Friday, November 21, 2008

They Didn't Get The Memo

Custom Spanish Style Equestrian Estate In Malibu!
Year Built 2001
Sq Footage 3,878

Yet another WTF moment. Horse paddocks in the boonies aren't $5m. The current owners are paying taxes on a long ago purchase far below $1m and the listing describes a bullsh¡t 2001 construction date.

Let's just rename Malibu, South Oxnard and get on with the recession shall we?

24 comments:

Jean ValJean said...

First and last...

I'm going to bed. it's midnight here.

'Night all!

Surfer said...

Rob Dawg, how goes it G? We should have an adult beverage soon, been too long. How you been?

H Simpson said...

$4,999,000

Not 4,999,999?
what happened, run out of 9s to put on the ad-trailer in front of the realtor office?

Yessiree, it sure looks like a real investment. Beside renting out space to the city slickers when the government hands them their ponies, that pool looks like it could be converted into a breaded koi pond with little effort.

A sweet deal.

Surprised Casey doesn't go for it. Think of the cash back on a 5 million dollar purchase. Heck you could live nicely on the stashed funds until your credit rating was restored.

h.

segfault said...

Is that an open-air maze in the bottom right pic on the listing?

Lou Minatti said...

Memories...

Rob Dawg said...

Surfer? That really you? Well, let's see you missed the emergency quadruple bypass for one thing. I'll need to ask permission before that drink.

Rob Dawg said...

Seggy,
That's a horse paddock and stall.

Surfer said...

Yeah Rob, it is I. Dude, sorry to dear about the ticker, did you get the complete ring and valve job? If so you should be good for another 100K. Best to you man, let me know if Mrs. Dawg ok's an adult beverage

sm_landlord said...

Wow, is that house priced for a Zillow "Make Me Move" play? It's up Decker almost to Mulholland!

Not even worth $1 million.

Jean ValJean said...

Testing 123. Testing 123.

Or should I say.. Check, baby, check!

Jean ValJean said...

To follow up on Lou's theme...

More memories...

Property Flopper said...

OK - Where does CNN find these losers? And does anyone at CNN even THINK about the story before printing it?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/11/24/hm.holiday.economy.spending.guilt/index.html

It's going to be a tough Xmas, I get that. The part I find interesting is she is ABOUT to be out of work and he is still working... yet the bills are a few weeks behind so no extra money for presents.

Now, I could see if she were out of work and he'd been cut back on hours or something, but they've gotten themselves in deep while still working - there wouldn't be money for a $600 spree (for a 3 year old!!!) even if they both kept their jobs.

Ugh. What ever happened to fiscal responsibility?

Jean ValJean said...

PFFFT!

Fiscal Responsibility is for loosers! (tm).

Remember, the quickest way to become a $600-aire is to BORROW $600.

Monica said...

We don't know if they have been irresponsible. Maybe it was due to some emergency, such as a medical emergency or their car (if the car is absolutely needed), roof, furnace, or whatever breaking down. I can see a working person making the decision to use the money that was earmarked for other bills, knowing that power won't be cut off and groceries won't run out before they get their next pay. Then, kaboom! The job loss comes.

w said...

Monica has ninja-like skillz of an apologist.

Monica said...

I did that kind of thing myself, although it was generally for the phone bill, or with credit card bills that were paid, but only slightly above the minimum payment. Slightly above because that way, technically, I still paid more than the minimum. In fact, I never had a car, and the electricity was always included in the rent. Regardless, I know how it feels.

NHSteph said...

If you can't afford to maintain your house, you can't afford to live in one. By that I mean, if you do not have 2% of the purchase price set aside annually, strictly for maintenance, then you have no business owning a home. Let the landlord worry about the roof and the water heater.

Unexpected medical debt is about the only thing that gets a pass in my book...

Monica said...

It depends. The cost of housing being high in any case, why not at least try to end up owning the house some day instead of being enslaved to a landlord forever? And there is a thin line between trying one's best to live within one's means when it is hard to pay much less and those means are fairly modest, and outright financial irresponsibility. We don't know how they got there, really.

We also don't know why the bills were unpaid and if being late was not more responsible than some other alternative. One example is that it may have been a good idea to pay credit card bills better than the bills that don't appear on the credit report or lead to huge penalty fees if unpaid. I know my phone bill doesn't appear on my credit report. As bad as it sounds, if hard choices need to be made, it could make sense.

NHSteph said...

"The cost of housing being high in any case, why not at least try to end up owning the house some day instead of being enslaved to a landlord forever?"

Because if you make a poor (and usually highly emotionally charged) decision, you end up being enslaved to a too-expensive house forever (well, until the gubenmint done bail you out).

Renting is not "throwing money away" as people so often piss and moan about. It is a situation that provides financial flexibilty-- the ability to leave and find a cheaper locale, or to move for better job/education prospects. People get so emotionally attached to the concept of "homemoanership" that they make idiotic financial decisions.

Now we have to make a big socialist fuss to "fix" these colossal errors in judgement because people strangely consider homemoanership a "right"...I don't recall seeing that one in the Constitution.

There's no shame in renting an apartment until you are financially ready to own a home. And like it or not, that includes being able to pay to maintain it, and to be able to weather an extended job loss. You simply cannot live paycheck to paycheck and consider your house "affordable".

And regretfully, sometimes bad things do happen to good people. But the pool of the truly unlucky is small. The pool of whiners is infinitely larger.

Monica said...

But living paycheck to paycheck is actually more dangerous as a renter for the simple reason that a landlord will kick the tenant out for nonpayment of rent immediately, whereas foreclosure could take quite a while.

NHSteph said...

Well, I'm not overly interested in what is "dangerous" for renters. I'm interested in personal responsibility and seeing people live up to obligations. That means you pay your rent or your mortgage, and if you can't afford it, you don't buy it.

Thus, if you live paycheck to paycheck there's a fundamental problem that you can probably fix by MOVING-- for a better job, for better schools, for lower cost of living.

Having a house that chains you to a region in decline can ruin you by making it difficult to get out of the area.

If you have an apartment, you can just leave. No muss, no fuss. (Yeah, maybe you break a lease, but if you weren't planning to living up to your obligation anyways, your landlord won't mind too much-- he'd rather have you out so he can have a paying customer)

As for a landlord simply kicking a tenant out, well, I suspect you're not a landlord? My family actually had to SELL a house once to get a guy out because the neighbors wrote letters to a sympathetic judge saying what a champ the guy was! He might have been a real great neighbor, but he wasn't so hot at paying rent. He got a free ride off my family for eight months and forced us to actually divest the property to cover our obligations.

And in this cold weather state, if you don't throw a leech out by October, forget it, you don't get a chance to toss him again until April. No judge will toss them with snow on the ground, regardless of the arrears...and all the while, your bills keep rolling in...

Mr. Outspoken said...

BHP Billiton abandons bid for Rio Tinto? I guess the $68B heading into a painful construction downturn was too much to bear. Now they are well positioned to diversify into another hot mining play, something a little cheaper with an underutilized and diverse reserve portfolio.

Jean ValJean said...

*sniff*


*sniff*

I smell a Monica troll

Lex said...

You have got to be kidding:
A government program to encourage debt and keep tuition costs high