patrick.net

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.

Iggy,

I think you need to talk to a Finance guy.
He could spreadsheet out for you a bunch of alternatives. He won't make the decision for you, but he'll make it harder to make the wrong one.
He'll ask all the right questions:
What investment vehicle do you have planned for the cash you intend to take out of the property?
What is your Tax situation?
Debts?
Assets?
Retirement goals?

Without knowing your situation it's hard to give advice. The best thing is to come up with an answer and then apply the (risk) factor. Which there isn't really as it's a win or win bigger situation.

My advice on the (risk)? Keep the property, this boom has some legs yet, invest the revenue stream if you have that luxury. Revisit the family conversation in 2020.

Then send me my 2% commission.

Strategist says

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

There is no such thing as common sense. There is only morality which comes from Judeo Christian values in this nation, or other religions in other nations. But there is no such thing as common sense.

Strategist says

Why not just stick to taking your kids to Bible school. You are not being stopped from giving your children religious values, why shove Jesus down someone else's throat?

This is how religious wars have always started, leading to never ending bloodshed.

Public school is paid for by my taxes, bible school has to be paid by after tax dollars because government already took my taxes to pay for secular schools.

Strategist says

1. If God can create the world in 6 days, and he worked for 6,000 days, how many worlds did he create?

I have the impression that Popes and prophets are warlords using religion to secure loyalty.

Very soon, we can create human clones and have near immortality... do that make us Gods?

Do other animals think we're Gods?

hanera says

Do other animals think we're Gods?

More likely as devils.

FortWayne says

Strategist says

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

There is no such thing as common sense. There is only morality which comes from Judeo Christian values in this nation, or other religions in other nations. But there is no such thing as common sense.

So if you were born in Afghanistan and raised by the Taliban, you would believe it's "moral" to take off the head of an infidel?

FortWayne says

Public school is paid for by my taxes

My taxes too. So how do we settle our differences?

Strategist says

So if you were born in Afghanistan and raised by the Taliban, you would believe it's "moral" to take off the head of an infidel?

That's what they do now, if I was raised in their environment by them why would I turn out any different?

Strategist says

My taxes too. So how do we settle our differences?

You get your teaching, and I get mine. Or one of us stops paying, that's how it works in business.