Its about that time...

Whoa, lots of advice over the weekend. I have very limited knowledge in buying a home. In just about every step of the process. So I've got no idea about what insurance would be required, or how bad the property taxes will be (many older, original owner, homes double or triple their tax rate after being sold :(). Its going to be an interesting learning experience.

Renting will be so hard to do this time because of
a) the size we're looking for. 5, possibly 6 bedrooms, or a 3/4 with a mother-in-law addition. Not your common long term rental properties, especially in the price point thats around what purchasing a house would cost us.
b) pets. I no longer have the king snake, gave that to a lonely friend. We do however have 3 indoor cats, 1 outdoor cat, 1 indoor dog, an outdoor dog, and a hamster. Most of our current house is tile, but while cat sitting a kitten a month ago it turned Brents room into a kitty litter pan, and that did require removing the carpet to truely clean it out. Thats just Brandy and I's pets. I don't want any pets but of those the 3 cats our mine (original girlfriend, hurricane victim, pawned off by sister).
My mom is a whole other story. My sister is a vet tech and it took her a lot longer to move out than it took me. She is also stupid, and totally in the wrong career path. Anytime someone abandoned a pet at her work, she would bring it home, there would be a big deal made, and eventually my mom would cave. At last count I think she has 8 cats and 5 dogs, all in door. You never see any of the cats, except maybe her original 2, but the dogs are all annoyingly in your face types. From basset hounds mixes (and bigger) to Chihuahuas. My sister moved and left them all on my mom, but she did at least take her 3 big ass birds and rabbits. Mom of course is attached to them all now, especially since they were the only company for her after my dad died.
The cats at least are getting up there in years, so from this point forward the pet population will only go down!

Most rental properties allow 2 pets, if any, and they restrict by dog breed due to insurance costs, one of my mom's dogs is a mix of one of those breeds.

Fun times for me!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

OG you are going to have an online wedding though aren't you? So that strangers on the internet can peek in :)

---

This I might manage, especially since I want a small us, mom, kids, type of wedding ceremony. I've got like 8 aunts and uncles that are going to be pissed about that. All old southern types that have been bugging us about wedding plans since Scarlett was announced.
I at least want the proposal to be recorded in some fashion.

Jeez! Your wife/kids/mom should come before any pets. Seems kinda crazy to buy instead of renting, just because you have pet baggage. :eek:

OG, really, stop and think about it. Don't let your big heart get in the way by trying to make everyone happy with their pets. Sad to say, but if your mom has a mixed breed dog that precludes you from getting homeowner's liability insurance, there's probably a reason for that. Mostly it makes me worry for the safety of those kids you're going to be caring for. You really don't want them bit by a house dog-pet.


(Trust me on this, I was bit in the face twice by our domestic family pet Cocker Spaniel, first in my eye (was touch and go if I'd have vision or not) and then on my upper lip. I still wear the scars, over 65 stitches and re-attaching my upper frenulum. There are reasons why certain dogs have higher insurance liability costs. Ignore them at your kids' peril.)

Step 1: Open a petting zoo.
Step 2: Sell tickets.
Step 3: Profit!

Also is your mother actually attached to the pets, or just the company they provide?

The dogs are family to her. The cats not so much because they are far more independent, we've talked before about putting some on craigslist or adoption sites, but it always comes down to not being able to decide which ones stay, which ones go.

I have never once considered any of the dogs to be spazzy or bipolar enough to be a danger. The mix breed she has thats usually on the no dog list is the most docile dog she has. To big to be a lap dog, its more of a foot dog. The only one I fear is the Chihuahua (no joke :haha:) because its become so damn protective of Scarlett. Its gone after me a few times when I'd go to pick up Scarlett or to check a diaper. At every placed I'ved lived, I've only listed 1 pet. Its not hard to hide a cat or two, even if you've got a nosey landlord, but hiding a small zoo, not as easy. I don't think my mom has ever claimed the dog on her insurance paperwork either.

The pets are actually working in my favor. My mom knows she wouldn't be able to find a place on her own because of them (for price, size, or acceptance), so she has hitched onto my joint living plan. Most of them I'd say have maybe 5 years left, and after that its going to be (mainly) a people only home.

OG, the chihuahua is a risk to those kids. You may think it's cute or sweet that the dog "protects" Scarlett, but that's not the kind of behavior a family dog should exhibit. Sorry to say, but that dog needs to go. It will hurt your mom, but she has to realize that human babies come before dog babies. Even a little chihuahua dog can maim a child.

I agree about the risk from the dog GGT.

As silly as it may sound, you have to be careful of the Chihuahua around other kids if it feels it is protecting your kids. We had a miniature dachshund that was exactly the same and although we tried to discourage the behaviour eventually the bloody thing did in fact attack a child. He bit one of our nieces on the face - it could have been very serious if she hadn't pulled away just in time and ended up with just a scratch on her cheek and nose. It traumatised her a bit too, she became more nervous visiting our home long after the dog was gone. It was a vicious strike from the little sausage dog with teeth showing, growling and biting so we had seen enough and the dog went.

If a big dog behaved the way some small dogs do, they would be destroyed but people make the mistake of underestimating the small dog - they even find it amusing when the small dogs growl and attack but if its target is a small child it can do serious damage.

We now have a very placid and playful Boxer bitch named Pat (the dog) and she is the nicest dog I've ever known. If she is happy she jumps around like a kangaroo, if she is scared or startled she runs like a rabbit under a shrub or table and her funny little face pokes out to see what's happening. She has never growled at anyone, let alone a child and doesn't see herself as a protector of the family, rather just an eccentric and amusing member of it.

Good luck OG, you are facing some responsibility but that is not a bad thing - it can be the making of you if you can stick to the plan, or adapt when the plan changes. Just don't let things weigh you down. I am sure you would realise that there is a recipe for potential conflict in a shared environment like the one your planning (with your mum, partner and kids + pets and possessions.) That's a lot of different needs, wants and beliefs all in one home (even if your mum is in a separate dwelling you will all be sharing space and time)

I received a bit of good advice from an old guy that I worked with as a young man, it has proved invaluable to keeping my family together and relatively happy (and the extended family from bickering.)

Quote:

---

"Don't let petty disagreements become bigger than the petty things they are and the best way to do that is DO NOT sleep on it. Sort out the petty issues quickly or they will fester."

---

You will know what I mean when it happens, as it will inevitably happen.

Quote:

---

"Don't let petty disagreements become bigger than the petty things they are and the best way to do that is DO NOT sleep on it. Sort out the petty issues quickly or they will fester."

---

Is that like 'don't go to bed angry'? :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

OG, the chihuahua is a risk to those kids. You may think it's cute or sweet that the dog "protects" Scarlett, but that's not the kind of behavior a family dog should exhibit. Sorry to say, but that dog needs to go. It will hurt your mom, but she has to realize that human babies come before dog babies. Even a little chihuahua dog can maim a child.

---

'needs to go' is a bit much on the information we have. I would agree that there is a problem though if the dog gets aggressive when OG does something. It means the dog has not accepted the hierarchy in the home and needs a bit of correcting. It's not that hard to correct a dog if you are consequent. There are courses for it if you don't need what to do yourself.

Do I understand correctly you and your mother are going to buy the new home jointly? I'd suggest then that you also check what this means when your mother passes away. You really don't want your ability to stay in your home being dependent on siblings that may see your staying there as a roadblock to their free money. Also think about what it means if you and/or your mother want to terminate the arrangement.

Have you considered not actually living in the same building all together? Maybe there is something affordable that also has a little annex where your mother could live. You would still be able to do those things together that you want to do together and keep an eye on her as she gets older without giving up all privacy alltogether.

Finally, all those animals. I am happy I am not in that position because as pets get older they get more expensive and with that many you may have to face choices you'd rather not have.

'Needs to go' can mean to a friend's house, a house without young children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

'Needs to go' can mean to a friend's house, a house without young children.

---

You assume too fast the behavioural problem can't be fixed. Most of the time it can be fixed. The average dog accepts hierarchy when it is enforced. If the dog is rigorously corrected and still behaves the same then it needs to go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

'Needs to go' can mean to a friend's house, a house without young children.

---

The Dachshund we had went to an old spinster with nod kids or grandkids and she was well aware of the dogs behaviour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

You assume too fast the behavioural problem can't be fixed. Most of the time it can be fixed. The average dog accepts hierarchy when it is enforced. If the dog is rigorously corrected and still behaves the same then it needs to go.

---

Unfortunately for a small child, "If the dog is rigorously corrected and still behaves the same....." can mean a bite in the face. Parents can take that chance if they want, but not sure why they would.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Unfortunately for a small child, "If the dog is rigorously corrected and still behaves the same....." can mean a bite in the face. Parents can take that chance if they want, but not sure why they would.

---

Actually, you can tell well before that happens if the dog has adjusted or not. There are few dogs that can't be corrected, and I dare say that if OG is not able to correct a badly behaved chihuahua after seriously trying, then he should have no dogs in his house at all. If there is a serious character flaw that will show soon enough, but not before an attempt to modify behaviour.

Mom got her forclosure notice today, and house hunting started last weekend.
We found a real sweet property about 20 minutes from downtown. An acre of land, 4/2 + 1/1 on the property, single wide double deep garage with car port, electric gated driveway.
Problem is that its built in the 1960s, its partially raised, and the tax collector appraised it at 149,000 this year but the asking price is 197,000. Letting that one sit on the back burner for now.
Pictures

Also viewed a larger house that looked amazing from the strret, 6000 some odd square feet, it had a "game room" in the back of the house that was larger than my entire current house. Sadly that was the only room that didn't have issues. Kitcken had mold problems, they half-heartedly closed in the garage (but left the garage door!), the pool was neglected, two of the 4 bathrooms were destroyed, and the realtor couldn't figure out how to open up the mother-in-law detached addition.
It fit our budget, but the work would put us over, we are watching it closely, its on short sale because of foreclosure, if it comes down to the wire and we are still looking we may pay for an inspection and make a lower offer to account for the money we would have to dump into it. The house is so large we could literally live in only a fraction of it while we fix up the other parts. Currently they are asking for 196 thousand. We're thinking 150, maybe 160 thousand.


More house hunting this weekend to come!

Some of the pictures only made it half-way. :confused:

An acre of land will mean quite a bit of maintenance. What does 4/2 + 1/1 mean? And did you mean it's a single wide as in modular/mobile home?

6,000 sf sounds obscene for a young family in FL with cooling costs.....and are you SURE you want a swimming pool?

No idea how FL is doing its assessments for tax purposes, but assessments do NOT necessarily = appraisals. Plenty of folks got caught in that trap, buying a low assessed property that had low taxes, then upgrading, only to have a higher tax assessment later on.

If the pictures don't load simply refresh, they should all work by now.

I'd say about 50-60% of the acre is grass, with a few peach trees. I understand how insanely hard it is to get peach trees going in Florida so to have a patch already established seemed pretty cool. Property was flat (like the rest of Florida) so the maintenance isn't a problem. Original owners wanted to build an additional property on the plot but didn't (and I don't know why). 4/2 + 1/1 means its a larger house with 4 beds 2 baths, and a detached smaller house thats a 1 bed 1 bath on the same property. Commonly called the mother-in-law addition.
That place also had 3 septic tanks :bulb:
A lot of Florida homes are split level or raised properties, Florida has/had no drainage, especially in the 60s. That means that tile or wood flooring echos at best, can rot at worst.

The larger house:
The swimming pool was above ground, and pretty much ruined, that house sat neglected for a long time. Also took up most of the back yard, we would likely have to rip it out to get the yard space back, but thats an addition cost because its had a deck, bar, shower, and fully enclosed screen covering built around it.
The entire property was covered in foilage, with raised ceilings. From the outside it could have easily passed for a 2 story place. We walked through with no power, thus no A/C, and it wasn't uncomfortable at all. Built in fireplace too.

Ah, okay. That 4/2 + 1/1 makes sense now. Some of the walls had that modular wall look. (If it's a modular home then your insurance will be different, especially in FL.)

An acre of grass sounds easy but it's not. You'll need to mow it, and that sounds easy too but it's not. I can tell you one acre means mowing 3 hours with an assist-push or 1 1/2 hrs with a rider. Both machines need maintenance like a car. Some FL counties fine you for NOT watering the lawn, or for watering during certain times, so add in water costs (ie, you may need a computer timed watering system).

Some municipalities tax land more than houses plus improvements. If there aren't sidewalks yet but planned, they can assess you for the future improvement, ditto for curbs or light posts. Find out about trash disposal, fire hydrants, and other municipal costs.

Most of all, check out the school district! Look at their budget and tax revenue, in addition to the state's performance appraisal for students, their SAT scores/graduation rates/college attendance rates. I would assume it's rather complicated in FL, between retiring teacher pensions, lots of older people, influx or outflow of tax paying residents, state vs federal funds, etc.

Addendum to add this beef. It would be really nice if our property taxes were easier to figure out, if there was a cohesive formula. Especially if we supposedly have a "mobile" society.

When I first moved to PA from IN, I had to re-learn this whole local and state tax gig. Very complicated. I went from a county-wide uni-gov type thing to a provincial boro system. Thought I understood it until moving from a boro to a municipality. In the boro, we had an acre of land with fruit and nut trees, plus some outbuildings, public sidewalks and public street lamps, but we were taxed on (get this) built-in closets, fireplaces and toilets. That's why the kitchen had 2 sinks, no closets or fireplaces, and one "indoor toilet" but an outhouse out back by the corn fields.

When I moved to this municipality, I learned the taxes were based on acreage, connection to public sewer or water, fireplaces, and finished basements. In essence, living on one acre in a 1968 ranch house with 3 fireplaces, a full basement, and 2 toilets (public sewer) is assessed more than the 6,000 sf McMansion built in 1999, on a postage stamp lot slab foundation with 5 toilets, on septic or well water, a 3 car garage with heated driveway (!), and an olympic sized swimming pool.

Same school district. Go figure. :flail:

I think property taxes are the stupidest thing. Paying for utilities, services, etc makes sense. But property taxes is taxing an asset that for most people doesn't produce cashflow. If you buy an acre of land and just let it sit there, you have to pay taxes on it just because it's there. </rant>

Of course, Dread, taxing property means that there is a disincentive to own large tracts of low-yielding land, instead favoring intensive uses for the land. I would generally consider this a good thing, and it reduces the numbers of land barons around.

That being said, property taxes are currently not really structured that way, since they penalize adding more valuable investments to the land/improving it/etc. In theory, though, I think they're a reasonable way to push people to only own land they're going to develop. Land value taxation is the way to go IMO, though it has other issues wrt farmland.

How is one a land barron if you just own land and don't do anything with it? And what about conservation?

But more generally, I'm concerned that property taxes harm people on fixed incomes or who simply want to unplug from society. If I want to buy 10 acres and squeeze out a meagre subsistence existence without participating in our economy, why do I have to pay property taxes on it?

Because then you're a lolbertarian nut-job, and deserve all the scorn and punishment society throws at you?

Wanting people to have the chance to unplug from capitalist society makes me a right-wing demon?

Anyway, this is sort of a distraction from OG's house hunt...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

I think property taxes are the stupidest thing. Paying for utilities, services, etc makes sense. But property taxes is taxing an asset that for most people doesn't produce cashflow. If you buy an acre of land and just let it sit there, you have to pay taxes on it just because it's there. </rant>

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

If I want to buy 10 acres and squeeze out a meagre subsistence existence without participating in our economy, why do I have to pay property taxes on it?

---

You're paying for federal and state protection of your land and property rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

How is one a land barron if you just own land and don't do anything with it? And what about conservation?

But more generally, I'm concerned that property taxes harm people on fixed incomes or who simply want to unplug from society. If I want to buy 10 acres and squeeze out a meagre subsistence existence without participating in our economy, why do I have to pay property taxes on it?

---

I'll only reply once since I didn't want to derail the thread (and I don't think I care enough to make a big deal of it). In principle, I don't have a problem with 'land barons' except that they can be an impediment to intensive development of land. Of course, my definition doesn't include someone holding onto a small chunk of land, but rather a wealthy individual owning vast tracts of low-yielding land. It's an inefficient use of space, which is most definitely a finite resource.

As for conservation, it actually works the other way - urban sprawl is generally encouraged by current property taxes (not land value taxes) since low-yielding undeveloped land will have higher taxes than can be afforded (especially as a city starts to spread around the land and property values go up) but too much development will jack up the taxes without a commensurate increase in profit. Land value taxes would remove this incentive to develop but only lightly.

Obviously, parks and the like need to have exemptions carved out for them, but most parks in the US are government owned anyways so it doesn't matter much.

One last point: I do feel that property taxes are to some extent a wealth tax, which I generally oppose (not to mention that you have to pay property taxes even if the property is mortgaged to the hilt!). Yet wealth is not a finite resource, while useful land most definitely is. I think governments have some reason to want to encourage the productive use of a limited resource by making a small penalty for owning the resource.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

An acre of grass sounds easy but it's not. You'll need to mow it, and that sounds easy too but it's not. I can tell you one acre means mowing 3 hours with an assist-push or 1 1/2 hrs with a rider. Both machines need maintenance like a car.

---

What? :bulb: My parents have an assist-push lawnmower and I don't think they ever did any maintenance on it since they bought it more than a decade ago and it works just fine.

I looked up your property tax thing on wiki, and it seems your rates are really high (in the order of percentages). Over here most are below a promille, I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

You're paying for federal and state protection of your land and property rights.

---

That makes sense. And you are probably allowed to use the services offered by the government, even if you don't use them you can always call the police, fire department, send your kids to the schools, use the roads, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

You're paying for federal and state protection of your land and property rights.

---

Sounds like the mafia. :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Wanting people to have the chance to unplug from capitalist society makes me a right-wing demon?

---

Lolbertarians aren't "right-wing demons" (until you put them in positions of power, I guess), they're just stupid.

I would think you of all people would appreciate giving people the choice to [mostly] opt-out of industrial capitalist society if one so pleases.

Why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

What? :bulb: My parents have an assist-push lawnmower and I don't think they ever did any maintenance on it since they bought it more than a decade ago and it works just fine.

---

Mowing an acre every week (or 3 days) means changing the oil, filter and plugs, and sharpening the blade.

Quote:

---

I looked up your property tax thing on wiki, and it seems your rates are really high (in the order of percentages). Over here most are below a promille, I think.

---

Yep. My school taxes alone are $7,000/yr.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

Why?

---

Because my leftie friends seem to worship those who do this and I'm generalizing their views onto you. :downcast:

But seriously, the option to "unplug" seems important, non?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Because my leftie friends seem to worship those who do this and I'm generalizing their views onto you. :downcast:

But seriously, the option to "unplug" seems important, non?

---

I dunno. The cat's out of the bag, in the sense that we're all in this together, and there's quite a many of us. Pitching in seems like the best way to utilize a human life. Other nihilists like Linkola have more or less unplugged themselves from mainstream society but he's all for killing a vast majority of mankind.

As long as you consume, you should contribute in some way. To your abilities, of course. Even tilling your own land means you're taking up that land. Of course Murika (and Finland, come to think of it) are pretty sparsely populated, so in theory there's plenty of land to go around. But working at sustenance-level means you're throwing your own potential contribution to society down the shitter, and that's not very nice, now is it.

You always have one way of unplugging, and guns are still relatively freely available even in godless Finnistan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Because my leftie friends seem to worship those who do this and I'm generalizing their views onto you. :downcast:

---

I'm uncertain how to word this appropriately, but I'm wondering if your friends hold left leaning opinions that are rational, or are of the sort where, when they showed up at protests in college, when faced with a dissenting viewpoint backed by logic, rationality, facts, etc. would either blankly stare like a deer stunned by headlights before launching into soundbite wrapped chanting, or would just plow into the chanting immediately at the first whiff of a different opinion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

I dunno. The cat's out of the bag, in the sense that we're all in this together, and there's quite a many of us. Pitching in seems like the best way to utilize a human life...

As long as you consume, you should contribute in some way. To your abilities, of course.

---

Pretty much this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

I dunno. The cat's out of the bag, in the sense that we're all in this together, and there's quite a many of us. Pitching in seems like the best way to utilize a human life. Other nihilists like Linkola have more or less unplugged themselves from mainstream society but he's all for killing a vast majority of mankind.

As long as you consume, you should contribute in some way. To your abilities, of course. Even tilling your own land means you're taking up that land. Of course Murika (and Finland, come to think of it) are pretty sparsely populated, so in theory there's plenty of land to go around. But working at sustenance-level means you're throwing your own potential contribution to society down the shitter, and that's not very nice, now is it.

You always have one way of unplugging, and guns are still relatively freely available even in godless Finnistan.

---

Well, define "consume"? If I grow vegetables on my own land and sell them at a local marketplace, I owe an income tax. This strikes me as fair.

But why does simply having a chunk of land mean the government can basically tell me I should be getting a certain amount of income from that land and paying them a regular cut (even if I'm making no money from the land)?

Though interesting point about reneging on your obligations to society by being a subsistence farmer. I hadn't thought of that. Though I suspect eco-extremists would argue that being a subsistence farmer was actually a heroic thing to do.

Should this be split into a separate thread?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

But why does simply having a chunk of land mean the government can basically tell me I should be getting a certain amount of income from that land and paying them a regular cut (even if I'm making no money from the land)?

---

Here's the answer again...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

You're paying for federal and state protection of your land and property rights.

---

And paying a sales tax doesn't cover that?

We all know that property taxes are mainly used to fund schools after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

And paying a sales tax doesn't cover that?

We all know that property taxes are mainly used to fund schools after all.

---

I'm sure paying sales tax might cover that, however public schools have to be funded some way, property tax seems to be the way its currently handled, but this is beside the point. I'm completely baffled why you've decided to view these connections so concretely though. Property tax being linked to funding public schools is likely arbitrary, and done for ease of budgeting what is essential one common pot of how to spend all collected tax income for the State or Federal government. This link is not, nor would I assume to be the justification originally for collecting property taxes; I'm assuming the original link was that if you expected the State or Federal government to protect your land and property rights, something that would cost them money, then you should be expected to pay for it. This protection of land and property rights is actually quite vast, ranging from anything such as acting as an arbiter in land disputes, to ensuring that if someone shows up on your property guns blazing that they can dispatch someone to take care of it, or if some less than considerate corporation decides to use your land as its personal landfill you can take them to court to sue for damages and cleanup. These are just some minor examples.

My point isn't what the taxes are being used for (you brought that up, not me). My point is what kinds of activities those taxes curtail. Property taxes are asset taxes; you pay a tax for something even if it doesn't make any money. I don't think that concept is so enshrined in many other places in the tax code.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

you pay a tax for something even if it doesn't make any money

---

Taxes aren't levied because you've made money, your making (or exchanging) money is evidence that you've used something that is relying on government services to operate in its current state, and this is why you are taxed. Your owning land is the same thing, evidence that you've used or are using something that is relying on government services to operate in its current state.