Substandard Housing

[LauraleeG]

I am wondering if developers are of the “ if we build it, they will come mentality”
Do we REALLY need another “ Factory outlet Mall”?
Nope.... but tear down a forest to build one, and the associated blight of a thousand acre parking lot... and they will, most assuredly come.

[GordMay]

Real Estate Development According to a Former Practitioner:
“... “I’ll do nearly anything within legal bounds to win,” Trump avers in The Art of the Deal, a declaration borne out by decades of trash-talking rivals (“part of making a deal is denigrating your competition”), sweet-talking city officials (“When a reporter later asked me why I got a forty-year tax abatement, I answered, ‘Because I didn’t ask for fifty’”), and strong-arming contractors (“If you try screwing me on this job, you won’t be getting a second chance”). Indeed, ever since he emerged on the New York real estate scene in the 1970s,

Trump’s approach to deal-making has typified Thorstein Veblen’s acid-tongued assessment that the “arts of business are the arts of bargaining, effrontery, salesmanship, make-believe, and are directed to the gain of the business man at the cost of the community, at large and in detail.”

... “You hear lots of people say that a great deal is when both sides win,” Donald Trump writes in a book co-authored with Bill Zanker, the founder of the Real Estate & Wealth Expo, the cross-country roadshow where pricey get-rich-quick packages, including, once upon a time, Trump U, are peddled with similar high-pressure tactics. “That is a bunch of crap. In a great deal, you win — not the other side.” ...”


More ➥ https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/...asion-paradox/

[boatpoker]

Can you tell the difference between camping and cruising ?

[letsgetsailing3]

images.jpg Views: 23 Size: 10.2 KB ID: 209441" style="margin: 2px" />

[Mike OReilly]

Camping:

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

Attachment 209439

Attachment 209440

Attachment 209441

I can and as the OP of this f***ed up thread i can say i never called the cruising I do camping. Not to say there aren’t cruisers doing pretty close.

[letsgetsailing3]

[sailorboy1]

Doesn't count as camping unless you put the tent behind the tree so you cant see the RV anymore

[Lake-Effect]

Nice pix. I wish the friggin winter would end so we can do some more camping AND some waterborne-substandard-housing-type cruising.

[dwedeking2]

as boat scum all the talk of building codes, zoning laws, mass density of people in a small area just makes me glad to live on a boat where I can do things the way i want and not have people telling me the ”right way” to live and looking over my shoulder.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

You just proved my point.

If I do not sell my house I should not be hit with FMV on that unsold house. You keep forgetting "willing seller" part of the FMV definition.

Nope...everyone is a willing seller if the price is high enough. Just because you haven't received a high enough offer to follow thru with a sale doesn't mean there isn't a FMV.

Likewise, some deals are made that are above or below FMV because one party is bad at making deals.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by boatpoker

Can you tell the difference between camping and cruising ?

Camping just means setting up a camp somewhere to stay. It doesn't require a particular type of accommodation.

In the middle east, I've seen camping...and they use tents. They have furniture, air/con, flush toiltets, big screen TVs, fully carpeted with staff serving catered meals....so if camping is defined as living in a tent, they are a lot more comfortable than your average cruiser.

[cyan]

The funny bit is that the OP simply repeated a view that unless one is actually underway or cruising, one is simply living in substandard housing if living on a boat. The real point seemed to get lost among a camping versus RVing argument, an urban planning argument, a boat scum argument, political views of the politics of neighboring countries, and really tasty food pics.

The real conjecture, to me, seems to be that one must be actually cruising on an average boat in order to justify living on such a boat. It's a curious thought. I just wanted to say thanks, sailorboy1, for the interesting food for thought. Now, by all means, carry on with the tomfoolery...

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Nope...everyone is a willing seller if the price is high enough. Just because you haven't received a high enough offer to follow thru with a sale doesn't mean there isn't a FMV.

Likewise, some deals are made that are above or below FMV because one party is bad at making deals.

By your logic if everyone around me is selling for $500K and I am waiting for that $1mil offer I should be taxed at $1mil while I wait?

You keep missing my point, whether intentionally or otherwise. I am not arguing that everything does not have its price and ultimately FMV. I am arguing that until that happens, and only then and not before, there can be and there should be no theoretical FMV upon which to base taxation of one's property.

Sure it would be inconvenient, especially politically, to have neighbors pay vastly different amounts of taxes. But it is only right that people are not gouged just because their neighbors paid 10X today compared to X which someone paid 20 years ago.

I recall reading about such system existing in France and how it is meant to keep the elderly in their ancestral homes. Seem logical to me - that taxation should be based on actual prices paid and not on some theoretical numbers which do not apply to a particular property.

US system is meant to keep the property ownership turn over high, which in turn allows the tax offices to collect more property tax from more people. But at a cost of big disruption for long time residents who are forced to sell. I often hear a complaint from the elderly in my area that they pay more in annual real estate tax today than they paid for the house 40 years ago. That is just so wrong on all levels.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

You keep missing my point, whether intentionally or otherwise. I am not arguing that everything does not have its price and ultimately FMV. I am arguing that until that happens, and only then and not before, there can be and there should be no theoretical FMV upon which to base taxation of one's property.

Sure it would be inconvenient, especially politically, to have neighbors pay vastly different amounts of taxes. But it is only right that people are not gouged just because their neighbors paid 10X today compared to X which someone paid 20 years ago.

What you're discussing is probably too 'socialist' for the US, which has a much-stated preference for market-based solutions, like FMV. And I think you haven't thought through all the shenanigans that would ensue to artificially maintain low tax rates.