All Forum Posts by: John Clark

This whole mess will be tied up in courts for years , between insurance companies , environmental groups , homeowners , it will just drag on . Anyone with insurance will be smart and take the money , sell the lot and move on .

Can’t sell before clean up, Matthew, no one will buy a toxic waste site.

You are absolutely right, though, the whole thing will take years to play out.

Wrong John, yet again.....

You really don't know a single thing about Real Estate do you John?

YES, a person CAN sell without total site cleanup from a house fire. FACTS.

Oh, they can sell, Jim, just like one can sell "subject to." Who, though, is going to buy, and at what price, before clean up?

0 Votes

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @Matthew Paul:

@John Clark There isnt much left thats toxic , it all went into the atmosphere .

Not an expert here but my Brother is a heavy equipment operator in Northern CA and did a lot of the fire clean up when those fires happened and he mentioned contractor might need hazard waste removal license.. FWIW

Jay, please tell that to Jim, whose unicorns and fairy dust response (earlier in the thread) to the problem is as follows:

"Also a non-starter is your hyperbolae; "toxic waste lot's"...... Really John, really."

I do wonder just how many people are going to leave California permanently from all this. It might even wind up losing another seat in the House of Representatives.

0 Votes

Quote from @Matthew Paul:

@John Clark There isnt much left thats toxic , it all went into the atmosphere .

That's not what I heard. Would simplify matters, though.

0 Votes

Quote from @Matthew Paul:

" I am from the government , and I am here to help "

Can’t sell before clean up, Matthew, no one will buy a toxic waste site.

You are absolutely right, though, the whole thing will take years to play out.

0 Votes

Quote from @James Hamling:

Quote from @John Clark:

Quote from @James Hamling:

Quote from @John Clark:

Quote from @James Hamling:

"You do realize this is "Big Government" your talking about here."
--------------------------------------------------------
You do realize that only "Big Government" can fight fires on the scale California has now, and only "Big Government" can do the clean up necessary so redevelopment can be started afterwards.

You're just going to let those toxic waste lots sit and fester while people next door rebuild?

Ideological bromides are not solutions, Jim. Walk us through a solution that doesn't involve government command and control. Don't forget to include how you are going to force those without insurance, or who don't want to spend the insurance money, on clean up.

Then there's the question of refusing to spend tax dollars on protecting houses impossible to protect, but that's for another day. There's current fire fighting and there's clean up. Tell us how you plan on accomplishing either without "big government."

Seeing as you brought ideology into things I will point out your Marxist/ Communist ideology is a non-starter.

Also a non-starter is your hyperbolae; "toxic waste lot's"...... Really John, really.

The local governments and utility companies will address all public space clean up's.

And some level of clean-up will most likely be done for all private property via local government, as is SOP for disaster cleanup.

Also SOP for such is individual property owners will, individually, address total site cleanup in concert with there insurance providers.

So the whole leaving toxic waste sites BS is just that, BS hyperbole.

Next, fun-fact is "Big Government" is what facilitated this whole disaster in the first place. As bit by bit more and more comes out in media of the myriad of gross mismanagement actions done via, your buddies Comrade John, Big Government.

Government command and control is literally the laughing stock. They are masters at the art of botchery. How well did they handle the recent floods? Oh yeah, that's right, all but ZERO help or assistance. Red-Necks on UTV's were a disaster relief force to the effect of about 100,000x what the "command & Control" capacity of Big Government was.

And the list could go on and on and on.

Even now there already starting to call out for private and non-profit sector to, yet again, clean up and solve everything Big Gov botched, yet again.

But never fear John, Mother Russia is happy to have you and there it is your nirvana as Big Gov rules everything with an iron fist. You won't have to worry about pesky things like private property rights. And all it will cost is your freedom.

Bon voyage Comrade John.

LOL

Let's break this down, shall we. You say:

"And some level of clean-up will most likely be done for all private property via local government, as is SOP for disaster cleanup.

Also SOP for such is individual property owners will, individually, address total site cleanup in concert with there insurance providers."

So, per you, Jim, cleanup for all private property will be done "via local government." That's big government, isn't it? State and feds? It's well beyond local government capacity. Also, how is government doing stuff for private landowners to the extent you need done NOT the "socialism" (and you don't know the meaning of the word) you decry? If it's private property, then you can't justify spending public money on it according to your bromides.

Also, your silence is deafening about the private land owners who don't pay to clean up their properties. Nice try Jim, but your "SOP" for "individual property owners" has no factual basis. Tell us what the basis is for your assurance that individual owners "will" clean up?

Then there is the small matter that your two "SOPs" contradict each other: You state that clean up of ALL private property will take place by government action, and then you immediately say that private property owners "will" address "total site cleanup" and that will take place in concert with their insurance companies.

So you give us contradiction and a deafening silence as to those who are too poor (no, insufficient, insurance) or are unwilling to pay/co-operate.

Woolly thinking on your part, Jim. Woolly thinking. Your solutions are contradictory and are equivalent to clicking your heels three times to solve your problems. Solve the contradictions and then get back to us. Bromides and sound bites are not substitutes for thinking.

Oh, and by the way, fire ruins are toxic waste. No exaggeration there. Stop denying the facts.

So, are you the guy that when teacher ask's what 1+1 equals, you ask for a calculator????

It couldn't have been clearer, or simpler, what I stated yet you some how twisted the hell out of it. Go back, re-read it, google the "hard" words you don't understand like what is "local government".

Now as for what happens if a person who just lost a million+ dollar home just bizarrely says "nah, forget it, being a bum in a tent on the beach seems so much better".... well if ya knew the basics of Real Estate you'd know there is policy in place literally everywhere in the US for exactly that. Soooooo they'd do that.

But as your apparently clueless on Real Estate 102, I will just inform you. Local government get's it done, and an assessment is levied on the property for the expense of such. At a certain point of levied amounts being non-collected, it is sold to recoup the funds.

This happens all over the country, probably every week. It's really not all that rare. It's actually so common that there is entire Real Estate Investment strategies built around it. There is even so much of it, that there are books sold for how-to, guru courses on it, and even this neat place on the internet called Bigger Pockets has info on it if look it up.

And a little update on your grand-plan that CA needs to go hardline communist, take all the property and dictate what if any compensation for such will come, some day..... The new released estimated total of the effected areas is now in excess of $250 Billion. Or roughly 3X the entire income tax collected by CA last year. That is more than 50% of the ENTIRE annual budget of CA for 2024.

So, as I said so many times; the math doesn't math, among a whole slew of other reasons IT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN.

I notice you skip right over who does the clean up, Jim, and who has to approve building in areas that aren’t defensible.

I also see that now you admit that your fairy-dust belief that people “will” work with insurance companies to clean up is not necessarily true. As I said, some people won’t have the money or insurance to pay for clean up. That means big government to the rescue.

As for the $250 billion in losses, guess what? A substantial portion of that won’t be compensated. Governments have no duty to make sure investments make money. People won’t have money or insurance to clean up or rebuild. The costs of clean up by the “big government” have to be assessed, most likely on those who are cleaned up. The government also doesn’t have to, and won’t, permit rebuilding in areas too difficult to defend.

insurers won’t insure, either.

Sing and dance all you want, but big government is needed for the firefighting now, the clean up later, and the redesign and redevelopment in the end.

The interjection of ideology (this is big government) was by you, not me. You have yet to tell us who can perform, and if necessary, coerce, the clean up, let alone the fire fighting, let alone the redesign, if not big government. Your silence as to people just taking insurance money and leaving is deafening.

Click your heels and sprinkle fairy dust all you want, Jim, but big government is absolutely vital here.

I’m curious, too: where did I say anything about government dictating compensation? The only way you can make your position work is by ginning up stuff about mine. The redesign will affect values, but owners can’t insist on the right to harm the community by building same old same old and then demanding rescues again and again.

By the way, you didn’t reconcile the contradictions in your positions that I pointed out earlier. Would you like us to believe that you simply forgot and will do so now?

0 Votes

Quote from @James Hamling:

Quote from @John Clark:

Quote from @James Hamling:

Seeing as you brought ideology into things I will point out your Marxist/ Communist ideology is a non-starter.

Also a non-starter is your hyperbolae; "toxic waste lot's"...... Really John, really.

The local governments and utility companies will address all public space clean up's.

And some level of clean-up will most likely be done for all private property via local government, as is SOP for disaster cleanup.

Also SOP for such is individual property owners will, individually, address total site cleanup in concert with there insurance providers.

So the whole leaving toxic waste sites BS is just that, BS hyperbole.

And the list could go on and on and on.

Even now there already starting to call out for private and non-profit sector to, yet again, clean up and solve everything Big Gov botched, yet again.

Bon voyage Comrade John.

LOL

Let's break this down, shall we. You say:

"And some level of clean-up will most likely be done for all private property via local government, as is SOP for disaster cleanup.

Also SOP for such is individual property owners will, individually, address total site cleanup in concert with there insurance providers."

So you give us contradiction and a deafening silence as to those who are too poor (no, insufficient, insurance) or are unwilling to pay/co-operate.

Oh, and by the way, fire ruins are toxic waste. No exaggeration there. Stop denying the facts.

0 Votes

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @John Clark:

Quote from @James Hamling:

Quote from @John Clark:

Quote from @James Hamling:

Quote from @John Clark:

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @John Clark:

Quote from @Chris Seveney:

@Jay Hinrichs

I believe Biden said the federal govt is going to pick up the bill for all the cleanup.

from a lot of reports I read, most of the private insurance companies got out last year and state insurance is where many were insured. I believe once that is exhausted the private ones pick up the tab but they noted it will get passed on to consumers.

where I see the issues are if this is now a one in every 5 or 10 or even 20 year event and it's a $1M home (cost to build not total value with land) then the insurance for these areas is not sustainable. You could see insurance policies in the six figures.

No, Biden said nothing about clean up costs I do believe. He said the federal government would pay fire fighting costs.

i think the state and local governments should use eminent domain and take the land, rezone it for condos and multi-family, install mass transit and better transportation systems and turn difficult to defend areas into parks. The justification for eminent domain would be the cost of defending the current set up, health costs and environmental cleanup costs.

There is now the proverbial blank slate for redevelopment. The governments should seize the opportunity.

keep in mind all the fuel is now gone.. so wild fire will not be an issue going forward as long as folks do more of a desert style landscaping and dont plant things that burn like Eucalyptus as one poster mentioned those things go up like a roman candle at 4th of July. There is no question that fires in these areas are caused by man developing in what was vacant areas where even if there was a fire ( which there has been over the centuries) But these were not in the thought process's in the 1900 until the 60s before CA recorded the subdivision map act into law.. you just platted and recorded Just look out in the high Deseret there are 1 mil platted lots with virtually no homes but nothing to burn.. One would be amazed at how many cities were platted between 1900 and 1940 in CA then the slow build out started..

You forget that I also said not to build in places too difficult to defend. That means changing roads and transportation systems, and not allowing building where the terrain is not conducive to firefighting.

To do that, to completely re-zone and re-plat the entire area would require, if my history is correct, the largest exercise of eminent domain in US history.

Given the # of people effected, it would probably only take about 50 years to clear court..... And that's if CA want's to flip the $300m/ $400m in legal fee's to keep fighting for it, for decades.

Keep in mind we are talking ten's of billions in real estate. CA doesn't have an extra $30b/$40b laying around to do that, not to mention the additional billion to actually do the project to be build ready.

And how about the loss of tax revenues during that entire time...... I don't know the #'s off hand but I feel safe in saying L.A. would go bankrupt yr2 if not yr1.

It's not remotely feasible.

It's more feasible than you think. Most states have "quick take" procedures for eminent domain if there are time constraints (and given the need to house people and clean up, there are time constraints). Essentially the government grabs title and sees you in court to determine just compensation after the fact, for the value of the land at the time of the take. This way some hold outs can't bring the government to a screeching halt.

Remember, there's no seizure without just compensation. Nothing says that the compensation cannot be determined after the fact.

So what is your land worth if you have to pay for the toxic waste clean up (or have the government clean it up and then put a lien on your property for services rendered)? Or -- lawfully -- tells you you cannot build on the lot because it's too difficult to defend in a fire and therefore you're not going to get fire or police services, so no, you cannot build. We'll offer you some money so we can clean it up and put a park there. Yeah, you lost money on your investment, but you're not risking our first responders for your views and retirement nest egg. Life sucks, then you die.

So will the compensation payouts take decades? Sure, but the reclamation and redevelopment as defensible condos and apartments -- complete with less urban sprawl -- can occur faster than you think.

As for financing, the governments can plan and design, sell bonds against the proceeds to come from the sale of property for condos and apartments, and pay current owners from that. Not to mention that current owners will have taxes go up on their toxic vacant lots due to the cost of buying people out (so sell to us now). Those tens of billions in valuation depended on pre-fire conditions. Those conditions don't exist any more, and the government has the right to regulate land use to try to prevent the current conditions from repeating.

First off, no, I am not an attorney. Not legal advice. Although YES, I have been on legal council as consultant to some sizable case law setting suites. What I share comes from my experiences in court room and mind numbing hours of study and research in a law library on contract law and interstate compact.

Eminent domain does not work that easily or simply.

A government can not swoop in, say hours or days after a tornado tears through an area, say "wow, look at this mess, well it sure ain't worth a dang" and tell people it's "taking" there stuff and giving it just the price of the then current mess.

That's not how it works.

Eminent Domain has to be "for the public good". That's a fundamental requirement. Even I the non-attorney would have a rather easy time getting the people of, say Pacific Palisades together to state in mass that E.D. here not only does NOT do "public good" but inversely does HARM.

That to exercise E.D. in this manner causes HARM to the people, the makeup of area, fundamentally alters the area etc..

I could go on to argue it's a form of "Blockbusting" and with that illegal and discriminatory.

I could argue it impedes there legal right to being made whole by there insurance carriers.

On and on and on.

So, only chance in hell it has is via the BIGGEST action of it's kind EVER in US history, with coordination between the insurance carriers, and home owners. An action that gives enough financial incentive and relief that it DOES adhere "for public good", and makes the entire thing a net positive for the thousands upon thousands of dislocated persons AND don't forget, business's.

That means "$$$$making-it-rain$$$", so the 30/40 billion with a B, now turns into 40/50 Billion in payouts.

Raise the $ with some bonds you say...... Really, $50 Billion. Who's gonna buy them? How does the already deep in debt CA afford to tack on $50 BILLION in debt service? So now your causing "harm" to the entire state of CA with such added debt load.

And don't forget, states don't have 4-profit business to create wealth, no money-tree out in a yard to shake, states $ is from THE PEOPLE, so that $50 Billion is all Californians paying for it.

Hey Californians, how do ya feel about kicking out $50 billion to turn L.A. area neighborhoods into parks and high-rise condo's????

Sorry John, Californians said to get Fu#!ed.

Ok, well Uncle Sammy what do you sa..... oh, ok, oh I see, not your problem, ah, oh, Fed Funds are not for redeveloping neighborhoods, ok got it. Yeah Uncle Sammy said it's now T-town and that a dog-scat deal so to kick-rocks.

Maybe Blackrock wants to drop the $ to do..... Oh, nope, they said they won't touch that with a 10' poll.

Any way you spin it, there is no VIABLE way to get it done.

Oh, I never said it would be easy, but it can be done. The public good is the saving of wear, tear, and expense on our first responders. Plans will have to be drawn up, but that can be done while people are cleaning up (which we as private citizens will have to do anyway).

Sing and dance all you want, the land will be redeveloped, and no government will allow it to be redeveloped in a way that could repeat the current situation.

And yes, the owners will be scewered but that’s irrelevant. They can’t be allowed to build in areas that can’t be easily defended.

My daughter interned in collage for an appraisal company that specialized in government takings and she did the valuations on the property fronting the Napa River. The River flooded for decades so it was a project to stop flooding . that took about 3 years to go through .. and that was just a fraction of what we are talking about and was not a once in a 50 year event like this it was basically annually.. So it was a public project not a private project like this would be. big difference

"
So it was a public project not a private project like this would be. big difference."

----------------------------------------------------------

We cannot believe that clean up would be a private project? Nonsense. Some private owners won't have the money for clean up. Others won't want to spend the money on clean up, and those around them won't be able to rebuild until their lots are cleaned up. Then there's land use. Building right next to flammable vegetation on remote hillsides can be banned as too dangerous.

The land can be seized via eminent domain and values assigned later, while planning for better, more appropriate (wildfire-wise) communities is underway.

0 Votes

Quote from @James Hamling:

0 Votes

Quote from @James Hamling:

Quote from @John Clark:

Quote from @James Hamling:

Quote from @John Clark:

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @John Clark:

Quote from @Chris Seveney:

@Jay Hinrichs

I believe Biden said the federal govt is going to pick up the bill for all the cleanup.

To do that, to completely re-zone and re-plat the entire area would require, if my history is correct, the largest exercise of eminent domain in US history.

Given the # of people effected, it would probably only take about 50 years to clear court..... And that's if CA want's to flip the $300m/ $400m in legal fee's to keep fighting for it, for decades.

And how about the loss of tax revenues during that entire time...... I don't know the #'s off hand but I feel safe in saying L.A. would go bankrupt yr2 if not yr1.

It's not remotely feasible.

Eminent domain does not work that easily or simply.

That's not how it works.

That to exercise E.D. in this manner causes HARM to the people, the makeup of area, fundamentally alters the area etc..

I could go on to argue it's a form of "Blockbusting" and with that illegal and discriminatory.

I could argue it impedes there legal right to being made whole by there insurance carriers.

On and on and on.

That means "$$$$making-it-rain$$$", so the 30/40 billion with a B, now turns into 40/50 Billion in payouts.

And don't forget, states don't have 4-profit business to create wealth, no money-tree out in a yard to shake, states $ is from THE PEOPLE, so that $50 Billion is all Californians paying for it.

Hey Californians, how do ya feel about kicking out $50 billion to turn L.A. area neighborhoods into parks and high-rise condo's????

Sorry John, Californians said to get Fu#!ed.

Maybe Blackrock wants to drop the $ to do..... Oh, nope, they said they won't touch that with a 10' poll.

Any way you spin it, there is no VIABLE way to get it done.

0 Votes

Quote from @Ram Gonzales:

I've done a lot of wraps and subtos and highly prefer the seller-finance strategy for a lot of reasons, including offering the opportunity of homeownership to those otherwise rejected by traditional banks. I want to create a fund that will allow me to purchase distressed homes, fix them up, and sell with owner financing (possibly including a 5 year balloon so as to be able to recapitalize periodically and give investors a shorter horizon). I've had a long career in community development and have a lot of bank contacts that would likely be interested in investing, but I'd need to prove the concept first with an initial fund (there are also a lot of other community development tools that could be leveraged to maximize and scale this). Here's my question. If I create a debt fund that offers 9% interest on first lien notes with a 5-7 year payout, would that be attractive to high net worth investors? My target for the first fund would be $5-10 million and I have a few HNW investors in my network but certainly not enough. Anyone have experience putting these kinds of opportunities in front of investors?

If you can set up as a non-profit you might get foundation/grant funding for you initial capital. Then become self-sustaining at a lower interest rate.

1 Vote

All Forum Posts by: John Clark

John Clark has started 5 posts and replied 1330 times.

Post: Failed Leadership is why California is on fire.

Post: Failed Leadership is why California is on fire.

Post: Failed Leadership is why California is on fire.

Post: Failed Leadership is why California is on fire.

Post: Failed Leadership is why California is on fire.

Post: Failed Leadership is why California is on fire.

Post: Failed Leadership is why California is on fire.

Post: Failed Leadership is why California is on fire.

Post: Failed Leadership is why California is on fire.

Post: Creating a debt fund for owner finance strategy