a house.

Remodeling is "the money pit". No matter what you do, you could have
spent more and done it better. The reality is that no matter how much
you spend, 15-25 years later: it will be out of date and you'll have
to do it all over again.

--

sf

On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 22:48:07 -0400, Doris Night
> wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Jun 2015 19:00:04 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
> >the VA still owes us a substantial sum of money that I've been told we might never get.
>
> I have a really hard time wrapping my head around the fact that THE
> GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD might screw veterans out of money owed
> to them.
>
> Can someone explain this please?
>
Ask the Republicans. They screw Vets out of medical services too.


--

sf

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 3 Jun 2015 15:35:51 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>> These days, younger people want it all and want it now.
>
> That's fine if they can afford it. I bought a house I knew I could
> die in - minimal steps to the front door, master bedroom on the main
> floor, space between houses (this is San Francisco, so that's
> unusual). I got it all. I had to give up "sunshine", but that was
> the trade off. All in all, it was a good choice. We lived off one
> paycheck for a couple of years, in a very nice, but not very expensive
> apartment a block away from where my husband worked and had only one
> car. We walked to restaurants. Nice area for the newly married and
> we saved a lot of money so we could put 20% down on a house.
>
> Remodeling is "the money pit". No matter what you do, you could have
> spent more and done it better. The reality is that no matter how much
> you spend, 15-25 years later: it will be out of date and you'll have
> to do it all over again.

Yep. This house does leave some to be desired but there are no stairs and
that was the big thing for me. I can't tell you how many times I've heard
people complain about their house. The one they bought with the stairs.
The stairs they have trouble with when they are older. I was already having
trouble with stairs and I know I won't get any younger.