Posted by Shawn MM on March 02, 2002 at 08:48:57:
tackle this issue. He’d have the politician, whose lobbying for the tenants, chewed up and spit out in 3.4 seconds. I can feel my blood boil after reading the first post. Then, the smugness of the reporter,…
California renters emboldened. - Posted by David H
Posted by David H on March 01, 2002 at 12:19:41:
www.scabee.com, Mar. 1, 2002
Renters receive 90-day reprieve
They express relief as Kawamoto, under pressure, relents.
By Andy Furillo – Bee Staff Writer
Published 5:30 a.m. PST Friday, Mar. 1, 2002
In a major victory for 570 Northern California families, real estate investor Gensiro Kawamoto has agreed to give them three more months to find new places to live.
New 90-day notices will be sent to the tenants sometime next week, attorneys for Legal Services of Northern California said Thursday in a Sacramento press conference.
“I am very relieved,” said Lourdes Ordona, one of Kawamoto’s Sacramento County tenants. “I can breathe a sigh of relief, especially for the families that have children in school. I myself have children attending two different high schools, so I am really happy to hear that we’ve got a little more time.”
Kawamoto’s Honolulu lawyer, Carol Asai-Sato, confirmed Thursday that her client will be issuing the new notices next week. She said Kawamoto acted in response to the public outcry on behalf of the tenants by renters, their attorneys, community activist groups and business, landlord and banking groups, as well as a host of government officials, including California Gov. Gray Davis.
“Being so far away, he heard the responses of the tenants and the public in general, and realized that, yes, 30 days may be too short of time to find alternate premises and also to move out of their current homes,” Asai-Sato said. “So he decided to grant everyone 90 days, although legally he’s only required to give 30 days.”
Legal Services attorney Jonathan Givner said that Kawamoto’s Sacramento lawyer, Kirk Giberson, notified him Wednesday afternoon that the Tokyo real estate tycoon had relented and would not force tenants out of their homes in 30 days.
“This is a great victory for all the families that have been affected by these notices and a great day in our region,” Legal Services attorney John Givens said. “I’d like to commend all the families who, rather than just taking these notices and leaving their homes, recognized the injustice of these actions and decided to take their fight to the people of the community, to the courts, to the Legislature.”
Asai-Sato said Kawamoto intends to find a bulk purchaser of his properties who would then be able to rent to the current tenants. “If that’s unsuccessful, then he’ll open it up to sell to the tenants,” Asai-Sato said.
Brokers hired last week to price and sell the homes for Kawamoto said Thursday they had been told to hold off on pricing the houses for four to six weeks.
The new, three-month notices will affect 420 Kawamoto renters in Citrus Heights, Antelope, Orangevale and Rocklin as well as about another 150 in the Santa Rosa area.
Local tenants reacted with joy to their landlord’s change of mind. “I’m ecstatic,” said Tanya Bray, a 28-year-old mother of two in Citrus Heights. “It’s really got my hopes up. I was getting really panicky, but this is a sign of relief. I’m extremely happy.”
“Oh, praise the Lord,” said Kristen McAllister, 32, also of Citrus Heights. “That’s an answer to a prayer.”
The Sonoma County District Attorney’s Office also had been contacted by Kawamoto representatives Wednesday, saying the landlord would issue the new 90-day notices next week. Kawamoto came to the agreement after Sonoma prosecutors had threatened to go to court for a temporary restraining order enjoining Kawamoto’s 30-day notices.
Sonoma County District Attorney Dani Jo Handell said that Kawamoto’s aides informed her office that he would issue the new notices if she would hold off on filing suit.
That suit would have followed one that was filed Tuesday in Sacramento. In the local lawsuit, Legal Services lawyers representing the activist group Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, and one of Kawamoto’s tenants, Margaret Henley, of Citrus Heights, charged that he had violated the state’s Business and Professions Code in trying to remove the tenants. Givner said Legal Services lawyers will likely drop the suit if and when Kawamoto follows through on his promise.
A hearing on the plaintiffs’ effort to block Kawamoto from issuing the 30-day notices was postponed Tuesday when Kawamoto’s lawyer agreed to delay the possible filing of eviction notices until March 20.
In addition to the lawsuit, the Citrus Heights City Council has since passed an ordinance requiring Kawamoto to pay each tenant $4,000 in relocation costs if he didn’t hold off on the lease terminations for at least three months.
State Sen. Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento, meanwhile, introduced a measure in the Legislature that would give tenants in mass lease terminations 90 days to vacate. Her legislation cleared the Assembly Judiciary Committee on Wednesday by a 9-1 vote.
Ortiz said that based on advice she received from the state attorney general’s office, she still intends to forge ahead with her legislative effort “until we see documents that are legally binding.”
Citrus Heights Mayor Roberta MacGlashan said the decision will “require some people to uproot themselves, which is unfortunate, but it will give them a reasonable amount of time to do that and eliminate some of the traumatic aspects of this eviction.”
Kawamoto’s lawyer denied that any specific legislative actions prompted the decision.
“He doesn’t feel and we don’t feel he’s bound by any law to give 90-day notices,” Asai-Sato said. “He’s doing it to ease the concerns of the tenants.”
Kawamoto’s lawyer said his decision was also made to opt for a bulk sale of the properties. “A lot of the tenants want to remain in the homes and keep renting for the rest of their lives, if they could,” Asai-Sato said. “Getting a bulk purchaser would probably solve that problem.”
ACORN board chairman Chris Jones hailed the tenants’ victory as a product of the community’s “relentless effort.” And he promised more pressure from tenants in coming months as the group takes the renters’ rights cause to the Legislature on a wide variety of issues.
The Bee’s Andy Furillo can be reached at (916) 321-1141 or afurillo@sacbee.com. Bee staff writers Blair Anthony Robertson and Herbert A. Sample contributed to this report.
Re: California renters emboldened. - Posted by Where is Kawamoto?
Posted by Where is Kawamoto? on March 02, 2002 at 11:26:09:
I represent a group of investors … we may be interested in buying all of Kawamoto’s properties in Sacramento. This guy has obviously got a problem … perhaps I can solve it. Has anyone seen the name of Kawamoto’s attorney or representive in sacramento in these articles being writtren that I could contact? If I am not mistaken, these houses are in an area of Sacramento that is growing.
Corporate structure? - Posted by Sally (WA)
Posted by Sally (WA) on March 01, 2002 at 18:52:24:
I don’t know how Mr. Kawamoto held title to all of these properties, whether personally (although I can’t imagine he would be that dumb) or through a corporation. However, it is certainly public knowledge that he is the owner.
It makes me wonder if there would have been such a public outcry as there is now against the “billionaire landlord” if the properties were held by an anonymous corporate structure and the identity of the shareholders kept quiet.
Somehow a big corporate conglomorate would not be a sexy to the media as conjuring up a vision of a Japanese billionaire playing Scrooge.
Re: California renters emboldened. - Posted by Tim Fierro (Tacoma, WA)
Posted by Tim Fierro (Tacoma, WA) on March 01, 2002 at 16:52:31:
I sent an e-mail to Andy Furillo for a different spin.
Andy,
I don’t read your local papers, as I am in Tacoma, Washington; but I
thought it was time someone from another location gave a reaction to
this ‘drama’ unfolding in California and your community.
I am getting my information second hand via an on-line re-posting of
the articles to a web site I frequent. Some people have thought the
news worthy to post the articles so that other investors around the
county can see what is happening in your community.
This is probably a different view point than what you are seeing,
but here are a few things I have observed through the articles
posted so far.
Santa Rosa Mayor Mike Martini;
Martini admitted the city can’t stop Kawamoto from selling his
properties, but he said Sunday that city officials will try to delay
any evictions to give residents time to find other housing, perhaps
until the end of the school year in June.
What the Mayor is telling the public, and to the landlord, is
WHEN/IF this gets to an eviction process, we in the city will try
and delay the evictions. While the landlord has rights, we will
ignore them as best we can so that our citizens who live here will
thank us and vote for us again next election time.
The Mayor is not coming out in favor of the landlord who is
following the law, he is coming out to support his voters. Is this
the image that Santa Rosa wants to portray to the investors who
might consider investing in their community in the future?
The community is trying to get legislation to stop this and
getting the media all involved with their cause. Fine, for future
instances, but this community can’t reasonably expect that a ‘new’
law now is supposed to be retroactive to the landlord in this
situation.
I read that the proposed bill would require that a landlord who
is going to terminate 50 or more leases will need to give 90 day
notices. This means that investors will likely not want to purchase
more than 49 properties in an area designated with this new law.
The bill, or what I have seen portrayed of it, does not mention
if those 50 terminations must be in the same day, or many
days/weeks. With no date specifications, a landlord will just issue
30 today, and 20 the day after. Any bill going through legislation
will need to provide these stipulations. No matter what the dates
are, investors in your area will now have to take this into account
if the time ever came where they would want to sell their properties
in bulk.
Another portion of the bill that raises the eyebrow, is the mass
termination of leases within a 5 mile radius. Just another nuisance
an investor in your area will have to hurdle through. Used with #4
above, an investor willing to still purchase many properties in your
area with these regulations, will review purchasing only 49
properties in one area, and then make sure the next community of 49
is 5.1 miles away. These are hurdles and it only affects the ‘very
rare’ occasion that a mass termination would take effect.
Should a bill pass that requires 90 day termination notices, an
investor will know that it is another hurdle to overcome if they
wish to do business in your community. This will be a big risk
factor in determining whether to invest in your area. A landlord
will know going in that if he ever wants to terminate 50 leases at
one time, he will need 90 day notices. But worse than that, is he
will probably not collect any rent for that period. Renters given
90 days to terminate and move out, and know now the community will
rally behind them, are not going to want to shell out money to the
big bad landlord. Thus the risk now is how do you know you will get
paid during those last 90 days after you give notice to your
tenants? You don’t, and that is an extra risk. I wonder if the
community would rally around the landlord and create legislation to
protect the landlord from the social injustice of not getting paid
for services/housing provided? Doubtful, it’s Goliath asking for
help, and the community only helps those who have nothing but rocks.
I don’t believe your community, California, or even the country,
needs legislation for mass termination of leases. It is a very rare
occurrence that this would ever happen and the only reason it is
getting headlines now, is that it is the typical David and Goliath
story. Perfect fodder for the politicians, activists, and local
wannabes to flex their muscles.
All the investor/landlord wanted to do was to honor his contracts
for lease termination and gave the required 30 day termination
notices. He has the right to exercise this, and he is doing so.
Why is he made out to be the bad guy in all this?
All the hoopla is going to die down, people are going to move on,
and the activists can use this stirring cause as their pulpit for
higher government challenges. They got their 15 minutes of fame at
the expense of another, and are rallied around even though their
position has no merit.
This landlord did nothing but honor his lease agreements with those
who had a contract with him. The battle cry is not because they
have to move, it is because they now have to give up that ‘less than
market rent’ that they have enjoyed. It is called sticker shock
when they realize they had it good for a while, now welcome to the
real world again.
I will finish this letter with a quote I saw posted. It is hope
that this one man can help show these other politicians that it is
unnecessary.
The bill was opposed by Assemblyman Thomas Harman, R-Huntington
Beach, who said he has reservations about whether the measure is
constitutional.
“A willing landlord and a willing tenant entered into a 30-day
agreement, and we’re talking about a law that would invalidate
that,” Harman said afterward. “My opinion is that we’re stepping
over the line. We should not be doing this.”
Tim
Yikes! Doncha love the press and uninformed - Posted by Jim FL
Posted by Jim FL on March 01, 2002 at 16:42:35:
David,
Thanks for posting this.
I’ll admit, I have no interest in California rentals, but have been following this out of “Morbid curiousity”, or what ever you want to call it.
There are a few things that have bothered me a bit when reading all these articles.
First, the fact that the press and others refer to these rental agreement termination notices as “Evictions”, which they are not. (Someone else has pointed this out here many times as well.)
We all here know that an “Eviction” will not be filed until these tenants refuse to leave, so in essence, the landlord here has given all these tenants more than 90 days to move, if they push the issue.
Isn’t the law out there in California that he only has to give them 30 days notice?
Then in this article is says:
“I’d like to commend all the families who, rather than just taking these notices and leaving their homes, recognized the injustice of these actions and decided to take their fight to the people of the community, to the courts, to the Legislature.”
INJUSTICE?!?! What?
Sure, perhaps he was not being the “Nicest landlord”, but it seems that he was following the law.
Don’t we all espouse drawing a hard line with landlord tenant issues to avoid bigger, more costly problems later?
Frankly, I’m not so sure that I would have caved as this guy appears to have.
With his financial resources, he surely could have gone to court and won based on existing state laws, and when they change in the legislature, challenge that and win. (Money would still outwin a public outcry in my humble opinion.)
This article also said;
“In addition to the lawsuit, the Citrus Heights City Council has since passed an ordinance requiring Kawamoto to pay each tenant $4,000 in relocation costs if he didn’t hold off on the lease terminations for at least three months.”
Oh my goodness! Isn’t the landlord here a billionaire?
Surely his legal staff could get around this, since it seems rather unconstitutional, at least to my non legal mind. Perhaps counter sue the city and get some funds from them for damages created with this unconstitutional new municipal law.
What a joke!
Sure, we are all investors here, and may be inclined to side with the landlord here, but…
I just think this is setting up other landlord in California for trouble later by allowing this to get to where it is headed, at least according to the press.
I’m sure this is selling papers though. 
And, if I were a foreign investor, after having to deal with this type of mess in the U.S.A., I might be inclined to NOT invest in this country again.
Seems to me that California may be cutting off its nose to spite its face here.
Anyway, just my rambling thoughts.
I guess I’m not as “Nice” a landlord as this guy.
Then again, I don’t have 420 or so rentals…yet!
Thanks again for sharing this,
Jim FL
Re: California renters emboldened. - Posted by Tim Fierro (Tacoma, WA)
Posted by Tim Fierro (Tacoma, WA) on March 03, 2002 at 01:29:06:
Please enlighten me… What is his obvious problem?
I don’t think anyone knows his true reason for selling. It could be because;
mold may be an issue
he wants to sell lock, stock, and barrel
he wants to sell to a developer for enhanced value
prices could not go higher, so it is time to sell
“needs cash for other investments”
Even if he needs cash for other investments, I don’t see it as an obvious problem. If he doesn’t come up with the cash for the supposed new investment opportunity; it just may mean he gets cash somewhere else, or he passes on it.
I am just curious as to what is this obvious problem that you can help solve?
For all we know, he has someone who will give him top dollar for the land if the homes were all emptied by December 2002. So he starts the wheels in motion. Nobody knows, so how can you determine his problem without nothing stated he has one.
Honolulu, Sacramento lawyers. - Posted by David H
Posted by David H on March 02, 2002 at 12:20:17:
From www.sacbee.com, Mar 1, 2002, “Renters receive 90-day reprieve”
Kawamoto’s Honolulu lawyer, Carol Asai-Sato, confirmed Thursday that her client will be issuing the new notices next week. She said Kawamoto acted in response to the public outcry on behalf of the tenants by renters, their attorneys, community activist groups and business, landlord and banking groups, as well as a host of government officials, including California Gov. Gray Davis.
“Being so far away, he heard the responses of the tenants and the public in general, and realized that, yes, 30 days may be too short of time to find alternate premises and also to move out of their current homes,” Asai-Sato said. “So he decided to grant everyone 90 days, although legally he’s only required to give 30 days.”
Legal Services attorney Jonathan Givner said that Kawamoto’s Sacramento lawyer, Kirk Giberson, notified him Wednesday afternoon that the Tokyo real estate tycoon had relented and would not force tenants out of their homes in 30 days.
Re: Corporate structure? - Posted by Dan
Posted by Dan on March 02, 2002 at 11:15:21:
I looked it up … his name is on title!
Re: Corporate structure? - Posted by David H
Posted by David H on March 01, 2002 at 22:20:33:
If it was a corporation, I fear we’d have the anti-globalization protestors rioting in the streets.
Re: California renters emboldened. - Posted by David H
Posted by David H on March 01, 2002 at 17:31:30:
>Santa Rosa Mayor Mike Martini;
>Martini admitted the city can’t stop Kawamoto from
>selling his properties, but he said Sunday that city
>officials will try to delay any evictions to give
>residents time to find other housing, perhaps until
>the end of the school year in June.
The problem is that everybody wants to use the word evictions whether or not it’s technically accurate. My interpretation is that Martini is using the word “eviction” to describe the 30-day notice. I don’t think he’s using the word, nor intending to use it, in the technically correct way.
Here’s an excerpt of SacBee writer Andy Furillo’s email to me:
“Somehow, phrasing a story to the effect, of, “A landlord who exercised his contractural rights with regards to month-to-month lease renewal yesterday…” doesn’t quite cut it. They won’t let us say that he’s evicting the tenants because in a strict legal sense the eviction doesn’t start until he goes to court. (I’ve argued that in the layman’s interpretation of the word, eviction is accurate, and the RHA and the Calif Apt Assn agrees with me, even if my editor doesn’t.) So that leaves us looking for a quick way to say it that gets the point across. I believe “kicking out” is accurate, and that’s what I’ve been using. If you think it’s emotionally charged, give me a better, more succinct way to say it. Seriously. Thanks.”
I told him not to use such an emotionally-charged word at the expense of landlords so as to make his job easier. I also gave him six to seven short-form alternatives to “eviction.”
The Mistakes of This Investor . . . - Posted by TxRae…raelynn mitchell
Posted by TxRae…raelynn mitchell on March 03, 2002 at 08:39:24:
were many.
One of them was keeping all of the assets obviously owned by one individual/company. This is one more reason why privacy should be foremost on everyone’s mind when it comes to how you hold title and how much or how little info you reveal about yourself and/or your company(ies).
Yes, he is entitled to only follow the law and not give more. But then again, give an inch and someone will burn rubber as they run all over you to get that mile (or something like that). (Especially in California!)
In the commodity market when you dump a ton of something, such as coffee or cocoa or sugar or what have you, the market reacts. Value is perceived to be less because a lot of it is suddenly available. And the investor pays the price, in the way of receiving a lower price per pound or per barrel or whatever. It is the same in the real estate market, yet most people don’t see it in such a drastic way as this investor because of the difference in pricing of the asset and other characteristics unique to real estate. But even we as investors see this trait in real estate one investment at a time; it’s called a motivated seller!
THIS IS ALSO A WARNING TO INVESTORS WHO LOOK TO THEIR EQUITY AND NET WORTH AS ALMOST AS SPENDABLE AS CASH AS A REALITY CHECK THAT NOTHING IS ACTUALLY WORTH THE APPRAISALS, ETC., UNTIL THE MONEY IS IN THE BANK. It is obvious in this fellow’s situation that it will cost him a lot more to sell these properties, even if he gets the exact same price by selling to the current tenants. As you know, the time value of money is VERY important. Anyone who’s ever considered buying a mortgage at a discount should understand this.
Seeing as how this is California, and California tends to set trends that the rest of the country often at least tries to follow, this is an issue that we should all take a serious look at.
Keep this in mind, too: Life IS NOT fair! (So plan accordingly.) This investor obviously played by the rules, at least as they were written in California, and now it looks as though he may be losing in a big way, even if only by the time delay. He obviously had a strong reason to get out of the California market since he decided to sell all holdings at once.
If you didn’t understand it before, now you know why Bill Bronchick refers to California as “The People’s Republic of California”.
raelynn mitchell
(now in Houston, TX)
cake and eat it, too… - Posted by TRandle
Posted by TRandle on March 01, 2002 at 20:06:04:
Yes, the poor tenants aren’t willing to “lock in” some security by renting for longer terms. They’re victims because they had no choice other than to agree to month to month rentals. The landlords who would have agreed to one year or longer terms probably wanted market rents. Greedy Ba$tards! Down with Capitalism! Down with Personal Accountability!
Re: Yikes! Doncha love the press and uninformed - Posted by David H
Posted by David H on March 01, 2002 at 17:53:49:
It is me who has been repeatedly pointing out the subtle use of the word “eviction.”
What further irks me is that the SacBee has - so far as I can find - not reported specifics on vacancy rates in the area, nor any indication as to how much of an increase these 420 tenants are above the day to day traffic volume of apartment seekers. They write as if it’s a given that there is no place for these people to move to. When you argue them on this point, they say, “well, no place for them to go to at their current rent…” so it becomes clear the real thing they’re upset about is having to face the real world and pay market rent.
Entitlement - Posted by phil fernandez
Posted by phil fernandez on March 01, 2002 at 17:44:22:
Geez the landlord was following the law to the letter which states that he has to give the tenants a 30 day notice. So why is the landlord the bad guy here???
It’s obvious that both the tenants and civilian servants feel they are entitled to something outside the legally written law. Reading the above news article, no where did I see where the landlord was praised for extending the vacate notice period from the required 30 days to the 90 days. Not a tenant, not a bleeding heart liberal gave credit to the landlord. They only say what a" great victory "they the tenants and over reacting politicans achieved. What victory. This could have an adverse affect on other people getting into the landlording business. The bleeding hearts forget that we landlords provide a great service to those who either chose to rent or have to rent. The old cut off your nose in spite of your face. This Gray Davis guys gotta be a democrat. Isn’t he.
Re: California renters emboldened. - Posted by dan
Posted by dan on March 03, 2002 at 02:49:31:
i see his obvious problem being that he wants to sell all of his houses now and he is not going to get the cooperation of his tenants to get out in a timely manner. he bought and built some houses throughout the 90s … he may be just breaking even on some or he may be ahead, who knows, that is neither here nor there … but he does want to sell. right!
i also see his obvios problem being that he is going to possibly have to defend himself against law suits regarding the mold problem … eroneous or not … that may drag this thing out.
i may approach him to buy ALL of his houses. the tenants can stay put and instead of waiting 90 days to get some of the tenants out(others i am sure he will have to evict so it could take a little longer)he could just sell with the tenants in place. that way my company comes out looking like a hero and his “obvious problem” is solved … THAT IS HOW I COULD HELP HIM OUT OF WHAT I SEE AS A PAIN IN THE ASS OF A PROBLEM. NOW DO YOU UNDERSTAND.
his intent is to get all of the tenants out and sell off the houses … that could take quite a while. he has demonstrated this intent by listing some of the properties with a cb richard ellis out of sacramento.
WHAT’S WITH THE ATTITUDE ON YOUR POST … maybe he doesn’t see all of this as a problem, but i sure do!
Relax tim
Re: California renters emboldened. - Posted by JohnBoy
Posted by JohnBoy on March 01, 2002 at 20:01:39:
The only point to get across is that the owner wants to sell his properties and no longer wants to rent them out! It’s a legal 30 day notice to vacate! Period! If they want to get the point across accurately then call it what it is! A 30 day notice to vacate!
I don’t see why they are making such a big deal over this. If this was a landlord with 1, 10, 20, or even 49 properties no one would have said a word about it! Why should it make a difference just because it involves over 400? These are all individually owned properties and the owner has the right to serve a 30 day notice if that is what he wants to do. Just because he happens to own numerous properties should make no difference.
Where are the tenants responsibility in this??? They ALL agreed to month to month leases from the beginning! Rather than changing laws to require 90 days notice they should be using this as an example of, “let the tenant beware!” If you’re going to accept month to month leases then this is what you risk! If you can’t deal with this then don’t lease from someone on a month to month lease! Only lease from Landlord’s that will give you a year’s lease and you won’t have this problem!
Heck, lets add up all the number of leases coming due in any given month across the country where Landlords aren’t renewing the tenant’s lease and all the month to month leases where tenant’s are being given 30 day notices to vacate and what would that add up to???
If all the politicians and do-gooders want to do something for all these people then why don’t they all pool together and buy these properties off the owner themselves in order to help them out??? No, they would never do that! All those properties are rented below market rents and they’re not going to buy something that would throw off a negative cash flow!!!
Why don’t they offer to put up the money the owner would get from selling these so he can invest in his other project and they can get paid back as these homes are sold off later! Then they could buy the tenants more time that way! Nah, just make the owner out to be the big bad Landlord and change the laws to where it ends up affecting more innocent people!
It appears only ONE politician had any sense in all of this when he voted against passing a new law!
It use to be first, last and security. Now it will be first and last 3 months plus security! Then in the end these politicians will have a lot of tenants crying how they can’t find a place to live because they don’t have 4 months rent and security to move in!!! LOL
Re: cake and eat it, too… - Posted by JohnBoy
Posted by JohnBoy on March 01, 2002 at 20:25:09:
We need laws that make it mandatory to charge market rents!!! Especially if you rent on a month to month basis! These poor people need protection!
As far as I can see… - Posted by Bryan in Cali
Posted by Bryan in Cali on March 01, 2002 at 21:34:55:
A quick comparison between Sacramento and Santa Clara counties, which have about the same population, reveals fewer apartment and house rentals in Sac than in SC. Then again, there have been stories such as the “injustice” of forcing an old lady to move into a smaller place since she will have to give up her “sentimental” furniture-that fills a 3 bedroom house with herself as the only resident. If she sold some of that furniture off she could afford to move. If she’s worried about her antique Steinway piano, give it to a museum. (She admits that since her hubby died she never plays it anymore.) I’ve been cleaning out a storage locker I have that’s full of stuff that’s just lost meaning to me. You’ve got to look at your clutter and ask yourself if you can give up stuff and not die from sorrow.
Re: Entitlement - Posted by TxRae…raelynn mitchell
Posted by TxRae…raelynn mitchell on March 03, 2002 at 08:48:40:
Hey there, Phil !!!
Yeah, you’ve gotta wonder what they’re really thinking. I’m curious what happens when all the other large-block investors wake up and see this and realize that they want to get out of the California market also–for whatever reason–and decide to do so. Where do the tenants stay when there is no more suitable housing available?
Reminds me of what businesses in Cali went through a few years back. They were leaving the state in droves because the expenses to do business were too high, and other states like Utah were offering tax breaks and free land if only the companies would relocate and bring the jobs to Utah. A lot of the big businesses left, and what did California do? Raise the taxes of the businesses that were left! (Thus driving MORE businesses out of the state, and so on, and so on, and the trend continued . . .)
One good thing about this is, if there are any other large-block real estate investors in CA considering selling off CA holdings, they now know not to do it all at once, or at least not to be so obvious about it!!!