Schwarzenegger to veto California budget, a first in modern times
 

I'm putting my money where my mouth is and I'm supporting the Governor and his Veto. Every month of the stalemate in the budget I lose about $5,000 and right now I'm down about $15K with no end in sight.

That said California is spending more money than it can invent in phony accounting and the State is already short 17 billion dollars this fiscal year and the year is not over yet. Someone needs to draw the line and as much as I hate stressing over my next paycheck I'd feel worse knowing the madness will continue with our out of control Democratic legislature.

Yet another reason I'm not a Democrat any longer.

STRESS!

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline...rzenegger.html

Okay, here's a crazy idea.... We all know that I'm against Obama's tax increase and that is probably the deciding factor that is going to push me McCain.

Having said that, I'm not against all tax increases, just tax increases that unfairly target the business owners, professionals and moderately successful Americans so some lazy asses can have the new iPhone.

Back to my point, WHY IN THE HELL DO WE HAVE PROP 13?

For those of you outside of California, that means we get taxed on the acquisition value of our homes rather than the assessed value.

In other words. Grandma and grandpa bought house in 1980 for $200,000, house is now worth $3 mil. Granma and grandpa are still paying the same relative taxes they paid in 1980.
Which means, it's less expensive for them to stay in their house (and defer maintenance) than it would be to move to a smaller apt. that would be more practical now that they all kids are grown up and they are alone. Taxes cost $5k/yr. vs. an apt which would cost more.

So as a result, fewer houses are available for sale because people are incentivesed not to move, driving the costs of available homes up. Older homes are getting more and more dilapidated because grandma and grandpa can't afford the upkeep. Everything else has gotten more expensive, like schools, roads, public works, etc. But those services are being subsidized by the new homeowners who pay more in taxes, because the homes are more expensive, and grandma and grandpa are paying 1/30th in taxes from what their neighbors are paying..

And because of this, there is also no money in the state to fix roads, fix schools, etc.

-- The original idea behind it was to keep rising prices to force people out of their homes because of taxes. I say, TOO DAMN BAD.. It's not your neighbors job to pull your weight. You can't afford to live on beachfront property in Santa Monica anymore, MOVE. You can't afford that home in Beverly Hills because you're retired, MOVE.

It's rent control for homeowners and it's Bullshit. I'd gladly pay double my property tax if it meant better roads, schools, public services, and if all the homes in my area that look like there about to fall over were updated...

What a bullshit Prop.

Just a couple of points ....

#1 The house Grandma and grandpa bought house in 1980 for $200,000, house is not worth $3 mil anymore.

#2 Even if it was, if they got taxed the way you propose Grandma and grandpa couldn't afford to live in their house. But it appears by your logic they shouldn't be living there because they can't afford to keep it up anyway?

Bottom line? If you want to raise revenue fine but i believe there are other avenues to do that. Blaming PROP 13 for the tax shortfall is an old argument
that has never worked.

None of us have really been behind closed doors to see what the real problem is with the budget. Until we have some first hand knowledge
about the fiscal issues and the what it is that keeps law-makers
from reasonable compromise most of us will be a bit short handed with solutions.

But depriving senior citizens of their choice as to where they live seems at least in my mind short sighted.

But in fairness let's look at some facts about prop 13.

A Note on Fairness

Is the measure’s acquisition tax plan unfair? The acquisition property tax system calculates the tax at the time the property is acquired by a new owner. A cap is placed on future increases. The traditional ad valorum (of the value) property tax system bases taxes yearly on the current value of the property. Adherents to the ad valorum property tax system object that similar homes, side by side, pay different taxes depending on when they were purchased.

As HJTA Director of Legal Affairs Jonathan Coupal explained in a Los Angeles Times article, paying different taxes for similar services is not unique in our tax system. The acquisition property tax system is no more unfair than the traditional method of property taxation under which owners of more valuable property pay more for the same services. This fairness argument ignores the nature of taxes. If we were that concerned with proportionality between the amount of tax and the level of service, we would evolve to a system of nothing but user fees. Because proportionality between tax liability and services has never been an attribute of property taxes, it is unfair to level this charge against Proposition 13 alone.

The ad valorum tax system doesn't assure equal taxation. A 1966 report from the Assembly Revenue and Tax Committee said: equalization of assessments is "more myth than a reality."

A number of economists argue that the equality argument is misguided. California homebuyers probably pay no real tax penalty under Proposition 13 because the differential assessments are capitalized into the purchase price. In other words, prospective taxes reduce the purchase price below what would otherwise be paid, hence no tax penalty.

Proposition 13 is a contract between government and individual taxpayers. As Karen Nolan of the Vacaville Reporter commented, Proposition 13 is like her grandmother's quilt: each patch is different, but stitched together it keeps everybody warm. Under Proposition 13, each property may have a different tax amount, but every one in the community is protected.

That overall taxpayer protection comes from that revolutionary aspect of Proposition 13 -- tax certainty.

The Unusual Case of Tax Certainty

Because of Proposition 13, for the first time the certainty in taxation lay in the hands of the taxpayer instead of the tax collector. Proposition 13 set up an acquisition value system that treats all homeowners alike in that they pay 1% of the market value established at the time of purchase. It limits increases to 2% a year.

In 1992, Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in the United States Supreme Court's decision in Nordlinger v. Hahn, upholding the constitutionality of Prop 13's acquisition system: "The Equal Protection Clause is satisfied as long as there is a plausible policy reason for the classification." He found two rational reasons -- 1) Neighborhood preservation and continuity, and 2) Protecting of existing owners of property who purchase property with certain tax expectations, who might be forced to sell or divert expenditures from food to taxes when taxes get too high.

An acquisition property tax policy is predictable and removes the problem of subjective assessments by assessors, while protecting homeowners against prohibitive property tax increases.

For government, the system works, too. Property tax in California was increasing about 10% a year statewide before the recession and continued to produce positive revenue growth despite the recession.

Government also enjoys a measure of certainty under Proposition 13 during lean times. Normally, under the market value system, when property values drop during a recession, taxes must be reduced. Because, under Proposition 13, many properties are paying taxes on assessed values below even the reduced market values, taxes on these properties do not have to be lowered. In fact, they can still be raised 2% if inflation rises that much or more. The government does not suffer a severe shock to its revenue collection. During the 1990s recession, one Los Angeles County assessor's official acknowledged that advantage and told the L.A. Daily News: "Thank goodness for Proposition 13."

I was reading about this briefly this morning. What I found interesting is that Cali legislators admitted that their income tax early concept was a short term goal that did nothing to solve budget problems that would come up again in the following year. I found that interesting. People would actually support a legislature that admitted it only looks out until about 10 months down the road.

#1 - On my side of town, the $200,000 house is still worth $3mil. Or the land is worth $2.5mil and the house is a tear down.
#2 - Absolutely, 100% correct. But in addition, grandma and grandpa are incentivized NOT to move. Cause it's more expensive to move to a 2 bedroom apt. than it is to stay in the 5 bedroom house.

Sorry QS, but where I come from when people reach the age that their children are out of the house, they downsize. They sell their house and move to a nice retirement area and get a great apt.

So unless Grandma and Grandpa decide to foster some kids, move relatives into the house, turn the extra rooms in the house into some sort of day care, there is no reason why the state gov't and the younger residents should subsidize their living.

I know young families that are successful and can't afford a house and are living in one bedroom apt's with babies, while I have neighbors who haven't mowed their lawns, fixed their retaining walls, painted their house, or done anything other than live relatively tax free, in a 5 bedroom house that is completely empty..

I have lived in many states including Florida, NY, Ohio and believe you me, Prop 13 is not a benefit to anyone except a small few.
ANd just like people pay taxes on income, so should they pay taxes on the value of their real estate.

It's a socialist program and is making this state worse, not better, except for the very few how are staying in family homes long beyond their children being gone..

Just my .02

Of course though, I could understand your point of view as well... "Why should I have to move?" Why should I pay more in taxes?

- to which I would answer, What costs the same today as it did in 1980?
NOTHING... So the people who have benefitted the most from prop 13 are being subsidized by my friends who can't afford a home and have nice incomes as doctors, etc.

You apparently didn't read the info provided.

You can't be serious.!!!! But in case your not joking.........

You actually believe that just because where you come when people reach retirement age and their children are out of the house,
they should say OH MY GOD B-Line believes we should downsize. Let's sell our house and move to a nice retirement area and get a great apt????
Your brain must be on fire. :loco: So let me extinguish your irrational illogical thinking with a thought of my own.

On your side of town that may be correct but what about the rest of California?
Your side of town or where you come from shouldn't be the determining factor
regarding what people do or how they live their lives,
or how taxes should be apportioned.

Life isn't fair and neither is death and taxes so take in a deep breath
and relax.

FIRE OUT............. :nanana:

LOL...I agree with you and get this...

I purchased my moms house on some acreage which allowed her to buy smaller home in town with less maintenance. I then completely remodeled / rebuilt the entire house and her low prop 13 tax base was transfered to me because I'm family.

I benefit from prop 13 and I can afford to pay the higher taxes. You won't see me offering though. :nanana:

Hey Barry,

Don't know much about where you grew up or different areas of the country where you may have lived, but if you've always been a California resident, I could completely understand how you might support Prop 13.

But in NYC, real estate taxes are very high, so people move to the suburbs to avoid "city tax".

It is one thing to have a tax system that limits the amount of increase, it's another thing all together to have a tax ceiling that keeps payments practically stagnant for 30+ years.

It is welfare and state subsidy on a grand scale. And the state wouldn't be in such a fiscal mess if grandpa homeowner was paying his fair share in taxes. Granted though the rich and poor both benefit. It's only the state that suffers (look at our roads, schools, public services and budget crisis.)

Again, I don't have an issue with a tax plan that helps people who want to stay in their homes. I do have an issue with a tax plan that incentivizes them NOT TO MOVE. There can be a happy medium.

My parents have some retired friends that live in the valley. Their children have been out of the house for a decade and THEY WANT TO MOVE. They want something smaller, something with less maintenance, etc.
-- But because of Prop 13, it doesn't make financial sense for them to downsize because it will cost them more to move to a smaller place because of Prop 13. The longer you are in a home, the harder it becomes to leave. And despite what Jonathon Copland explains, that impedes commerce.

-- Which means:
fewer homes on the market.
Higher prices on existing homes.
Higher taxes to new home buyers because of the higher prices.

I have lived in numerous places besides California and believe you me, Prop 13 is the exception not the rule.. And it's a stupid exception..

California is the only state that has such nonsense. And I would gladly pay more real estate taxes and have better public services and fewer dilapidated prop 13 houses all over the neighborhood.

If you believe your comments
fewer homes on the market.
Higher prices on existing homes.
Higher taxes to new home buyers
because of the higher prices.

Then you need to visit the Central Valley
and Sacramento California where there
are a gaggle of empty houses which
are collecting no taxes and have lost
70% of their value. Examples
that clearly contradict your opinion.

I respect your opinon but clearly
you're opinion in my view is narrow,
baseless, without substance,
and quite frankly unkind.

The overall posititve effect of Prop. 13 is that it forces
the tax supported entities at all levels to implement
fiscal responsibility (living within a budget) instead of having
open access to the taxpayers checkbook.
And thats the way it should stay.

Seeing as how your pretty set with your opinion
regarding this matter i see no reason to continue
with a discussion that will not solve the a problem you
feel is important to you.

Barry,

Remember, I am a homeowner also. I'm not taking a stab at a benefit that does not effect me.
If Prop 13 were to be recalled, I would suffer having to pay an increase in taxes as well.
So while I am the type of person that likes to vote with my wallet, on the issue of Prop 13, compared to the other states I have lived in, it's bringing this state down, not propping it up.

The roads by my house are as bad as bad can be. The public school systems are horrible. The police force is overworked, understaffed and we have fire departements that don't have enough money to put out out these ginormous blazes that are popping up everywhere.

As a tax payer, I would love for the state gov't to put a ceiling on INCOME TAX as well. What I'm paying today in income will be the same thing I'm paying in 30 years regardless of earnings, etc. But the loss of that revenue is not going to help city groups to budget better, it's only going to leave them underfunded with less adequate professionals doing the job because salaries are too low.

No one likes to pay more taxes but it's a necessary evil.

I've also never seen a toll road in California. There are certainly none in Los Angeles. You can't get out of the state of New Jersey without paying a toll for using their highways..

And it's the income that is gained from things like tolls and real estate taxes that helps pay for schools and roads.

So you have to ask yourself, what's more important. Giving people a BONUS by not having to pay adequate taxes because they have been living in a home for X amount of years or having good schools, roads, police departments, fire departments, etc.

In addition, the increase that is allowed in real estate taxes does not even come close to matching the increase in inflation. Which actually means, you are paying LESS in taxes than you were 30 years ago.

I could understand if the tax increases were keeping up with inflation or the cost of living but it doesn't. When fuel prices go up, so do the prices of running school buses and ambulances for the fire department.

Yes, there is a benefit to all homeowners, especially the homeowners who have been in there homes a long time. But just like someone in NYC who has a 4000 sqft. rent controlled apt. on Central Park South for $1000 month isn't fair, neither is a homeowner in California who is paying 1/20 in taxes for the same property as their neighbor with the exact same house.

Just my .02..
And don't think it's narrow. I understand the other points, but the means don't justify the ends.

I too lived in many states (KY, AZ, MI, CA, and now OH)

One common theme I noticed is that local governments take care of the locals and they stack the deck against new comers to some extent. Prop 13 is another way of doing just that. Locals and old timers get the low taxes while new comers and professionals who relocated for a job get to pay the new taxes. Though I have to say in defense of the system, it is very good for those of us who like to budget ahead of time their liabilities. It is great knowing exactly what you need to pay in taxes.

Before all this subprime mess, people took more consideration when it comes to where to buy a home. People that bought homes 20+ years ago and have done their part in creating stable income for the state. So far Prop 13 is has been a good thing. Throwing it out the window would be a big mistake. Your line of thinking promotes instability and is just selfish hater mentality. You are very narrow minded on a lot of subjects and hardly ever try to understand both sides of situations.

So you want people who have been able to keep their homes for all these years to all of the sudden risk losing them because you as a new home buyer feel it is unfair ? Let's just kick out grandpa and grandma who have done their struggling to keep their home out on the street right? Just so it will be fair to you. The economic problems we face today is nothing that other generations haven't been through already. In fact, what is going on right now will be the second time the baby boomer generation will be in trouble. I doubt that a recall of Prop 13 would make that much more, in fact I'm betting that you would have to pay less. If roads and school systems were so important to you, maybe you should have thought about it before you decided to move there. Its no ones fault but your own to pay top dollar for a home in the ghetto.

Gee Lakai,

Seems like someone is carrying around some baggage.. Did I hurt your feelings? Maybe we can hug it out.. Come on, give us a kiss.

As far as me being narrow minded, that would insinuate that I don't explore other sides of the issue. As usual, Lakai, you are VERY wrong. I make informed decisions based on information and furthermore, am very open to changing my position if information comes along that makes me think otherwise. And there is also a big difference between understanding both sides of an argument and agreeing with both sides of an argument.
-- In almost every argument, both sides have a good reason for supporting their decision. And when deciding where to stand on an issue, I look at at both sides and make a decision on what side of the issue I think is most important. - Is it better for the individual or better for masses? Is it fair? Is it equal? Do the ends justify the means?

I use the term grandpa because it's the people who have been in their homes 30 plus years that are most benefitting from Prop 13. I'm not using it to be derogatory, I'm using to describe a demographic that has been subsidized. But you are right, re-reading my posts, it does seem as a slam even though it wasn't meant to be. Good job Lakai, you made me change a point of view :thumbup: from now on I will use the term Baby Boomer instead. (more politically correct, even though you have stated in many posts that you already feel I'm the PC police.)

Next issue... I'm not a new home buyer. I've been in my Hollywood Hills home for six years. It's more than doubled in value but my taxes have stayed the same. - And if you want to use the term ghetto which means pocket of ethnic area, yes, you are right, there are other Jews in the area besides me. We even have some other minorities like African Americans and lots of Asians and Hispanics.. I don't expect to see you visiting these areas much because you have made it clear how you feel about minorities... Or do I need to quote you again?

Secondly, if you bothered to read much, you would see that I suggested that at the very least, taxes should increase at a rate equal to inflation.

Prop 13 has been a plague on this state's economy and further incentives people not to move. I would be okay with a plan that helped people stay in their houses if they wanted to stay, but a plan that makes it more expensive for than to move to a more practical situation is just ANTI PROGRESSIVE. It inhibits areas of, new development and redevelopment. Old sewers, old power-lines, old homes, equal big problems down the road. It's mortgaging the future with huge interest rates.

Lastly, Prop 13 also can be handed down to family members. Effectively seizing all practical amounts of real estate taxes indefinitely.

-- So while you might think I'm narrow minded, obnoxious, etc. Maybe you should stop projecting your own inability to both extract and deliver rational thought..

A case in point:

California doesn't have enough money to make the budget work and that is with keeping a status quo investment on infrastructure.

Which means, RELATIVELY NO MONEY FOR IMPROVEMENTS.. We can't even keep afloat the public services that we do have.

So lets look at some pictures:
Here are some pictures I shot from my balcony less than an hour ago. You can't currently buy a house in this area, on my block, or in the zip code for less than $1 Million, ballpark.

Here are some shots of what the streets look like on a block of million dollar homes:
(facing up the street)
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...ntastreet9.jpg

(facing down the street)
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...ntastreet5.jpg

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...ntastreet3.jpg

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...ntastreet4.jpg

Why are the roads so bad? Prop 13. No money for public services to fix em because "baby boomers" aren't paying their share in taxes.

Point is, no money for repairs on Million dollar blocks of Los Angeles. What other state in the country has Million dollar homes with roads that look this bad? None that I've ever been to because they pay real estate taxes that go towards public services.. (Not even going to get into the problems of how bad the schools are.)

Second, lets talk about the future. Lets talk about modernization, lets talk about retrofitting, lets talk about keeping California in the 21st century.

This is what our power lines and phone lines and cable lines look like:
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...tastreet12.jpg

Don't you think those utility poles should be underground? Do you think in the year 2008 there should still be wires across america in people's sight lines? Everywhere else I have ever lived, they had tax money to go subgrade. They are installing Fiber Optics, they are not using some archaic and horrendous form of distribution.. Guess what? No money for upgrades cause Baby Boomer ain't paying real estate taxes.

They can't even afford to maintain what's there now. Look at the lines going through the trees. It's been like that for 5 plus years: (and that is a very famous persons house who has a late night talk show.)
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...tastreet11.jpg

So what's more important, giving tax subsidies to vested home owners so they can spend their money on plasma's and ipods. Or raising taxes to a reasonable level so the state doesn't continue to be in a fiscal mess. We can fix what we have now and start planning for the future...

Not giving the 30 year homeowner a gift of only having to pay 1% of what their home was worth in 1980.

Imagine if New York City did this..... :rolleyes:

But thanks again Lakai for suggesting I haven't examined the issue.

Pictures speak 1000 words.

Pretty bad streets. Believe it or not I paid to have our street paved myself out of my own pocket the road was so bad. 10 years ago it cost $15,000 which was a deal. I could not drive my Porsche up and down the road daily so I figured it was cheaper to pave than fix the Porsche.

The public school system is as messed up as the street pictures I'm showing you.
That's why private schools are so popular in California.

You know what it costs to send a kid to private school in Los Angeles?
Kindergarten through 5th grade..
I think the average price is about $23,000 - $25,000 a year.

Or you can send em to public schools that are as well run as the road service.

Also, Wagner, you'll appreciate this. Lets do a little math.
If you bought a house in Los Angeles in 1980 for $200,000 at 1.25% real estate tax your yearly tax bill was $2500.
Now that home (on the very, very, very low side) is worth lets say $1 Million. You know how much the homeowner is spending on real estate taxes? Today, 2008, Million dollar home bought in 1980, they are still paying approximately $2500.. Maybe tops $3000 with compounded increases.

That's right, $3000 in real estate taxes on a million dollar property.
And people wonder why the state of California is always in a fiscal crisis.

And just to give you another example. The neighbor who bought the fictitious house next door last year for a million dollars, is paying $12,500 in real estate taxes for the same home.

Did I mention that baby boomer can pass the home along to their heirs, indefinitely, and the taxes stay at the price when they bought in.
So, Baby Boomers grandson is gifted the house and he pays, $3000 in real estate taxes, while his neighbor who is struggling to afford the mortgage because of limited real estate in prime areas, is given a never ending TAX GIFT...

That's just the picture of the immediate street in front of my house. The problem goes all the way down and all the way up. Miles and miles and miles of horrendous roads. Even if I wanted to pay for it, I couldn't..

WTF dude.. how the hell did you manage to bring ethnicity in to this post. You're a fuckin racist.

You say that prop13 is a plague on our state budget, but give me your rationale on why you think that it will help the budget crisis ?? How does it prevent people from moving ?

Is the real reason because you're having a hard time trying to sell your house so that you can move ? Close to 70% of the people living in Hollywood Hills rent their homes and most of those people move out within 3-6 years for the same problems you feel. Reason you have crappy roads and aging infrastructure is because its a old neighborhood. The school system sucks because very few people living there have children. I don't blame you if want to move. Homes there are way overpriced and there is way too much traffic.

You are all about changing things at other people's expense. If you don't like prop13 , why don't you just pay the amount it would be without prop13 instead of talking about how unfair it is then. Lets see how you feel when you own a home long enough and all of the sudden get a huge increase in property tax.

Those roads look pretty bad, even looks like they never get street swept. Are you sure its not a private road ?

http://www.xoutpost.com/lounge/49959-...ghlight=ballin

Yes, I'm the racist :rolleyes:

ghet·to [get-oh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -tos, -toes.
1. a section of a city, esp. a thickly populated slum area, inhabited predominantly by members of an ethnic or other minority group, often as a result of social or economic restrictions, pressures, or hardships.
2. (formerly, in most European countries) a section of a city in which all Jews were required to live.
3. a section predominantly inhabited by Jews.
4. any mode of living, working, etc., that results from stereotyping or biased treatment: job ghettos for women; ghettos for the elderly.

Another racist slip of the tongue their Lakai?

p.s. - Who said I'm selling my home? I may move West towards the ocean if I find a great deal in a depressed housing market but there isn't a chance in hell I'd sell my pad. I could rent it as an income property at twice what it costs me to carry.

And the Ghetto you so speak of, obviously you know a lot about SoCal real estate. This is what's being built less than a mile from my home:
But you probably know more about real estate than Ian Schrager.
http://la.curbed.com/archives/2008/0...tionwat_12.php
http://curbednetwork.com/cache/galle...043dc16f_o.jpg

Gee, you must feel really silly now Lakai...

Want to hug it out?

If I remember to bring my camera with me, I'll take more pictures of more roads in the area.

Yes, btw, I'm sure it's not a private road... And it's also in a high traffic tourist area near the Hollywood sign.

HAHAHA Seriously, sometimes I wonder if you're just trying to be a dick. I don't know where u get this shit half the time. When did I become an anti-semite ? haha whatever dude you're off your rocker.

Anyways, I never said hollywood hills is the ghetto, your description of your area sounded like the ghetto. Either way, a majority of people that live in Hollywood Hills (besides the parts near the top) are low class people with a little bit of money which is why it makes sense that you live there. There are tons of sleazebucket lawyers, porn site owners and drug dealers that live there. Yes there are plenty of famous people who live there, but they all move out after they realize how crappy and over-rated the neighborhood is. So stop trying to impress me because there's no possible way I'd envy you.

Another funny thing you should mention is the W Hotel residences. I've already got a down-payment on a condo there since last year. I plan on using it as a investment property, but I'm thinking about reconsidering since the project keeps getting delayed due to city meddling and practically extortion. Another reason is that the area is dirty and filled with bums. A few months ago that they are now charging an extra $500 monthly fee for the amennities like the gym, and concierge, valet parking and its mandatory which is retarted but it was the only way the development could brand the condos as the W Residences since Starwood doesn't own them. They are building a Ritz Carlton Condo High-rise by the staples center and its much nicer, I'm thinking about getting one there instead.

Anyways if more people would address the city council and put some pressure on the city to fix the roads, they would do it. I think that the only reason they're as crappy as they are is because most of the owners don't live there and have a different primary residence in Beverly Hills or Westwood.

Yes, yes I am.

When you insinuated that an area with homes starting in the million dollar price range is the ghetto. Obviously you can't be talking about the properties with their views of downtown LA, Griffith observatory or the valley/Hollywood sign... SO you must be speaking of the fact that is has a wide diversity of ethnicities. or don't you know what the term ghetto means? You sure like to use racist language... Might I remind you again of an earlier post where you decided to drop a "n" bomb?

Actually I said that I lived in a neighborhood where homes started at $1 Million and had bad roads and bad schools because of Prop 13. If homes starting at $1 Million is the ghetto than you must be referring to the ethnic population cause I don't know anyone that would consider blocks and blocks of million dollar homes an impoverished area.

lol... Thanks.. That was a good one. Besides, everyone needs a lawyer, drugs and porn...

LOL x2.

Good for you..... Just what the economy needs, more real estate speculators.. Good luck with that. :rolleyes:

Ok, I'm wrong. California is in a fine fiscal place and it has nothing to do with the fact that a segment of the population doesn't pay their share in real estate taxes.

Hollywood is full of scum and their too many jews and bums for your taste so I think your decision to invest in over inflated loft properties downtown owned by the Ritz is a fine idea. No bums down there. However, I can't be certain that it will be jew or african american free. Might want to check with the Klan before you sign the mortgage..

Good luck..
B

OOOOH B, I can't wait to stay at the 'Dubya! It's supposed to be their nicest one to date, hope it beats my current favorite: W Chicago