patrick.net

iggy says

Any advice or angles I haven't considered?

Rent it out, positive cash flow in this economic environment is excellent.

On the one hand, if you rent, you have a cash flow that never (pretty much never because pretty much anything and everything in SF will rent) stops. On the other hand, how old is it? What condition is it in? As a landlord you'll need to make sure it's up to snuff to rent it out. If anything goes wrong - heating, plumbing, etc - you'll be responsible to getting it fixed in a timely fashion. You could turn some/all that over to a rental company but that cuts into the monthly income. You'd have income taxes to pay on the rent collected.

On the other hand, the property is in SF. If you have a dog house you could sell it for a pretty penny in SF. I agree with you, that NOW would be a prime time to sell, I too believe there is a market correction down the road and due shortly. Sell it, get the money out of it and move on with your life and pursuit of other investments and worldly activities.

Depends on where you are in life and where you want to go (or at this moment THINK you want to go).

Upon re-reading your posting. Since there are other family members involved - sell it, get your share and wash your hands. Dealing with having a rental with family members can be very messy. Heck dealing with partners (short of an apartment complex) with rental property can be messy.

Donate it to science for the study of aids virus removal from various building materials...

iggy says

The reason others don't want to sell is because the Prop 13 lock in. The house has very low property tax rates. Also, no mortgage.

Any advice or angles I haven't considered?

Sell it, or sell your share to the others. This property could easily lead to family feuds in the future.

Sell, never been a better time! Just ask the first fifty realtors who slobber all over you to get the rights to the deal.

Cash out, buy AT&T shares, collect dividends and quit working. Disappear before other family members track you down.

iggy says

The reason others don't want to sell is because the Prop 13 lock in. The house has very low property tax rates. Also, no mortgage.

Have the others buy you out. It will not crash like last time. That's of course your opinion but don't force it on others. Just sell your portion. Simple transaction, easy financing.

The price should take into consideration the step up in bases and wiping out the income tax completely no matter how much appreciation. The biggest tax loophole in the US is death.

There's a lot of value in buying a SF house with 1K in property tax vs. say 15K a year. I will never sell a property that costs nothing to maintain. Maintenance are value adding. Property tax is a sunk cost.

Is it under rent control? If it is, think hard before renting it out. Many other anecdotal stories like this -- just ask SF landlords. Tenant rights prevail in SF.

http://abc7news.com/realestate/i-team-investigates-tenant-landlord-dispute/723260/

"A San Francisco firefighter has been trying for two years to move his mother-in-law into a building he owns where he lives, but he can't get a tenant to leave. This is a case study about the other side of the rent crisis, and this battle has become very nasty.

There are many stories about landlords taking advantage of tenants and jacking up their rent. But consider what this firefighter's lawyer says: that the pendulum has swung too far in favor of tenants, and small property owners are having a tough time controlling their own buildings..."

Sell. No if or but. Multi-owner is a recipe for disaster. Market conditions and future direction are irrelevant. If the rest don't want, agree on a valuation method, tell them to pay you your portion now.

Why I would not sell in San Francisco.

* No new SFH for the past 40 years or forever. Owning land is a no-brainer
* San Francisco's industry is just getting started. Rents are not calming down anytime soon.
* Low property tax. Not just you but 80% of the homeowners. Combine with step up basis and you have a homes that are off the market forever. Supply will always be chump change.
* There is no basics of a crash (supply, locked in low interest rates with huge equity cushion and local economy).

hanera says

Multi-owner is a recipe for disaster.

This. (Speaking from experience).

Either buy them out or ask to be bought out.

SFace says

* No new SFH for the past 40 years or forever. Owning land is a no-brainer

* San Francisco's industry is just getting started. Rents are not calming down anytime soon.

* Low property tax. Not just you but 80% of the homeowners. Combine with step up basis and you have a homes that are off the market forever. Supply will always be chump change.

* There is no basics of a crash (supply, locked in low interest rates with huge equity cushion and local economy).

so tell me how to go from that to the correct price to pay. the problem is that rents still do not cover expenses, not even in sf. just pay anything? whatever the seller asks?

so tell me how to go from that to the correct price to pay. the problem is that rents still do not cover expenses, not even in sf. just pay anything? whatever the seller asks?

You make up with the appreciation, if any. It's like buying a Nasdaq stock that has never paid dividends.

Ironman says

Strategist says

I have high hopes for Baja California, Mexico as a future gold mine when it comes to land. Maybe a small investment would be Ok as long as my mean wife does not find out.

I have better deals for you out here by the water... Plus, the gas is cheap here and you can charge your car batteries by the sun...

Also, we have propane :)

No Iron, no. I don't want to buy where you live. I want to buy where you vacation, and where everyone wants to live. That's where the money is.
Hey, bring your boat. Tourists will be glad to pay $200.00 per hour for your boat. Like my idea?

There's no top to the market.
Put it on the market. Some sucker will overpay.

Ironman,
Have you met any of the drug cartel members in Baja?

Strategist says

so tell me how to go from that to the correct price to pay. the problem is that rents still do not cover expenses, not even in sf. just pay anything? whatever the seller asks?

You make up with the appreciation, if any. It's like buying a Nasdaq stock that has never paid dividends.

Stock doesn't need PITI expenses. You have to be able to withstand the negative cash flow for awhile (even though profit is positive). That is the experience I have for the rental property in SV. May be the picture is different in Concord or elsewhere.

hanera says

Stock doesn't need PITI expenses. You have to be able to withstand the negative cash flow for awhile (even though profit is positive).

True. And the headaches of being a landlord.

SFace says

* No new SFH for the past 40 years or forever. Owning land is a no-brainer

* San Francisco's industry is just getting started. Rents are not calming down anytime soon.

It's when average dude like SFAce walk around thinking that everything will be at infinitum going into forever is when bubbles happen and most painful crashes occur.

I'd say sell the property and buy google stock with it all. That's my advice.

FortWayne says

It's when average dude... walk around thinking that everything will be at infinitum going into forever is when bubbles happen and most painful crashes occur.

I'd say sell the property and buy google stock with it all. That's my advice.

Back home I recall almost identical reason for the booming RE, and then prices peak and decline for more than 10 years. Price of my owner-occupied home drops below purchase price after 15+ years. However, the difference between my home country and here, government intervenes directly but here, USG stands aside.

Sell, its not worth the trouble. What happens when other members pass and it gets split up even more?

I think you should boast about it, but it sounds like you already did.

Your family can take out an "inheritance loan" against the property. http://www.northcoastfinancialinc.com/estate-loans-inheritance-loans-probate-loans-trust-loans/

The proceeds of the loan can be used to pay off the heirs who would prefer to sell for their interest in the property. Because no sale is taking place the tax base will be preserved.

This way the heirs who wish to keep the property are happy, and the heirs who wish to cash out are happy...

so tell me how to go from that to the correct price to pay. the problem is that rents still do not cover expenses, not even in sf. just pay anything? whatever the seller asks?

It's damn if you buy and damn if you rent. Wither way cost a shitload of $$. No advice here other than there is no need to sell when supply/demand is in landowners favor. A seller's market means they choose buyers. Buyer's don't call the shots so rent price is irrelevant.

That SF rent/price argument was the same 5 years ago, 10 years, 30 years. It does not work. Time to think about thinking about housing in a different way. Ratio always tell you to buy in the Ghetto and not buy prime, which is opposite of reality. People buy prime and will pay even more in the future. location location location is going to be location X5.

indigenous says

WW1 = Wilson

WW2 = FDR

You think they started those wars?

Bigsby says

You think they started those wars?

You bet

You need to brush up on your history. Start and enter are not the same things.

Bigsby says

You need to brush up on your history. Start and enter are not the same things.

Projecting...

indigenous says

Bigsby says

You need to brush up on your history. Start and enter are not the same things.

Projecting...

What on earth is that even supposed to mean? They did not start WWI or II. That is just a straightforward fact.

Bigsby says

What on earth is that even supposed to mean? They did not start WWI or II. That is just a straightforward fact.

Psychological projection, also known as blame shifting, is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves, while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude.

indigenous says

Psychological projection, also known as blame shifting, is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves, while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude.

I know what projecting is. The point was that it was totally irrelevant to bring that up in relation to what was being said... hence why I said what I said. You made a claim that was patently false and as usual refuse to hold up your hands and admit it.

Wilson purposely sent the Lusitania into U boat waters that Germany warned the US not to go into.

FDR put sanctions on Japan that forced them into war. Do you think that Japan bombed Peal Harbor for fun?

Churchill bombed Germany before Germany bombed the UK.

Another fun fact Madeline Albright (Clinton's Secretary of State) put sanctions on Iraq that killed by starvation 500,000 Iraqi babies. To which her response was I think it was worth it:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/RM0uvgHKZe8

. According to Albright's memoirs, she once argued with Colin Powell for the use of military force by asking, "What's the point of you saving this superb military for, Colin, if we can't use it?"[57]

And my favorite:

Investments
Madeleine Albright is a co-investor with Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild and George Soros, in a $350 million investment vehicle called Helios Towers Africa, which intends to buy or build thousands of mobile phone towers in Africa.[89][90]

the above two from:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Albright#Investments

indigenous says

Wilson purposely sent the Lusitania into U boat waters that Germany warned the US not to go into.

FDR put sanctions on Japan that forced them into war. Do you think that Japan bombed Peal Harbor for fun?

Churchill bombed Germany before Germany bombed the UK.

Which doesn't mean that they started WWI or WWII, does it? And that Churchill comment... seriously, what was the point of that?

Bigsby says

Which doesn't mean that they started WWI or WWII, does it?

Sure it does, beside the fact that they declared war.

Bigsby says

And that Churchill comment... seriously, what was the point of that?

If you need that explained to you, I cannot explain it to you...

indigenous says

Sure it does, beside the fact that they declared war.

Which isn't the same as starting WWI or WWII, is it? And that is not even getting into your laughably simplistic explanation of it being down to sanctions.

indigenous says

Bigsby says

And that Churchill comment... seriously, what was the point of that?

If you need that explained to you, I cannot explain it to you...

Why not try for a change.

Bigsby says

Why not try for a change.

Because the US and England were allies.

indigenous says

Bigsby says

Why not try for a change.

Because the US and England were allies.

Give me strength. What has that got to do with your Churchill comment? It was completely irrelevant to bring that up.

Approximately 80% of the population have a yearning for religion: want the sense of security to be taken care of, even if it is an utterly false promise. When all formal religions are banned, the Government-God becomes the state religion by default. That's been the case every single time when societies tried to ban religion: it's not just the 20th century socialist states that resorted to personality cult, even 150 years earlier the French Revolution, after slaughtering tens of thousands of Catholic priests, had to invent a new religion (Robspierre's Cult of the Supreme Being).

Religions have a benign function in society: as an alternative power center besides the government in "earthly power." Two groups of clowns check-and-balance each other is better than one group of clowns running a monopoly. Ancient Jews had the Prophets and Kings mutually recognizing each other; Western Europe had the Church and Kings recognizing either other. . . so on and so forth, works out as a mechanism for preventing the rise of totalitarianism.

The issue with Islam is more complicated: it is not compatible with the US Constitution; the canonic teaching of it tells its followers to undermine the Constitution. Unless and until a new religious cannon is put together by Islamic scholars that makes it compatible with the US Constitution and tolerate the presence of other religions, Islam is not compatible with religious freedom. Sure, its followers should still be allowed to follow whatever they believe in private life, but having its followers hold public office with earthly political power would be a problem in a constitutional republic that respects the religious freedom of others.

Reality says

but having its followers hold public office with earthly political power would be a problem in a constitutional republic that respects the religious freedom of others.

As with Obama and his Muslim cabinet members?

FortWayne says

It's not the lack, it's the ban on religion. Don't conflate the two like the liberal news paper. They are banning it, not cutely just lacking it.

That I agree with. Their eventual goal is to get religion out of peoples lives.

FortWayne says

And I don't have a problem with Islam or Christianity or Buddhism or else being shown to children in schools.

I do. I sent my children to school to learn math and science. Not learn fairy tales of the world being 6,000 years old, and 72 virgins in heaven. It's a waste of time.

FortWayne says

There is also concept of morally acceptable behavior. God says "though shall not kill" and people listen.

Most people have the common sense to know they should not kill.