All Forum Categories
Market News & Data
General Info
Real Estate Strategies
Landlording & Rental Properties
Real Estate Professionals
Financial, Tax, & Legal
Real Estate Classifieds
Reviews & Feedback
All Forum Posts by: James Hamling
James Hamling has started 14 posts and replied 3953 times.
Post: Failed Leadership is why California is on fire.
- Real Estate Broker
- Minneapolis, MN
- Posts 4,110
- Votes 5,335
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.
Post: Failed Leadership is why California is on fire.
- Real Estate Broker
- Minneapolis, MN
- Posts 4,110
- Votes 5,335
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.
Post: Failed Leadership is why California is on fire.
- Real Estate Broker
- Minneapolis, MN
- Posts 4,110
- Votes 5,335
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:
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.
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..
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.
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.
You do realize this is "Big Government" your talking about here.
And "big Government" doing extensive PREVENTATIVE proactive actions.
Yeah, betting on "Big Gov" becoming proactive, that's a bet I sure won't take. Kind of like betting on Vegas having a snowy Christmas.
Post: Failed Leadership is why California is on fire.
- Real Estate Broker
- Minneapolis, MN
- Posts 4,110
- Votes 5,335
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Chris Seveney:
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.
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..
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.
Post: Selling High End pre-fabricated module at cost
- Real Estate Broker
- Minneapolis, MN
- Posts 4,110
- Votes 5,335
Would be helpful @Adriana Siu if you'd just post how much $ you want for it.
To be brutally honest i don't care if it's at cost, below or above, I only care what it is exactly and how much.
I won't pay more than what it's worth to me, regardless of what someone else paid for it. Know tons of people dropping $250k on a suv, i won't, I don't care how shiatsu on my bum it is, ok maybe I care a little lol, but point is it's only worth what it's worth, right.
And if still in Spain, how long until it's in US and is shipping additional or is price landed?
Post: Updated Insurance for renovated property
- Real Estate Broker
- Minneapolis, MN
- Posts 4,110
- Votes 5,335
Quote from @Roger Flot:
I was reviewing some renovated listings in my area and one indicated that even though the house was originally built in 1920, because of all the renovations bringing the house to current code, that you could get 2024 rates on insurance. I imagined that to mean that a 1920 home with no renovations would cost more to insure than one updated to 2024 specifications.
Is this something that is just "known" to flippers/renovators and I am just coming across it?
Does anyone know how insurance companies evaluate these properties and whether or not real value can be realized for insurance for renovation? Are there any guidelines or best practices (ie: rewiring such a property would be more valuable than updating insulation).
Is it something you need to ask the insurance company about to get, or is all this determined in the initial interview with the potential insurer?
Your referencing effective age vs chronological age.
Best way to understand this is research appraisal standards and means.
In that they will detail the scales they use, including at which level of renovation it's possible to get things "reset" so it is appraised as if it is a new built property. Because in essence it is.
This is a common 'trick" we use in flipping. To flip right is about a lot more than just renovating and *pow* $-rains down on a person. There is tactics and strategy about how to open up maximum appraisal potential.
Because it doesn't matter how much you get on a PA if it can't appraise.
Post: First Time Landlord - Tenant Placement In Minneapolis Area
- Real Estate Broker
- Minneapolis, MN
- Posts 4,110
- Votes 5,335
Quote from @Brett Riemensnider:
Oh wow ok good to know! So I can hire a PM company to just do the tenant placement part?
Decent legit ones, yes.
I say that because every decent legit place I know of in market, yes offers the option of doing just tenant placement, for self-managing.
The issues really happen when it's just R.E. agents begging for some $, pitching "I can do that too" and in reality there in breach of NAR codes because they don't have proficiency and expertise in it what so ever. That's a big issue as of recent. So have to make sure you interview beyond just asking the simple "can you do this for me".
Be sure to ask how, and how many of these a year do they do, how often, what listings do they have right now that you can look at, etc etc..
Post: Failed Leadership is why California is on fire.
- Real Estate Broker
- Minneapolis, MN
- Posts 4,110
- Votes 5,335
Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Chris Seveney:
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.
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..
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.
OK I do have a little expertise in CA on these issues.. I was on a senate committee way back in the 80s to deal with these antiquated subdivisions and lots of record which of course many of these areas are. And LA County already has laws dealing with any lot created prior I think to 1924 or 34.. They have to meet modern codes and SEQUA requirements.. this is what stops building on lots that would not be buildable with modern subdivisions map act standards or modern zoning. in the hilly areas road widths and slopes will not meet Sequa so they stop building on those lots there are thousands of the lots scattered around LA county and these are the lots you see going to tax sale all the time.
The reality now is govmit in my mind is going to be highly pressured to allow folks to rebuild on their LOT they OWN.. Biggest question in my mind will be the Ocean front.. I suspect a lot of those with current regulations CANNOT be rebuilt if they are destroyed but we will see..
I also wonder how this is going to work.. you cant tax a parcel that has lost a 5 mil dollar improvement ??? Also think about the down stream affects not only to the fire victims but those in contract to buy or sell.. Going to be some of that.. IE someone sold there house in Minneapolis to move to LA but the house they are in contract to buy just got destroyed ? and now they are houseless.. I think you may have a run on Vegas props and Vegas furnished rentals Just sayin.
Oh yeah, there is soooo many trailing effects not mentioned that I think isn't in minds yet, understandably so, fires are still ongoing.
How about the local business's. For example say a Starbucks, one of those little drive thru ones, can rapidly rebuild. Well, for what? For who?
Who's coming in to work and with area in ashes and homes taking 10X longer to slowly rebuild and persons come back, how many of the community business's are non-viable until a certain density is reached.
How about the jobs lost of persons who worked at those places.
Or city being under staffed for certain added works now, and possibly over-staffed during down cycle portions of it all.
And don't get me started on clean-up, what hazmat landfill has the space for all that????? Will it be declared a super-sight? It has to, because it is. And than we have all those requirements to meet to get clean designation. people forget the age of many of these homes; lead, mercury and asbestos.
This things is a spaghetti road map of issues.
Post: First Time Landlord - Tenant Placement In Minneapolis Area
- Real Estate Broker
- Minneapolis, MN
- Posts 4,110
- Votes 5,335
Quote from @Brett Riemensnider:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @Brett Riemensnider:
Does anyone have a recommendation of a good tenant placement company for my Anoka MN rental? This is my first rental and everything is taking much longer than anticipated. Really just don’t want to have to deal with it myself at the moment. Renovations are almost complete and will be looking to rent out a unit. I do not need a manager, just help with finding a tenant. Any recommendations or insight are appreciated! Thanks!
Just making sure, you have your rental license? Cleared the metering requirements on license being issued?
I paid for the licensing. My crime prevention class was canceled and I’m looking for an update on the rescheduled date. It is a 4 unit so I have been renting 3 since July. I’m just looking for someone to find a good tenant. Or I suppose advice on how to do it myself if I can’t find one.
If a person has to ask, at all, I STRONGLY advise to use a PM service for tenant placement.
*Full disclosure I am with Renters Warehouse and yes we do these services. This is not meant as solicitation or advertisement of services.
Last year January MN enacted the biggest # of changes all were added details and raised the bar of requirement for Landlords, including some specifically detailing how a listing must be detailed. Now this Jan 1st another slew that pressed the bar of standards and requirements even higher.
If your not well versed in all of that, get a PM to help list.
For example, if you don't specify if a certain item is reoccurring or 1 time, you can't collect it. If you don't specify a charge in your listing, you can't collect it.
If you accidentally use some wrong words, it could be a significant fine.
And yes, they ARE actively policing it. That means YES, they are actually with people sitting down and scrolling through new listings every day looking for people to tag. One inspector in Ramsey bragged up on media how he is actively hunting for violators.
Now IF you have all those bases covered, my tips are: Take GREAT pictures and for the love of all that is holly please no close ups, wide angel pics. Video is very important, shoot walk through video and have that. And lastly, don't mono-list it, SYNDICATE.
PS: posting on FB or craigslist nowadays is just begging to be pirated, it's dang near a certainty it will be pirated.
Post: Failed Leadership is why California is on fire.
- Real Estate Broker
- Minneapolis, MN
- Posts 4,110
- Votes 5,335
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Chris Seveney:
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.
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..
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.