The Rent Control law has nothing to do with the Earthquake Safety requirements.

If the Apartments are not retrofitted, they cannot be on the market.

Simply put, all apartments must be retrofitted based on the safety inspections.

In effect without the retrofit, the building might be required to be temproarily evacuated until the owner fixes those issues.

And becasue of the CSFRA, they will be responsible for the costs imposed on the tenants regarding teir actions. And they will be legally required to have first choice of the units they left at the same price they paid.

Simply put without the work, those property owners are out of business. They cannot continue to operate apartments deemed unsafe.

It is in effect condemnation based on structural defects.

CSFRA has nothing to do with the fact is these owners are now operating a business in violation of safety codes. THESE are illegal businesses.

Already because of Measure-V, the mom/pop operations are selling out to the corporations which tear down and build new homes not affected by rent control. If I'm a property owner and now I have a choice to spend 1000s on retrofitting or selling; I would sell. There are now fewer rentals in Mountain View due to the Measure-V.

Over 15,000 Mountain View families are protected from excessive rent increases by Measure V (the CSFRA) How many of those families would be gone already, evicted by rent increases, if it wasn't for Measure V? How many more help wanted signs would be posted in store windows? How many more teachers would have left? Measure V keeps Mountain View running. Measure V and financing for retrofits are both possible, and are both good for Mountain View.

A Resident:

Please understand that the state laws regarding seismic reinforcement of residential structures has mandated this kind of work for years. The laws were passed in 2006 required this work to be done.

The law is :

“HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE - HSC
DIVISION 13. HOUSING [17000 - 19997] ( Division 13 enacted by Stats. 1939, Ch. 60. )
PART 3. MISCELLANEOUS [19000 - 19891] ( Part 3 enacted by Stats. 1939, Ch. 60. )
CHAPTER 2. Earthquake Protection [19100 - 19217] ( Chapter 2 enacted by Stats. 1939, Ch. 60. )

ARTICLE 4. Earthquake Hazardous Building Reconstruction [19160 - 19168] ( Article 4 added by Stats. 1979, Ch. 510. )

Updated (Amended by Stats. 2005, Ch. 525, Sec. 1. Effective January 1, 2006.)
(Web Link

The fact is this work is long overdue. It should have been done at least 10 years ago.

The City simply dragged its feet due to influence by the CAR and the CAA and the local landlords.

Simply put, it is too late to complain when you should have finished this work 10 years ago.

I think it is good for the city - old, unsafe apartments being sold and replaced with safe modern buildings. All hail the rent control!

OK,

You are not aware of 2 things:

First, you cannot sell any residential unit legally unless is can pass the warranty of inhabitability. Which by default requires be compliant with ALL state laws regarding the structural standards. Which means you cannot sell a building without making it in compliance first. What doea that mean? It means as soon as the City inspectors detected the structural defects under the law, these buildings cannot be sold. Unlike a car you cannot sell a building as-is in any way. Thus to sell the unit you have to fix it first. If selling it was to prevent having to pay for it, you are clearly mistaken. Any sales up to 3 years after the record are illegal and must be cancelled if the fix was not performed. And an argument can be made that upt to 3 years prior to the detection the sales were illegal because the defect could not have occurred without any significant seismic activity prior to that inspection.

IT DOES NOT MATTER WHETHER IT WAS RENT CONTROLLED EITHER.

Second, any rental agreement regarding these structures are now illegal because the buildings cannot be rented unless they would pass the state safety laws. All rents collected ever since the inspection and up to 3 years could be court ordered to be returned to the tenant. You cannot rent any residential unit without full compliance of the laws. This applies to rentals of single family homes and any other residential units of any kind.

IT DOES NOT MATTER WHETHER IT IS RENT CONTROLED.

The City in its failure to timely act on the state laws in effect left all of the above business traps wide open. If the City was attempting to prevent costs on these enterprises, it did the opposite to them. The City did not even have a clue how serious they made this mistake.

TBM, as usual, you do not know what you are writing about. “Warranty of inhabitability“ for the building that will be demolished... Please, read more and write less.

In response to OK you said:

““TBM, as usual, you do not know what you are writing about. “Warranty of inhabitability“ for the building that will be demolished... Please, read more and write less.”

Please understand I may know a lot more than you think, please read:

“BREAKING DOWN Implied Warranty Of Habitability

An implied warranty only applies to leases or rentals for residential properties, not commercial properties. When a tenant rents an apartment, for example, an implied warranty of habitability means that the unit will have hot water, a working electrical system, heat in the winter, lockable doors and windows, a working toilet and smoke detectors, and be free of pests like roaches and rats, among other conditions. However, an employee renting an office space will not have an implied warranty of habitability because the employee will not be living in the office.

Local building codes outline the standards that rental units must meet. As a general rule of thumb, an Implied Warranty of Habitability means that the landlord has provided:

• Drinkable water
• Hot water
• Heat during cold weather
• Working electricity
• A Smoke Detector
• Working bathroom and toilet
• Sanitary premises, including the removal of insect or rodent infestation
• Is up-to-do date for building codes

What happens when an implied warranty of habitability is not met?

One major advantage of renting from a landlord is that a tenant is never responsible for ensuring that the warranty of habitability is met on their own. INSTEAD, IT IS THE LANDLORD’S LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE WARRANTY IS MET AND TO TAKE STEPS TO MAKE HABITABILITY POSSIBLE AS SOON AS THEY ARE AWARE OF ANY ISSUES. A LANDLORD WHOSE RENTAL UNITS DO NOT MEET THESE CONDITIONS IS KNOWN AS A SLUMLORD. Tenants living in uninhabitable units have legal remedies to force landlords to meet their obligations.

However, there are a few legalities to consider. Firstly, renting an apartment or place of occupancy in full awareness of the issues that contradict habitability may violate the warranty. In other words, one cannot rent an apartment known to be without hot water in order to save money and then try to sue the landlord later. SECONDLY, LANDLORDS DO HAVE A LEGAL AMOUNT OF REASONABLE TIME, GENERALLY CONSIDERED NO MORE THAN 30 DAYS, TO REPAIR OR ADDRESS ANY ISSUES, ALTHOUGH LEGAL FOLLOW-UP CAN BE DIFFICULT. AND LASTLY, TENANTS STILL HAVE TO CONTINUE TO PAY RENT IF THEY ARE STILL LIVING ON THE PREMISE, EVEN WITHOUT THE WARRANTY.

TENANTS WHO HAVE LANDLORDS WHO REFUSE TO MEET THE WARRANTY HAVE THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE ANY EXISTING LEASE, MAKE NECESSARY REPAIRS THAT ARE NO MORE THAN ONE MONTH’S RENT COST, OR SUE THE LANDLORD. “(Web Link

It would appear you are not doing your homework. In fact the seller is required to disclose if the property is in not compliance if you look at this website (Web Link Realistically why would anyone buy a property that is not in compliance with the state laws regarding seismic refits?

Also the basics of any contract please read this:

“A Legal Purpose

Parties cannot execute a contract to do an illegal act. The purpose of the contract must conform to the law. A contract between parties that involves fraud upon another would not be valid. Don't go see the judge to get your money back if your written contract with a drug supplier for 100 kilos of cocaine wasn't honored. It's an illegal act. Not only will you not get any relief, you'll likely end up in jail. For real estate, no matter how the contract is worded, if the seller isn't the legal owner, it's not going to work.”

So if the sales contract is to rent any unit, given that the unit does not comply with housing codes, in this case a state law, it is an illegal business and thus cannot be a legal contract. Thus the entire premise of a legal sale has been destroyed.

“(b) Every real property sales contract entered into after January 1, 1978, where the real property that is the subject of such contract resulted from a division of real property occurring prior to January 1, 1978, shall:

(2) In lieu of the above, the vendor may include in the real property sales contract a description of the real property being conveyed as an entire lot or parcel by referencing the recorded final or parcel map creating the parcel or parcels being conveyed and such description shall constitute a certificate of compliance as set forth in subdivision (d) of Section 66499.35 of the Government Code. PROVIDED, HOWEVER, WHERE REFERENCE IS MADE TO A RECORDED PARCEL MAP, OR IN THE EVENT THAT A WAIVER OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT HAS BEEN GRANTED, AND THE APPROVAL OF THE PARCEL MAP OR THE GRANTING OF THE WAIVER WAS CONDITIONED UPON THE CONSTRUCTION OF SPECIFIED OFFSITE AND ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS AS A PRECONDITION TO THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT OR GRANT OF APPROVAL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUCH PARCEL AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED AS OF THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF THE REAL PROPERTY SALES CONTRACT, THEN SUCH CONTRACT SHALL EXPRESSLY SET FORTH ALL SUCH REQUIRED OFFSITE AND ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS.

(e) For purposes of this section A REAL PROPERTY SALES CONTRACT IS AN AGREEMENT WHEREIN ONE PARTY AGREES TO CONVEY TITLE TO UNIMPROVED REAL PROPERTY TO ANOTHER PARTY UPON THE SATISFACTION OF SPECIFIED CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN THE CONTRACT AND WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE CONVEYANCE OF TITLE WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF FORMATION OF THE CONTRACT. UNIMPROVED REAL PROPERTY MEANS REAL PROPERTY UPON WHICH NO PERMANENT STRUCTURE INTENDED FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY OR COMMERCIAL USE IS LOCATED.
So a waiver would need to be assigned to the residential unit, and that the contract would require the buyer to make said improvements to the units within a year. Thus whoever buys it will be subject to that cost of retrofit because it can take as much as 3 years or more just to get approval of any new building projects. So would someone realistically chose to even enter the sales agreement?

Especially given that most “investors” now expect a break even of costs within one year or even instantly. Boy you want to kill the messenger of the bad news.

Ok,

Please tell me what I presented was false?

Yes the apartments can go out of business under Ellis Act.

But they cannot sell the buildings until their in compliance with state building code.

And tenants should contact the Stanfird Law group or the Commulity Law of Palo Alto to seek refunds from paid rent on any units not in compliance with the state building codes

In response to mike rose you said:

“Such a sensless rambling...”

Please understand I placed in my comment the resources the proved my point. So far no one has done the same. You said:

“... you cannot sell building as-is ...."

FYI each building sold is sold "as is" unless specific warranties are stipulated in the contract.”

In your claim regarding As-IS sales you should read this information:

“THE ENFORCEABILITY OF "AS IS" CLAUSES IN REAL ESTATE SALE CONTRACTS by Robert E. Williams from Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, Los Angeles, California

I. Historical Background: Caveat Emptor

Sellers of real property have always sought to limit their liabilities to buyers for defects in the real property which is the subject of the purchase and sale transaction. The ideal situation for a seller is that all risk of loss related to the condition or status of the real property is transferred to the buyer at the closing, leaving the seller to put the purchase price in the bank without fear of having to subsequently pay money back to the buyer because of problems with the property.

One may presume that sellers had their day during the long reign of the common law doctrine of caveat emptor, or "let the buyer beware". Under this doctrine, in the absence of any express agreement, the seller of property is not liable to its buyer, or to the buyer's successors or assigns, for the condition of the transferred property.”

II. Modern Theories of Seller Liability

In the modern era, the doctrine of caveat emptor is more talked about than practiced. The idea of "letting the buyer beware" has been substantially eroded in all United States jurisdictions. In place of that doctrine, a disgruntled buyer may look to a number of theories in asserting liability on the part of a seller of defective real property:

A. Contract

Depending upon the content of the real estate sale contract, the buyer may be able to assert a breach of an express contractual covenant or, more likely, an express contractual warranty”

But this report also states:

“D. Implied Warranty

Occupying a realm somewhere between contract and tort is the doctrine of implied warranty. Under this doctrine, a seller may be treated as if it had made an express warranty as to certain basic elements concerning the property sold. Examples include an implied warranty of habitability with respect to residential property, especially when sold by a professional developer to a residential owner-occupant.”

So it would make sense to me that your claim may not be factual. Only just an opinion that may be not well supported. It is an assumed an expressed warranty under the law. Why could you make a claim that was so clearly demonstrated as untrue?

as I already demonstrated by saying:

““BREAKING DOWN Implied Warranty Of Habitability

An implied warranty only applies to leases or rentals for residential properties, not commercial properties. When a tenant rents an apartment, for example, an implied warranty of habitability means that the unit will have hot water, a working electrical system, heat in the winter, lockable doors and windows, a working toilet and smoke detectors, and be free of pests like roaches and rats, among other conditions. However, an employee renting an office space will not have an implied warranty of habitability because the employee will not be living in the office.

Local building codes outline the standards that rental units must meet. As a general rule of thumb, an Implied Warranty of Habitability means that the landlord has provided:

• Drinkable water
• Hot water
• Heat during cold weather
• Working electricity
• A Smoke Detector
• Working bathroom and toilet
• Sanitary premises, including the removal of insect or rodent infestation
• IS UP-TO-DO DATE FOR BUILDING CODES

What happens when an implied warranty of habitability is not met?

One major advantage of renting from a landlord is that a tenant is never responsible for ensuring that the warranty of habitability is met on their own. INSTEAD, IT IS THE LANDLORD’S LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE WARRANTY IS MET AND TO TAKE STEPS TO MAKE HABITABILITY POSSIBLE AS SOON AS THEY ARE AWARE OF ANY ISSUES. A LANDLORD WHOSE RENTAL UNITS DO NOT MEET THESE CONDITIONS IS KNOWN AS A SLUMLORD. Tenants living in uninhabitable units have legal remedies to force landlords to meet their obligations.

However, there are a few legalities to consider. Firstly, renting an apartment or place of occupancy in full awareness of the issues that contradict habitability may violate the warranty. In other words, one cannot rent an apartment known to be without hot water in order to save money and then try to sue the landlord later. SECONDLY, LANDLORDS DO HAVE A LEGAL AMOUNT OF REASONABLE TIME, GENERALLY CONSIDERED NO MORE THAN 30 DAYS, TO REPAIR OR ADDRESS ANY ISSUES, ALTHOUGH LEGAL FOLLOW-UP CAN BE DIFFICULT. AND LASTLY, TENANTS STILL HAVE TO CONTINUE TO PAY RENT IF THEY ARE STILL LIVING ON THE PREMISE, EVEN WITHOUT THE WARRANTY.

TENANTS WHO HAVE LANDLORDS WHO REFUSE TO MEET THE WARRANTY HAVE THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE ANY EXISTING LEASE, MAKE NECESSARY REPAIRS THAT ARE NO MORE THAN ONE MONTH’S RENT COST, OR SUE THE LANDLORD. “(Web Link

Mike, please understand that sometimes the real facts contradict assumptions that are made by people like yourself.

TBM

That latest long diatribe you copied from the internet isn't law -- it's an opinion from a lawyer who is in the business to sue.

Citing him as proof is pretty silly. Isn't there some other long legal passage you can mindlessly quote instead?

In response to Thatisntlaw you sai:

“That latest long diatribe you copied from the internet isn't law -- it's an opinion from a lawyer who is in the business to sue. “

Just understand no attorney would have wrote this unless there was case law on the subject. Here is the case of Knight v. Hallsthammar found here Web Link clearly indicates that the warranty is mandatory, it cannot be waived by anyone and it make collecting rent when buildings are not up to code illegal.

If a contract serves the purpose of an illegal act, it is unenforceable because in Bovard v. American Horse Enterprises (1988),[1] the California Court of Appeal for the Third District refused to enforce a contract for payment of promissory notes used for the purchase of a company that manufactured drug paraphernalia. Although the items sold were not actually illegal, the court refused to enforce the contract for public policy concerns.( Web Link

A contract to obtain a building that is not up to code for the purposes of leasing it for residence cannot be a legal because that business act is not legal on its face. Why would any reasonable person even entertain the idea? No, it is nothing but a smokescreen to distract the fact that someone is running an illegal enterprise and is trying to sell it so they can get away with the illegal business.

‘You didn’t read the following that I already presented:

The law is :

“HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE - HSC
DIVISION 13. HOUSING [17000 - 19997] ( Division 13 enacted by Stats. 1939, Ch. 60. )
PART 3. MISCELLANEOUS [19000 - 19891] ( Part 3 enacted by Stats. 1939, Ch. 60. )
CHAPTER 2. Earthquake Protection [19100 - 19217] ( Chapter 2 enacted by Stats. 1939, Ch. 60. )

ARTICLE 4. Earthquake Hazardous Building Reconstruction [19160 - 19168] ( Article 4 added by Stats. 1979, Ch. 510. )

Updated (Amended by Stats. 2005, Ch. 525, Sec. 1. Effective January 1, 2006.)(Web Link
And:

“The right to contract is fundamental but not absolute. IT MUST YIELD IF IT CONFLICTS WITH THE PUBLIC WELFARE, AND REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER THE POLICE POWER WHEN REQUIRED FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST. For example, minimum wage laws restrict a person's freedom to contract for a lower wage. See West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937). In addition to statutory limitations of the right to contract, the courts have the power to declare certain types of contracts void on the grounds that they are contrary to the public policy. "PUBLIC POLICY" IS THE COMMON SENSE AND CONSCIENCE OF THE COMMUNITY EXTENDED AND APPLIED THROUGHOUT THE STATE TO MATTERS OF PUBLIC MORALS, HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE. THE PRINCIPLE OF LAW IS BASED ON THE THEORY THAT ONE CANNOT LAWFULLY DO THAT, WHICH HAS A TENDENCY TO BE INJURIOUS TO THE PUBLIC OR AGAINST THE PUBLIC GOOD.

AS A GENERAL RULE, A CONTRACT THAT VIOLATES A STATUTE IS UNLAWFUL AND VOID AND WILL NOT BE ENFORCED. A STATUTE CAN EXPRESSLY DECLARE THAT A SPECIFIC TYPE OF CONTRACT IS PROHIBITED, AND SUCH CONTRACT IS ABSOLUTELY VOID. This is true whether the statute is State or Federal.”( Web Link

Simply put the building code stated is a matter of public safety. The idea that you can transfer responsibility for the lack of complying with public safety laws and basically run away from the liability of getting illegal payments of rent is on its face crazy.

There are no cases in California that establish the selling a residential building for rent to another being out of building code has been determined as a legal contract. It would be simply not even allowed to proceed and dismissed. Please at least present a case that proves your point?

Of course the recent Earthquake should put the housing business on notice, they are running pout of time. If anyone losses anything of value because of a quake in a substandard building not in compliance with the building code, the owner of the building is liable for such loss.

The people of Mountain View deserved the same protection as the rest of the state.

Again, you can complain about my presentation of information, but you have not proived any proof that the opposite is correct. All you are doing is saying, don't listen to The Business Man because I don't agree with him. You have not provided any proof that my information is innaccuarate in any way. My sources seem to be reliable, what information do you have?

TheBM:

Everyone gets your points, since they are the same every article:

1. Rent control is good.

2. Housing should be tightly regulated.


The issue is your copypasta is just so much noise in an otherwise interesting discussion. Most people just skim by then and don't engage in your arguments.

In this case, you are citing a lawyer -- that's not a ruling or a judicial decision. You could not use that citation in court, for example.

So, in this case, the discussion is "as-is", and you will need to find a case where someone sued and won based off of a fault in a property sold "as is" with no waivers or riders.

I can't prove a negative. You need to demonstrate the positive.

Just understand,

I used "peer reviewed" resources in most of my comments.

NO LAWYER WOULD MAKE SUCH A CLEAR ERROR AS WHAT YUOR DESCRIBING HERE.

To me, unless you can prove your point with some cases or peer reviewed information, you are just being argumentative.

My comments are not focused on rent control nor housing regulations.

But I am strongly for any public safety regulations, as should anyone be.

THese are universal issues that need to be addressed

I'm finding a lot of references to people buying and selling uninhabitable property. You can't live in it until you make it habitable, but you very much can buy and sell it.

As a simple proof -- empty lots are not habitable, but you can buy one.

So, I'm going to need to see where you can find that you can't sell property based on habitability.

StillNotLaw:

Your talking about empty lots,

THAT IS NOT AN EXISTING BUILDING.

If you claim your going to buy a dilapidated structure, then you are only buying the land and not the building?

You are not making any sense in this topic.

Simply put, your advocating the illegal avoidance of owners renting out units that are not within the state building codes by trying to sell their properties.

THAT IS NOT GOING TO WORK. THEY WILL STILL BE LIABLE FOR THE ILL GOTTEN RENTS.

This will not solve their problem, it will make it worse.

They will sell their property for at maximum the 25% of their current appraised value because a structure not in compliance with state laws are not worth the appraisal value anymore.

They will still have to refund the past collected rent.

They will only add onto their losses.

You are not making any sense in this matter

If the owners are selling the units, instead of renovating, someone will buy and tear it down to make condos.

I thought that was the whole point here -- landlords that can't pass on the upgrade costs will sell the units, and someone will buy them to turn into condos.

If the buyer is going to tear them down, the market cost of a dilapidated structure is built in.

Again,

You cannot sell the units until the state building codes are in compliance.

Otherwise, they are only selling land NOT STRUCTURES.

Please reread the following from the California Laws 2009 California Civil Code - Section 2985-2985.6 :: Chapter 2c. Real Property Sales Contracts
CIVIL CODE

SECTION 2985-2985.6 (Web Link

“(b) Every real property sales contract entered into after January 1, 1978, where the real property that is the subject of such contract resulted from a division of real property occurring prior to January 1, 1978, shall:

(2) In lieu of the above, the vendor may include in the real property sales contract a description of the real property being conveyed as an entire lot or parcel by referencing the recorded final or parcel map creating the parcel or parcels being conveyed and such description shall constitute a certificate of compliance as set forth in subdivision (d) of Section 66499.35 of the Government Code. PROVIDED, HOWEVER, WHERE REFERENCE IS MADE TO A RECORDED PARCEL MAP, OR IN THE EVENT THAT A WAIVER OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT HAS BEEN GRANTED, AND THE APPROVAL OF THE PARCEL MAP OR THE GRANTING OF THE WAIVER WAS CONDITIONED UPON THE CONSTRUCTION OF SPECIFIED OFFSITE AND ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS AS A PRECONDITION TO THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT OR GRANT OF APPROVAL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUCH PARCEL AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED AS OF THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF THE REAL PROPERTY SALES CONTRACT, THEN SUCH CONTRACT SHALL EXPRESSLY SET FORTH ALL SUCH REQUIRED OFFSITE AND ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS.

(e) For purposes of this section A REAL PROPERTY SALES CONTRACT IS AN AGREEMENT WHEREIN ONE PARTY AGREES TO CONVEY TITLE TO UNIMPROVED REAL PROPERTY TO ANOTHER PARTY UPON THE SATISFACTION OF SPECIFIED CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN THE CONTRACT AND WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE CONVEYANCE OF TITLE WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF FORMATION OF THE CONTRACT. UNIMPROVED REAL PROPERTY MEANS REAL PROPERTY UPON WHICH NO PERMANENT STRUCTURE INTENDED FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY OR COMMERCIAL USE IS LOCATED.

So a waiver would need to be assigned to the residential unit, and that the contract would require the buyer to make said improvements to the units within a year. Thus whoever buys it will be subject to that cost of retrofit because it can take as much as 3 years or more just to get approval of any new building projects. So would someone realistically chose to even enter the sales agreement?

Since there is a structure in place, this law is very critical.

Unless there is an approved project, that is in effect funded and is "shovel ready" the idea that one can buy a building not in compliance with the building code to "hope" to build another structure simply doesn't apply. The City will have to establish that the structures will be remedied within 1 year of purchase. Simply put, the sales cannot move forward until the properties are up to code.

Why can't you understand these laws?

From your link:

"The provisions of this section shall not apply to a real
property sales contract which, by its terms, requires either a good
faith downpayment and a single payment of the balance of the purchase
price or a single payment of the purchase price upon completion of
the contract, and the provisions of such contract do not require
periodic payment of principal or interest.
"

So, an all-cash purchase of a property would seem to negate all issues.

StillLegal,

So, your going to say that someone will make a CASH payment of a CASHIERS CHECK to purchase the property. But they will have to demonstrate that the CASH you discussed is not in fact BORROWED prior to the purchase.

THIS MEANS THAT YOU WILL HAVE TO PROVE THAT NO FINANICING OF ANY KIND ENABLED THE PURCHASE.

Given that the law requires it to be a CASH payment, the buyer will have to PROVE that no other FINACIAL borrowing was done IN ANY PART of their OPERATIONAL BUSINESS.

To me you just made an argument that is almost impossible to do.

I'm thinking you are actually confused about the purpose of the law here.

The idea is that I can't sell a property and say, "Oh, I'll finish your house after you buy it", and then spend 10 years doing it.

The idea isn't to protect a sale of a property under all conditions. In this case, the law actually says, "one payment". So, in that case, you don't even have to show it's "all cash", you just can't be making payments to the person selling the property.

And that's the majority of sales, currently.

This applies more to people prepaying for a condo, that it does for sale of property.

And, really, if what you said is true, lots of sellers would be open for all sorts of legal trouble. Yet, that hasn't happened. Look at the recent demolishing of property in Mountain View -- are you saying those we're all up to code?

In response to StillMissingThePoint

“I'm thinking you are actually confused about the purpose of the law here.

The idea is that I can't sell a property and say, "Oh, I'll finish your house after you buy it", and then spend 10 years doing it. “

No what it says is if it is a commercial residence, the laws do not allow you to buy the property if it is not up to code and wait 10 years to get the money to repair it to get it up to code, or take 10 years to get approval to build a new structure and get all of your plans arranged. This is because it would make it impossible to keep up to housing demand. Thus the contract requires the BUYER to get their act straight first. You said:

“The idea isn't to protect a sale of a property under all conditions. In this case, the law actually says, "one payment". So, in that case, you don't even have to show it's "all cash", you just can't be making payments to the person selling the property. “

But it cannot be one-payment if it is derived from borrowed money that is paid by installments. Anyone with common sense can see that the “one-payment” rule cannot apply to that situation. You said:

“And that's the majority of sales, currently. “

REALLY, so the buyer borrows from Paul to pay Peter the full payment, but still has to pay Paul. This line of thought simply makes no sense at all, it is still a financed purchase. You said:

“ This applies more to people prepaying for a condo, that it does for sale of property. “

That is not correct, it applies to all properties. Given it is the Code and does not declare ANY property is immune from it. You said:

“And, really, if what you said is true, lots of sellers would be open for all sorts of legal trouble.”


In fact it may actually be true that many real estate transactions under these conditions should be vacated. You said:

Yet, that hasn't happened.”

Only because the public simply is not educated to the laws, that is a common problem with the current state of business. Ignorance is not a defense. You said:

“Look at the recent demolishing of property in Mountain View -- are you saying those we're all up to code?”

You are comparing apples to oranges. If the property is up to code and the buyer decides to replace it, that is their choice. But if it is not up to code, the purchase must be VACATED and the buyer is entitled to a complete refund. You cannot replace the property structures before you buy it.

Selling property not up to code in California:

Yes, says Bankrate.

Web Link

Yes, says USNews&World Report

Web Link

Yes, says Trulia
Web Link

The only issue is getting a loan. If the lender agrees, it's a non-issue.

And if you think the government is the one that will start acting on this, why haven't they done so, ever?

And if it's a lawsuit by a party, which party is aggrieved?

In response to StillMissingThePoint you said:

“Yes, says Bankrate.”

But you neglected to say this:

“Obviously it’s a tear-down

Now that her illegal kitchen and bathroom work has been “outed,” she would absolutely have to disclose that if she plans to sell the house conventionally, which I don’t recommend. Given the circumstances, the vast majority of folks interested in buying such a property would want to knock the place down anyway and build something better, or at least hold it for investment. Buying the home and leaving the house there, after all, would pass along the liability for the illegal construction to the purchaser.”

Does that mena it is legal, doesn’t look like it to me. It went on to say

“Unpermitted work isn’t rare in So Cal

It’s not like this situation is unique to local buyers, sellers and agents. In fact, it’s been quite common for Southern California homeowners to build unpermitted additions, not only to cut corners or scrimp on construction and permit costs, but to save on the steep property tax hikes that result from cities passing on residential building permits to tax districts.”

So does that mean it is legal, so far, it appears like more illegal activitiy. It goes on to say:

“Selling ‘as is’ the safe way to go

To my knowledge, your mother-in-law won’t be expected to pay fines and fees related to the unpermitted work stemming from the sale other than those already assessed, nor will she need to stipulate that the buyer demolish the house. That’s because she’d be selling “as is,” meaning she won’t be responsible for any known material defects, including her illegal construction.”

Again advising others to do illegal acts is not a very good example. In effect your encouraging illegal actions It goes on to say:

“Unpermitted work depresses value

But realize your mother-in-law will likely be credited for only a small portion of the actual 900-square-foot home structure’s value in the sale due to its condition and the unpermitted work. And she needn’t arrange to have the house demolished before she sells, though she may be asked for another price adjustment to account for a portion of that procedure, which is expensive in her state because of the landmark 2007 California Building Code written to protect pedestrians and the environment.”

So in fact the building isn’t being sold, only the land. But that will significantly reduce here benefit of selling the house in the first place. It goes on to say:

“Nor does she need to worry about specific buyer plans for the property. Buyers will likely file building plans with the city in advance of the purchase to be sure the teardown and redevelopment they plan is permissible.”

But since the Buyer is required to act within a year, and the ability to do so is practically nil, that would in effect block the sale because the Buyer will pay a steep price for failure. It goes on to say:

“With the house in such shabby condition and So Cal land in such great demand, selling seems to be the best — if not only — option at this point for your mother-in-law. She may even offer to toss in your brother-in-law as part of the deal!

Good luck.”

What horrible advice, it looks like this “adviser” is encourageing breaking the laws. Why didn’t you disclose that to the Mountain View Readers? And what about the disclaimer?:

“Bankrate’s content, including the guidance of its advice-and-expert columns and this website, is intended only to assist you with financial decisions. The content is broad in scope and does not consider your personal financial situation. Bankrate recommends that you seek the advice of advisers who are fully aware of your individual circumstances before making any final decisions or implementing any financial strategy. Please remember that your use of this website is governed by Bankrate’s Terms of Use.”

That article was written by one with clearly a poor strategy in mind that opens up serious problems. The page even made a disclaimer to NOT relay on it but seek professional advice. Why do you trust this information? As far as USNews&World Report that article admittied that attention to existing homes is not properly done if you read the part:

“The strictest attention is paid to new construction homes, where code inspectors will visit the property multiple times before it is completed, explains George Hank, director of the City of Madison Building Inspection division in Wisconsin. Inspectors will check the site repeatedly to ensure the foundation is poured correctly, walls are secured properly and even radon mitigation hardware is installed sufficiently.”

That does not mean that existing homes are exempt. Also this article was discussing another state. It also included the text:

“Does It Mean You’re in Danger? Maybe.

While there are any number of things in your home that can stray from the adopted building code without posing an immediate threat to anyone, the codes are an effective way for the local government to require compliance to avoid harm to individuals.

“The codes are all about minimizing risk,” explains Dominic Sims, CEO of the International Code Council, which has established building codes for various property types that have been adopted throughout the U.S. and other countries.

Under the ICC’s "International Residential Code for One- and Two-Family Dwellings," any lighting or electrical outlet near a swimming pool, for example, must adhere to strict distances from the pool and not be positioned directly above the water, reducing the possibility for accidental electrocution.

On the other side of the danger spectrum, the ICC's residential code also requires any hinged shower doors to swing outward, away from the shower. While a mandate that a shower door swing a certain direction intends to keep all who use it safe, a person comfortable with the space would likely not be in immediate danger by pulling it inward.”

So code involving public safety are critical. You just wanted to presume that there is no reason not to be able to sell a property. The simple truth is that In California, the laws do hold sellers, and indirectly buyers responsible for building code issues. As so far to the article from Trulia you are inaccurate because it states:

“Depends on the code violations. If it's a life-safety issue that was caused by damage or degradation, like structural failure or shattered pipes, then probably not because all of the people who have money or a vested interest in the property (banks, lien holders, the local government) won't let that happen. If it's something that's not to current code, but was ok when it was built, then it's a non-issue. You might want to fix it later because there's probably a reason the code changed to make it no longer the preferred practice (for example, grounding your outlets), but it's not a show-stopper.

Keep in mind that most older homes are typically filled with 'code violations' and they're constantly bought and sold 'as-is.' The reason is because the codes are significantly changed about once a decade, so a 60 year old house has had 5 or 6 new iterations of plumbing, electrical, structural, mechanical, etc codes since it was built. Now do people rewire and re-plumb their houses every time the codes change? Absolutely not. The general rule is if you're doing substantial renovations, then you need to bring everything up to code, but as long as you don't touch it, you can leave it alone, and even then, it's a judgment call. For example, if your kitchen outlets aren't grounded and have the old 20-prong outlets, in most locations you can upgrade the outlets to GFCIs and not have to re-wire the whole circuit. But to be sure, call your local building permit office and they'll work with you. And be careful about doing your own electrical, plumbing, HVAC, etc because it can be dangerous and if anything goes wrong, it's your fault. “

First, that is in the state of Rhode Island, not California Again since the code deals with a public safety issue where the property is used in a commercial business to rent out to another, which is entitled to the “Warranty of Inhabitability”, this situation would be a different case than what is described above. Simply put without the new seismic code compliance, it is categorically unsafe to use. Sorry nice try to misinform the public. You also said:

“The only issue is getting a loan. If the lender agrees, it's a non-issue. “

WHY WOULD ANY LENDER WANT TO BE INVOVLED IN THIS KIND OF SITUATION?

You said:


“And if you think the government is the one that will start acting on this, why haven't they done so, ever?”

BECAUSE THEY ARE DEPENDENT ON INFLATED PROPERTY VALUES AND THIS LAW WOULD CRUSH THEM.

“ And if it's a lawsuit by a party, which party is aggrieved?”

I will work on that later.

TBM, please learn to express your opinion without huge copy pasting, Please read what you are copy pasting, try to find the main evidence to support your opinion and then post it. More does not mean better. You probably could not get in the good college because your essay sucked.

Here is some specific information from case law(Web Link :

Lingsch v. Savage

[Civ. No. 20749. First Dist., Div. One. Mar. 12, 1963.]

EDWIN F. LINGSCH et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. GEORGE SAVAGE, Defendant and Respondent.

OPINION

SULLIVAN, J.

[12a] Defendant's first contention is in essence that the complaint on its face precludes actionable fraud since under the contract incorporated therein the plaintiffs agreed to purchase the property "IN ITS PRESENT STATE AND CONDITION." A PROVISION IN A CONTRACT OF SALE THAT THE BUYER TAKES THE PROPERTY IN THE CONDITION IN WHICH IT IS, OR "AS IS," DOES NOT NECESSARILY [213 CAL. APP. 2D 741] CONFER ON THE SELLER A GENERAL IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY FOR FRAUD. IT IS FAIRLY WELL ESTABLISHED IN RESPECT TO SALES OF PERSONAL PROPERTY THAT SUCH A PROVISION "DOES NOT PREVENT FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATIONS RELIED ON BY THE BUYER FROM CONSTITUTING FRAUD WHICH INVALIDATES THE CONTRACT OR IS A GROUND FOR DAMAGES." (46 Am. Jur., Sales, § 319, p. 501; see 23 Am.Jur., Fraud and Deceit, § 55, p. 826; 58 A.L.R. 1181; Ferguson v. Koch (1928) 204 Cal. 342 [68 P. 342, 58 A.L.R. 1176].)

The same rule has been applied where such a provision has been included in a contract for the sale of real property. (Smith v. Richards (1839) 38 U.S. (13 Pet.) 26 [10 L. Ed. 42]; Wolford v. Freeman (1948) 150 Neb. 537 [35 N.W.2d 98]; Cockburn v. Mercantile Petroleum, Inc. (Tex. Civ. App. 1956) 296 S.W.2d 316.) In the early case of Smith v. Richards, supra, rescission of a contract for the sale of a gold mine was upheld on the ground of the seller's fraudulent misrepresentations despite a provision in which the seller stated: "I, however, sell it for what it is, gold or snow-balls; and I leave it to you to decide, whether you will take it at my price, or not." (38 U.S. (13 Pet.) 39.) In Wolford v. Freeman, supra, the buyer sought rescission of a contract for the sale of a dwelling house for the fraud of the seller's agent in failing to disclose that the house had been constructed on filled ground. Repaired cracks in the walls and foundation were visible. There was testimony that the buyer asked the cause of the cracks and the agent said that he did not know. There was other evidence that the agent stated that he had been instructed by the seller to inform prospective purchasers that the damage had been corrected. INCLUDED IN THE CONTRACT OF SALE WAS THE FOLLOWING PROVISION: "PURCHASER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE HAS BEEN ADVISED AS TO THE SETTLING OF STRUCTURE AND IS BUYING SAME AS IS." (35 N.W.2d at p. 101.) The Nebraska court held that the foregoing provision did not relieve the seller from fraud based on nondisclosure and upheld a decree of rescission on principles enunciating the seller's duty to disclose under such facts, citing inter alia the California cases of Clauser v. Taylor, supra, 44 Cal. App. 2d 453 and Rothstein v. Janss Investment Corp., supra, 45 Cal. App. 2d 64. Finally, in Cockburn v. Mercantile Petroleum, Inc., supra, the buyer of five gas wells "as is" recovered damages for the seller's fraud in misrepresenting that the wells were producing wells. THE COURT'S RATIONALE WAS THAT THE "AS IS" CLAUSE WAS BASED ON THE KNOWLEDGE WHICH [213 CAL. APP. 2D 742] THE BUYER HAD AT THE TIME "WHICH KNOWLEDGE WAS BASED ON THE FALSE REPRESENTATION THAT THERE WERE FIVE PRODUCING WELLS. ..." (296 S.W.2d 326.) The "as is" agreement was executed in reliance upon such representations.

“[13] UNDER PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES, THE USE OF AN "AS IS" PROVISION SEEMS TO CONVEY THE IMPLICATION THAT THE PROPERTY IS IN SOME WAY DEFECTIVE AND THAT THE BUYER MUST TAKE IT AT HIS OWN RISK. (See Crawford v. Nastos, supra, 182 Cal. App. 2d 659, 665-666, quoting from Roby Motors Co. v. Cade (La.App.) 158 So. 840; 6 C.J.S. 781.) The parties hereto have not cited, nor have we found, a California case giving precise definition to such a provision when included in an agreement for the sale of real property. [12b] We are of the opinion that, generally speaking, such a provision means that the buyer takes the property in the condition visible to or observable by him. (See Crawford v. Nastos, supra; Wolford v. Freeman, supra.) WHERE THE SELLER ACTIVELY MISREPRESENTS THE THEN CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY (SEE CRAWFORD V. NASTOS, SUPRA; COCKBURN V. MERCANTILE PETROLEUM, INC., SUPRA) OR FAILS TO DISCLOSE THE TRUE FACTS OF ITS CONDITION NOT WITHIN THE BUYER'S REACH AND AFFECTING THE VALUE OR DESIRABILITY OF THE PROPERTY, AN "AS IS" PROVISION IS INEFFECTIVE TO RELIEVE THE SELLER OF EITHER HIS "AFFIRMATIVE" OR "NEGATIVE" FRAUD. In either situation the seller's conduct has, as it were, infected the buyer's knowledge of the condition of the property. AN "AS IS" PROVISION MAY THEREFORE BE EFFECTIVE AS TO A DILAPIDATED STAIRWAY BUT NOT AS TO A MISSING STRUCTURAL MEMBER, A SUBTERRANEAN CREEK IN THE BACKYARD OR AN UNEXPLODED BOMB BURIED IN THE BASEMENT, ALL BEING KNOWN TO THE SELLER. WE FEEL THAT SUCH A VIEW OF AN "AS IS" PROVISION NOT ONLY MAKES GOOD SENSE BUT EQUATES SOUND LAW WITH GOOD MORALS. TO ENLARGE THE MEANING OF SUCH A PROVISION SO AS TO MAKE IT OPERATIVE AGAINST ALL CHARGES OF FRAUD WOULD BE TO PERMIT THE SELLER TO CONTRACT AGAINST HIS OWN FRAUD CONTRARY TO EXISTING LAW. (Civ. Code, § 1668.)

We have already observed that in the case at bench there is a reasonable possibility that plaintiffs can amend their complaint. The efficacy of the clause now under discussion to raise a defense or show a defect on the face of the amended pleading will depend on the sufficiency of the particular facts pleaded therein to show actionable nondisclosure. [14] For all we know, it may be plaintiffs' position that the clause in question is not free from defect or ambiguity and should be interpreted in a particular way, in which event [213 Cal. App. 2d 743] they should put some definite construction upon it by appropriate averment. (Byrne v. Harvey, supra, 211 Cal. App. 2d 92, 115; Lambert v. Haskell (1889) 80 Cal. 611, 613 [22 P. 327]; Bates v. Daley's Inc. (1935) 5 Cal. App. 2d 95, 101 [42 P.2d 706].)

It is well settled that where a principal is under a positive duty to make a disclosure, he cannot escape liability for his failure to do so by relying on a provision in the agreement of sale that there are no other representations except those therein expressed. (Herzog v. Capital Co., supra, 27 Cal. 2d 349, 354; Rothstein v. Janss Investment Corp., supra, 45 Cal. App. 2d 64, 72; Buist v. C. Dudley DeVelbiss Corp., supra, 182 Cal. App. 2d 325, 331; Civ. Code, § 1668.)

The present complaint is drawn on the theory that all defendants therein named were under a duty to make a disclosure. In essence, the foregoing statute and authorities prevent a party from contracting against his own fraud. If the sellers cannot escape liability, it is obvious that the defendant Savage, who is not even a party to the agreement, cannot do so.”

So you are promoting trying to sell a product that in its own description is DEFECTIVE? By declaring a property is sold “As-Is” in effect will destroy any value in the property. I would expect that you will only get 10% of the value when you attempt to take this action. That result will make it such a loss, especially if it was bought in the last 10 years. The reality is that threatening to sell the residences not in compliance with the seismic building code is an empty threat. Buyers will demand such a low price you will not be able to swallow it.

And TBM, while you're learning to express yourself without copy-pasting huge walls of text, please learn how to reference quotes in a way that makes sense. You keep referencing quotes like this:

In response to [someone] you said:
"[what someone said]"

It would make more sense to reference quotes in one of the following ways:

[someone] said:
"[what someone said]"

In response to [someone] who said:
"[what someone said]"

In response to what [someone] said:
"[what someone said]"

The Business Man--

I think you should look at the case you cited. The issue there is "did they disclose". If a seller says, "This does not meet Earthquake Codes", and someone buys it, they can't the say they didn't know.

But, it's now apparent why you are "The Business Man" and not "The Legal Advisor".

In response to Darin you said:

“And TBM, while you're learning to express yourself without copy-pasting huge walls of text, please learn how to reference quotes in a way that makes sense. You keep referencing quotes like this:

In response to [someone] you said:

"[what someone said]"”

I said I would follow up with more research and I quote:

““ And if it's a lawsuit by a party, which party is aggrieved?”

I will work on that later.”

In response ConsiderReality you said:

“I think you should look at the case you cited. The issue there is "did they disclose". If a seller says, "This does not meet Earthquake Codes", and someone buys it, they can't the say they didn't know. “

But who would be foolish enough to make such a purchase unless it is at 10% of the tax appraised values. “Reality” is that the likelihood of anyone spending enough money to make it not a total loss is VERY high. But it will not protect the prior owner from being required to repay rent based on lack of building code violations making the housing a violation of “Warranty of Inhabitability”. These owners knew they were violating this requirement for years but hoped no one would attempt remedy. I strongly urge those involved to do so. You said:

“But, it's now apparent why you are "The Business Man" and not "The Legal Advisor"”

I do not claim am a “Legal Advisor” but what I do is demonstrate significant understanding of the situation and how “Reality” meets fiction in the current situation. The fact is that these landlords gambled that they would not be caught. But it appears the Cat is out of the Bag.

Especially with what appears to be increasing Seismic activities in the state of California.

Let's go back again.

The article is about how landlords are asking to be able to pass along the costs of seismic upgrades to their tenants.

The argument is, "If they can't, they may have to sell."

Now, you may be trying to argue, "The value they get from selling is much, much less than the value they get from doing the repairs.".

The difference is that in one case, they have to assume a large debt, in the other they are making a reduced profit.

Imagine, for example, an apartment complex that is on 2 acres of land. In one case, the owner can spend 100,000 dollars to do seismic upgrades. In the other, he can sell the property for 4 million -- which is basically the cost of the land.

So, if he spends that 100k, when will he make his money back? If he sells, he gets to walk away from the area.

That's the point in question. And yes, he's discounting the structure, because he doesn't need to care. He's taking a loss on it, in a sense, but he gets a lot of money out of it.

And someone will buy it for the land -- look at the fact that so many single family homes are already purchased as teardowns.

Those are the economic realities of the article. Now, which makes better business sense?

In response to Posted by considerreality you said:

“Let's go back again.

The article is about how landlords are asking to be able to pass along the costs of seismic upgrades to their tenants.”

Again, why should they be allow now to do so when they were required to make these fixes more than 10 years ago? They were operating an illegal business for this time and thus collected rent illegally. Thus they already got paid to provide the funds to do the correction of the building code during that time

“The argument is, "If they can't, they may have to sell."”

They could 10 years ago, what makes it any different, they were operating an illegal business ever since the new building code went into effect in 2006. Please understand you’re asking the tenants to pay for the landlords fixes that should have been done before they rented the apartments. They already got paid the rents during that time to afford the required work, but they instead pocketed it and operating an illegal business. You said:

“Now, you may be trying to argue, "The value they get from selling is much, much less than the value they get from doing the repairs.".

The difference is that in one case, they have to assume a large debt, in the other they are making a reduced profit.

Imagine, for example, an apartment complex that is on 2 acres of land. In one case, the owner can spend 100,000 dollars to do seismic upgrades. In the other, he can sell the property for 4 million -- which is basically the cost of the land.

So, if he spends that 100k, when will he make his money back? If he sells, he gets to walk away from the area.”

But in most cases the landlords have been claiming higher values of their buildings and land on tax forms and other financial documents to get “capital loans” to reduce yearly costs for their operations. If they take your action they will in fact prove they committed fraud in these filings and it could cost them not only money but their freedom because this can result in jail time. You said:

“That's the point in question. And yes, he's discounting the structure, because he doesn't need to care. He's taking a loss on it, in a sense, but he gets a lot of money out of it.”

Again the admission of the building not being safe under code will require all earnings for as much as 3 years to be refunded. Due to breach of warranty of inhabitability, rents collected must be returned. You said:

“And someone will buy it for the land -- look at the fact that so many single family homes are already purchased as teardowns.

Those are the economic realities of the article. Now, which makes better business sense?”

Again, you don’t see the entire picture, the facts are even more serious if they bought the property within the recent time, or refinanced when the structures were claimed to be of values that were arranged to be mortgaged. If the mortgages were initiated after the new code, and they didn’t disclose to the lender the property was not in compliance with the code, the lender is likely to foreclose on the loans and take the property away for mortgage fraud.

It would be much better for anyone, not just the rent controlled units to just fix the structures because going down this path will cause more problems. I can only imagine what a bank will do when they learn the property they mortgaged was not in code and they were not informed. The banks themselves could squelch any new sale because they actually own the property until it is paid up for whatever loans were issued. There are two titles on the property, the conditional one issued to the lender for use of it, and the banks unconditional that they own until the mortgage is paid up. This also applies to refinanced mortgages.

And just a side note from Realtor,Com(Web Link

“Step 4: How lenders handle 'as is' homes

If the buyer is getting a mortgage, his lender may require that another contingency is included in the contract called a home appraisal. That's to ensure the money it's loaning out isn't going toward a lemon. In fact, lenders will dole out only the amount of money they deem the house is worth—so if the appraiser says it's worth less than what the buyer is paying, that could be bad news. That means the buyer may have to cover the difference, or that the lender will demand that you make repairs. If you refuse, yet again, the buyer can walk away from the deal.”

So, the fact is that typically the repairs have to be made first, before the sale is completed, or the lender will not provide the full sum of the loans. Also:

“How to pave the way to a smooth sale

While home inspections and appraisals can derail the sale of an "as is" home, there are things you can do to keep things on track.

For one, if you aren't familiar with the home's flaws and what is in need of renovating/repairs, you can ask your Realtor for his take or even hire a home inspector to ward off surprises down the line.

For another, set a tight time limit on any contingencies. Typically this contingency period will last anywhere from 10 to 45 days; the shorter that time period, the less time buyers have to inspect and appraise a home and back out.”

Since the flaws are known, there is no defense. This adviser in fact promotes that you “force” the transaction down the buyer’s throat. This writer was a free-lance journalist and a screenwriter, and not a licensed realtor seen here (Web Link Why would anyone take her advice? Why did Realtor publish this work?

This course of action is simply unwise.

TBM, you may think that buying a home that is not legally habitable is unwise, but I know people who have done it. And it seems to have turned out very well for them in the long run. Sometimes the home was repaired to make it habitable, and then repaired/remodeled further once they move in. Sometimes the home is razed, and a new home is built on the (now vacant) lot.

In the case of the old soft-story buildings discussed by this article, I would expect that many of them would need more work than just seismic retrofits: reroofing, replumbing, repaving, rewiring, etc. Depending on the situation, it may make a lot more sense to consider the structure a loss, and to sell the property to someone who wants to redevelop the lot.

By restricting the owner's ability to recoup the cost of such big-ticket repairs through rent increases, the city is effectively encouraging the redevelopment of these properties.

Well, no further discussion on this topic?

In response to Darin you said:

“TBM, you may think that buying a home that is not legally habitable is unwise, but I know people who have done it. And it seems to have turned out very well for them in the long run. Sometimes the home was repaired to make it habitable, and then repaired/remodeled further once they move in. Sometimes the home is razed, and a new home is built on the (now vacant) lot.”

But they will pay a “GREATLY” reduced price for it. Again, any loans issued on the property by the current owners, where the value was claimed to be at least 50% higher, will cause the bank to require an uip front payment to clear the loan. The same deal will occur reqarding an existing mortgage. The seller cannot achieve any relief simply by selling the property realistically. You said:

“In the case of the old soft-story buildings discussed by this article, I would expect that many of them would need more work than just seismic retrofits: reroofing, replumbing, repaving, rewiring, etc. Depending on the situation, it may make a lot more sense to consider the structure a loss, and to sell the property to someone who wants to redevelop the lot.”

So you in fact declaring that the maintenance of the structure is not being performed. You are in fact saying that they need a lot of work because they weren’t maintained up to current standards. I will not argue that due to the owner’s poor judgment of poor maintenance it does become a total loss. Thus the seller is not going to benefit in any way when they divest from it. You said:

“By restricting the owner's ability to recoup the cost of such big-ticket repairs through rent increases, the city is effectively encouraging the redevelopment of these properties.”

The “Big Ticket” repairs are typically paid under an improvement loan. Only a fool will pay the bill completely in one payment. So if it does cost $150,000 to bring the property up to code. The typical yearly cost on an apartment improvement loan is:

Home Improvement Financing Calculator: Loan Amount $150,000, Interest Rate 4%, Loan Term (Months) 60, Monthly Payment: $ 2,762.48

So it will cost only $33,150 per year. Say that the number of units are as little as 10 units. Then the cost per unit is only $3,315 per year, or $277 per month. However there is a clear problem. You cannot receive rent when there is evidence proving that the units are not up to code. You have to fix them first before you can request a petition to raise the rents.

But then the tenants can ask and be granted a retroactive rent reduction because the property was not up to code in the first place. If not a complete refund for operating an illegal business due to violation of the Warranty of Inhabitability. If anything else the rent reduction entitlement will negate the rent increases.

Who is the blame for this, NOT THE TENANTS. The property owner cannot claim ignorance for this fact. The Property owner had as much as 10 years of no rent control to fix the problem. WHY SHOULD THEY GET ANY ACCOMODATION FOR FAILURE TO DO THEIR JOBS BEFORE RENT CONTROL

It does not make any sense.

Redevelopment is an appropriate choice. But the City will now be required to replace any displaced affordable housing due to no net-loss state law. So the City will either be penalized by the state, or only approve projects that will replace any units lost in the demolition. CSFRA requires displaced tenants first choice of the new units at the price they were paying for the old one.

This will in fact crush whatever the property can be sold for. Given the information I just presented, it would appear that it is quite affordable to make the proper fixes. And I would think that in the long run that a 50% pass thru would not be significant. It would only raise the rent by $180 a month.

These people are trying to con the City and the Citizens regarding the affordability of the repairs, and the economic feasibility of doing the work with a much smaller cost than they want to claim. What complete nonesense.

TBM, here's an example of how to quote others in a way that makes sense.

The Business Man wrote:
"So you in fact declaring that the maintenance of the structure is not being performed."

I said no such thing. The big-ticket maintenance items I referred to (reroofing, replumbing, repaving, rewiring) are performed infrequently. Even if routine maintenance items are performed diligently, after a number of decades, one or more big-ticket maintenance items will need to be done.


Earlier, The Business Man wrote:
"Well, no further discussion on this topic?"

Yeah, copy-pasting walls of text has that effect sometimes...

Darin you said:

"TBM, here's an example of how to quote others in a way that makes sense.

The Business Man wrote:

"So you in fact declaring that the maintenance of the structure is not being performed."

I said no such thing. The big-ticket maintenance items I referred to (reroofing, replumbing, repaving, rewiring) are performed infrequently. Even if routine maintenance items are performed diligently, after a number of decades, one or more big-ticket maintenance items will need to be done.

What you said was:

“In the case of the old soft-story buildings discussed by this article, I would expect that many of them would need more work than just seismic retrofits: reroofing, replumbing, repaving, rewiring, etc. Depending on the situation, it may make a lot more sense to consider the structure a loss, and to sell the property to someone who wants to redevelop the lot.”

Your writing was misleading and does not concur with your attempt to rewrite history. In fact your use of retrofit in this sentence is a verb and not a noun. A retrofit is an action in this context, thus by using a verb prior to the colon you invoked the general rule seen here:

“1. Using a colon between a verb and its object or complement

Example (incorrect):The very best peaches are: those that are grown in the great state of Georgia.

To correct this, simply remove the colon.”( Web Link">Web Link

Another reason why I interpreted the sentence this way as

“2. Using a colon between a preposition and its object

Example (incorrect): My favorite cake is made of: carrots, flour, butter, eggs, and cream cheese icing.

To correct this, simply remove the colon.”( Web Link">Web Link

So you made a serious mistake in your writing, I just read it correctly regarding grammar. So you should learn to be more careful.

In effect you did make this statement. And I just exposed the meaning behind it.

I would like to point at one example -- 257 Calderon.

This was sold for 10 million dollars in May of this year. To be torn down, for Condos.

The entire 10 million was spent strictly for the land. There was no desire to upgrade any of the apartments. There was no concern over whether they were currently up to code.

The previous owner could have spent a few hundred thousand dollars to upgrade them. Or he could walk away with 10 million.

So, in this real world, making the investment in property even more of a negative, since you can't recover it, how are you not encouraging more property owners to simply sell?

And, please, TBM, you have copy pasted the random statute about a city required to make affordable housing like a million times. No need here, since this isn't the city selling the property. That is a question between the city and the developer.

In response to ConsiderReality you said:

“And, please, TBM, you have copy pasted the random statute about a city required to make affordable housing like a million times. No need here, since this isn't the city selling the property. That is a question between the city and the developer.”

BUT THE CITY MUST APPROVE THE DEMOLITION AND THE PROJECT.

No one can take any action like you claim without permits and approvals from the City.

The “Reality” is that no one can do as you say without permission.

And the City cannot approve any projects without being in compliance with the state laws.

You seem to be under the impression that anyone can tear down anything without permits and plans. Boy you are so wrong.

It looks like whoever bought 237 Calderon may have made a serious mistake in paying that price.

How many years will it take to get City approval for their “project”? It could be 2 to 3 years.

But that means that the people who may be renting this unit are still capable to now lodge a court action to seek either a reduction of rent or still an entire refund from the person who sold it.

Again, you don’t seem to understand “reality”.

And oh by the way, that project occured before the new no net-loss laws were made enforceable after Jan 1 2019.

Your not understanding the new laws would have prevented this project.

TBM, are you an AI project? Because I'm pretty sure the humans involved in this conversation did not find my writing misleading, and that they understood that the examples following the colon clarify the entire phrase "more work than just seismic retrofits".

And for the record, the word "retrofits" is being used as a noun in that context.

Darin, you said:

“TBM, are you an AI project?”

No, I just try to follow the rules of Grammar. You said:

“Because I'm pretty sure the humans involved in this conversation did not find my writing misleading, and that they understood that the examples following the colon clarify the entire phrase "more work than just seismic retrofits".

And for the record, the word "retrofits" is being used as a noun in that context.

If you want to use the word retrofit as a noun it must be used in this context:

“retrofit

noun [ C ] PRODUCTION UK /ˈretrəʊˌfɪt/ US (also retrofitting)

an occasion when a machine is provided with a part, or a place is provided with equipment, that the machine or place did not have when it was built:

A full retrofit can save 25% on a trucker's fuel bill.

A scheduled retrofitting for wireless Internet had not happened.”( Web Link

That was not the structure in your writing again you said:

“In the case of the old soft-story buildings discussed by this article, I would expect that many of them would need more work than just seismic retrofits: reroofing, replumbing, repaving, rewiring, etc. Depending on the situation, it may make a lot more sense to consider the structure a loss, and to sell the property to someone who wants to redevelop the lot.”

Again, you can try to rewrite your wording, but you made a statement you didn’t anticipate. Clearly it was a verb in your sentence when comparing and contrasting to the examples I provided.

Darin, please understand you are not really making sense here. Or is it you don’t understand the your Funk and Wangles?

Here is the REAL SOLUTION of affordable housing:

The State must create a database of ALL existing residential units that ACTUALLY EXIST! THIS IS MANADATORY TO ALL PROPERTIES!

Then they must create a database of all OWNED residential units that ACTUALLY EXIST! THIS IS MANADATORY TO ALL PROPERTIES!

Then they must create a database that accounts for all USED residential units that ACTUALLY EXIST! THIS IS MANADATORY TO ALL PROPERTIES!

Then they must create a database consisting of all UNUSED residential units that ACTUALLY EXIST! THIS IS MANADATORY TO ALL PROPERTIES!

OF COURSE the Housing industry will oppose this. Why?

This will provide the public the ACTUAL manipulated SHORTAGE of HOUSING in California.

Also there can be taxation designed so that for those properties NOT USED to be levied to fund public housing projects. This will be because the housing crisis allows for this extreme action as long as these units are not listed or used because it is against the state anti-trust and price manipulation laws.

It can be avoided if the properties are made available to the market.

But I will not be surpised that there is as much as an additional 10-15% of units just being withheld from USE because it makes other proerties more valuable. And given Proposition 13, they pay pitiful property taxes on units that just sit and decompose due to intentional neglect. No upkeep means that the taxes are the only cost.