Housing for Raffle in Los Angeles...
This subject reminds me how some people get involved with gambling, by betting on the Superboal game either in office pools or in Las Vegas, etc.
And with that, I have seen reports when people have trouble selling their home outright, that they would run a raffle, and sell tickets. And once they accumulate so many tickets, then they do a drawing for the lucky winner. I wonder if that kind of thing will be taking place more frequently as the housing bubble pops.
I am thinking that people may, it seems human tendency, to take smaller risks, like by lottery tickets, and losing that, for the chance at winning something big.
So say the ticket cost 20 bucks. And there were like 10 prizes you could win, all the way from a a gift certificate from a dinner or something like that, perhaps one of the family cars, perhaps, some other items the family owns, with the grand prize being the house.
I am wondering if that could be done in a way that is legal...
posted by Los Angeles Friends In Deed at 12/17/2005 10:29:00 AM
3 Comments:
CA Renter said...
"LA's is better, IMHO. The wages are better there, too."
Apparently the former City Manager of San Diego thinks so to. He was recently hired as
City Manager of the City of Santa Monica
And interestingly, part of his compensation package includes a healthy housing subsidy of to buy a home in Santa Monica. His annual salary alone will be about 245k per year. And he will get
relocation assistance and a low interest loan to buy a house in Santa Monica
Also, it is reported that he believes "Homelessness is his #1 issue" and he attacking affordable housing so everyone has the opportunity to live in the community which they deserve to live in, as well as addressing homelessness."
ChillinIntheOC said...
I agree with llamajockey. I often get frustrated with the local Orange COunty Register's coverage of RE. When the news favors the RE bulls, it get's extensive and loud coverage (local papers plus radio). RE price declines are always "very slight" ,"a bit lower" or "very moderate" whereas price increases are "robust" and "strong" and always "hot market".
Very good points on the way language can manipulate public opinion or the power language has on thinking. Once it is identified, it seems to be easier to spot.
skep-tic said...
"even though these people are starting to worry, they're still not ready to sell for a loss. I wonder how long sellers will be willing to wait for a 'better market' before really cutting prices"
I suppose one possibility would be if they became late on one of their $6000 payments.
I wonder if there are clauses in theirs or other buys mortgage contract regarding "late payment" triggers. And if they are late, what kind of late payment fees might be charged, on top of other terms that might kick in.
And even if they are able to keep the house, they would have alot of additional grief. Plus, that deal will cost them even more, with the added fees etc.
And I have heard that if borrowers tumble on a mortgage payment, it can trigger a "Universal Default" clause. And even if they don't, it is my understanding that virtually all credit card contracts have a "universal default" clause, which can be triggered from any late payments, including a mortgage payment. It could also be triggered from a other factors, I understand, like credit being overextended. And this could take place if the interest rates go up on their mortgage or any other loan they have.
So imagine some folks that are carrying 30k in credit card debt at a relatively low interest rat of 7% or less. And suppose their "Univeral Default" clause gets triggered by any one or more of the above reasons and/or others that I have not spoken of. There rate could jump up to 30% or more on that $30k of credit card debt they are holding. And 30% of 30k is about $9k of additional cost. And tack on to that any late payment fees, all the added phone calls, and mail they will have to deal with. And all the extra hoops they may be forced to jump through as well.
And if they are considering bankruptcy, that is supposing they haven't already filed in the past 7-10 years, they will be faced with much more expensive, time consuming ordeal with that. And that is assuming they even qualify. It is my understanding that anyone earing over the annual median income automatically is disqualified.
Anyone have any corrections or find any ommissions in my comment?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home