Hubby and I have been trying to buy a house since September 2008. When we first started looking, everyone told us, "it's a great time to buy!.... if you can get financing. Good LUCK!" Well, it is a great time to buy, but those people were wrong. Obtaining a mortgage was easy as pie. It's the actual BUYING the house that has been ridiculous!
Let me recap:
House #1: Short sale. Submitted an offer and, three months later, the offer was rejected. Smarmy seller's agent lied through the nose, whenever he actually bothered to return our agent's emails and calls. Apparently there were other offers on the table (though he told us there were not), and the bank chose a different offer.
House #2: Short sale. Submitted an offer and seller's agent was immediately responsive. We went back and forth and agreed upon a price. But wait, then the seller wanted us to agree to not do a home inspection. Uh, DUH! No thanks. Then he said, Ok you can do a home inspection, but we won't sign an offer letter. We have to go straight to contract. Bye-bye.
House #3: Not a short sale (you mean there is a house for sale in this country that is not a short sale or foreclosure???); owners relocated, we must deal with both the sellers AND their relocation company. They verbally agreed to our offer, but it was the relocation company that had to sign the offer. While they took their sweet time signing, another higher offer came in, and the sellers dropped us like a cheap date.
House #4: Short sale. Made an offer at the beginning of January, seller accepted and signed offer. After we got the signed offer, I did some online detective work, and discovered a state website that lists all houses in the Commonwealth that have had a lead inspection and what the results were. Though the listing for the house said "Lead Paint: Unknown" and the sellers signed a disclosure form stating that they had no knowledge of the existence of lead in the home, or knowledge of any tests done, surprise surprise, there was a test done by the current owners a few years ago, and it was positive. In MA, you are not required to test for lead, but if you do, and it comes back positive, you are required to disclose it in any real estate transaction. When we confronted them with this info, they promptly sent us the report of the inspection they had done (damn straight, you better), and luckily it wasn't bad. Most of the lead was around the windows and the windows have all been replaced. But bottom line, we now have to disclose it when we go to sell it (if we can even buy the house!).
Anywho, the lead drama is past... at this point, we are actually still waiting for the seller's bank to approve the sale. We have signed all contracts, so as long as the bank approves, we just have to close. Our contract gives them until tomorrow, or we can back out and get all of our money back.
So, yes, it is a buyer's market, but not one for the sane buyer. Well, we started out sane.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Dear California,
WTF?
Now, I must say that I am normally a bit of a pessimist, or a realist at best, but the freedom to marry is an issue about which I am cheerfully optimistic. The fact is that those who wish to ban certain parts of the adult population from marrying whom they choose do not have a legal leg to stand on, and it is only a matter of time before their house comes tumbling down (pardon the mixed metaphors).
As far as I can tell, the vast majority of the opposition's arguments are religious, which is all well and good, except that religion has nothing to do with the law that our country is based on. I don't care what the religious zealots want to claim, the United States of America was founded on a set of principles, and one of the most fundamental was the separation of church and state. This was particularly important to the founders of our country because most of them, or their ancestors only 1 or 2 generations before, came to the New World to escape religious persecution. Republicans love to quote Thomas Jefferson, because he was a champion of states' rights and lack of government intrusion. (More on TJ later, as I just read a fascinating biography, American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson.) Jefferson practically created the notion of the separation between church and state, and it was a principle that was dearer to his heart than almost any other. On top of that, there is no more personal intrusion of government upon the life of an individual than the government legislating whom one is allowed to marry!
But didn't Jefferson believe that the people should be the ultimate legislators? And in CA, the people spoke, right? To address this issue, let's move on to the next great American president that the Republicans love to hold hostage as their own: Abraham Lincoln. (I also just read Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln.) During the Civil War, when Lincoln was deciding whether to emancipate the slaves, did he take a poll to see what the people wanted? No. If he had, it would have been a landslide No, from both North and South. While it would be nice to believe that every citizen north of the Mason-Dixon line was a passionate abolitionist and civil rights supporter, it was hardly so. The northerners were certainly far more liberal than southerners, and slavery had been illegal in some of the northern states for decades, but the most common "liberal" opinion up north was "Slavery is an evil that should not spread to the new territories that are acquired." They hoped that the southern states would come to their senses, but most people agreed that they didn't have the constitutional right to tell other states what to do. In addition, although most northerners were morally opposed to slavery, most still saw the black race as inferior to the white race, and integration sounded pretty crazy to them.
My point? Public sentiment was against both emancipation of the slaves, and almost completely against any type of civil rights for black Americans. But would anyone today question Lincoln's decision to end slavery? Should he have taken a poll, assessed that the majority of the country was against emancipation, and then ignored the issue?
Of course not. Because it is a matter of 1) the constitutional rights of millions of American citizens; and 2) the right thing to do.
Now, I must say that I am normally a bit of a pessimist, or a realist at best, but the freedom to marry is an issue about which I am cheerfully optimistic. The fact is that those who wish to ban certain parts of the adult population from marrying whom they choose do not have a legal leg to stand on, and it is only a matter of time before their house comes tumbling down (pardon the mixed metaphors).
As far as I can tell, the vast majority of the opposition's arguments are religious, which is all well and good, except that religion has nothing to do with the law that our country is based on. I don't care what the religious zealots want to claim, the United States of America was founded on a set of principles, and one of the most fundamental was the separation of church and state. This was particularly important to the founders of our country because most of them, or their ancestors only 1 or 2 generations before, came to the New World to escape religious persecution. Republicans love to quote Thomas Jefferson, because he was a champion of states' rights and lack of government intrusion. (More on TJ later, as I just read a fascinating biography, American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson.) Jefferson practically created the notion of the separation between church and state, and it was a principle that was dearer to his heart than almost any other. On top of that, there is no more personal intrusion of government upon the life of an individual than the government legislating whom one is allowed to marry!
But didn't Jefferson believe that the people should be the ultimate legislators? And in CA, the people spoke, right? To address this issue, let's move on to the next great American president that the Republicans love to hold hostage as their own: Abraham Lincoln. (I also just read Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln.) During the Civil War, when Lincoln was deciding whether to emancipate the slaves, did he take a poll to see what the people wanted? No. If he had, it would have been a landslide No, from both North and South. While it would be nice to believe that every citizen north of the Mason-Dixon line was a passionate abolitionist and civil rights supporter, it was hardly so. The northerners were certainly far more liberal than southerners, and slavery had been illegal in some of the northern states for decades, but the most common "liberal" opinion up north was "Slavery is an evil that should not spread to the new territories that are acquired." They hoped that the southern states would come to their senses, but most people agreed that they didn't have the constitutional right to tell other states what to do. In addition, although most northerners were morally opposed to slavery, most still saw the black race as inferior to the white race, and integration sounded pretty crazy to them.
My point? Public sentiment was against both emancipation of the slaves, and almost completely against any type of civil rights for black Americans. But would anyone today question Lincoln's decision to end slavery? Should he have taken a poll, assessed that the majority of the country was against emancipation, and then ignored the issue?
Of course not. Because it is a matter of 1) the constitutional rights of millions of American citizens; and 2) the right thing to do.
Sit Down, I Need To Talk To You
Me: I think I'm gonna start a blog.
Hubby: I told you a while ago you should start a blog, but you said you had nothing to say.
Me: I know, I still have nothing to say. But I thought maybe I could start a blog and then see if I had anything to say. But I can't think of a name for it.
(15 minutes later)
Me: OK, I can't have a blog. I still can't think of a name for it.
Hubby: The title is what is standing between you and having a blog??
Me: (To the dog) Sancho, sit down, I need to talk to you.
Hubby: That's what you should call it!
Hubby: I told you a while ago you should start a blog, but you said you had nothing to say.
Me: I know, I still have nothing to say. But I thought maybe I could start a blog and then see if I had anything to say. But I can't think of a name for it.
(15 minutes later)
Me: OK, I can't have a blog. I still can't think of a name for it.
Hubby: The title is what is standing between you and having a blog??
Me: (To the dog) Sancho, sit down, I need to talk to you.
Hubby: That's what you should call it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)