All Forum Posts by: Christopher Sandys

Here are a couple of threads that address the cost of the test @Corey Duran. 

Found good Lead Paint Tester for Toledo Lead Safe Ordinance (biggerpockets.com)

Toledo, OH Lead Paint Ordinance Compliance (biggerpockets.com)

In my case, I am going to spend double, and have a pre-inspection followed by an inspection by the same inspector.  $300.  $500.  Whatever.  That's chump change compared to the cost of compliance.  A cheap, single, vinyl-vinyl window costs that much, if you do all the labor yourself.  

Don't forget, @Carlos Ptriawan, the long PUT option that you, the debtor of real estate, hold.  You exercise that option at your discretion when it is most advantageous for you.  

Can you imagine what would happen if the tables were "even" in this regard?   "Hi Carlos, interest rates have increased, so we're just going to call your mortgage."  Or, "We see the neighborhood is on the upswing, and we're pleased with your decision in that regard.  We'll be calling the mortgage.  You can keep the house if you can raise the capital in the next 30 days."

@Corey Duran  I recently got a quote on removing my wood siding and replacing it with the vinyl siding.  It was explained to me that the labor alone is currently at $200 per square foot. I don't know if the dude who gave me the quote overquoted me, because he didn't want the job? Could be. I've seen people do that before.

I'm not sure what the exterior area of my 2 story, plus attic,1800 square-foot interior is.  If I were to take a WAG, I would say I'm at least at $20-30k on labor.  Now, add in any sheathing (OSB), house wrap, and the actual siding and fasteners...

What do you guess the all-in figure is vinyl siding?  $40k?

The there is the interior, and the windows...

This is on a house that cost $64k.  About $70k with everything else I've already put into it.  A house that not too long ago would have sold for $25k.

@Account Closed  Thank you for the advice, and I am fully with you. Without any uncertainty, the exterior of my house needs to painted.  With or without a city mandate, that needed to happen.  It is happening now with haste.  Back and hernia surgery and other luxuries have moved to the lower end of the priority list.  House exterior to the top.

I did see a much older post where someone in Toledo recommended a home lead inspector that will perform a pre-inspection for a fee.  After getting the exterior completed I will do that.  The nice thing about that scheme is that the pre-inspector is also the inspector.  He will tell you exactly what needs to be rectified to pass the test.  

They claim they are going to start enforcing on 1 April for the first tract.  However, please see my last post.  I spoke with my Toledo City Councilwoman, and she forwarded my questions/concerns to Monica Smith.  Monica Smith is the enforcement person. 

@Corey Duran, this has been tied up in the courts for years.  This is not the first time Toledo has said, "We are going to start enforcement soon."  Now even though they have cried wolf so many times before, eventually it will likely happen.

Regarding your question on ex-post-facto, I don't know the answer.  I can't imagine they would fine you for voluntarily complying.  The challenge is - get in compliance, even if late, before they catch you.  If you can get it done before they catch you, I would suspect you are in good shape.  

Think about it this way, what if they start nailing everyone that is late to comply?  What would happen then?  They are basically saying: too late - you are self-admitting to a crime.  Now we will fine and prison you. I know what I would I would do: get my tenants out, take the financial hit, and get in compliance while it is not rented out.  Can you imagine the thousands of families being sent to the streets?

I sent the following email to my City Council memeber, and she replied that she has sent it to Monica Smith (City’s lead coordinator) for an answer.

***

Thank you for your swift response yesterday to my voicemail.

I have questions regarding the lead wipe test for the Lead Safe Toledo initiative.

It is my understanding, from watching the video released by the Lucas County Health Department, that these areas, and these areas ONLY, are subject to the lead wipe test:

1. Floors
2. Window Sills
3. Window Wells

Question #1: Is that accurate, that these are the only three areas that are subject to the wipe test?

Concern #1: From a strict, architectural definition, a “window sill” is on the exterior of a house. This is clearly an error.

I suspect that they mean the “window stool,” which is the shelf-like projection at the bottom of the window on the interior of the house.

I am not trying to nit-pick. However, I do need correct and definitive definitions on what is being tested.

A “window well” is also an exterior feature. You will see them outside of windows that are below ground level. I am betting that this is also mislabeled.

A floor – that is properly labeled.

Whom do I contact to get clarity on what is being tested? I am concerned that these areas of confusion are so prominent. That lacks professionalism.

After receiving that clarification, what if a qualified lead inspector tests an area that is not subject to testing, for example a window jamb?

Oxford Lane?  I have a substantial position there.  Be careful, it is part of the shadow banking industry, i.e. Collateralized Loan Obligations, i.e. tranches of senior loans made into bonds.  Those underlying loans are not investment grade.  I like this CEF because it has little exposure to real estate.  

"Fundamental value?"  I perform fundamental value analysis on capital market entities all the time.  

I have a new term I would like to contribute:  Nihilistic Economics. 

There is someone reading this, and they know it's their description.  I'm not going to point that finger - no need.

@Bruce Woodruff I can understand how you feel that way.  Just keep in mind, you said "our money."  The folks at the Fed are laughing at you (i'm not!  But they are.):  "Ha Ha. Look at Bruce, he thinks our money is his money.  Can't he read the "Federal Reserve Note" printed on each of our bills?  Let's print 100 Trillion more and dilute him to nothing to show him who really owns the money."

I've often been frustrated with fiat money and a Federal Reserve that carries water with its Monetary Policy control for a failed Fiscal Policy.  A long, long time ago I was an Air Force survival instructor, and those skills (if they even still exist in me) will be needed with a collapse of the monetary system.  We're all going back to dark ages at that point.  

Without a fractional system, and its inherent velocity of money, we might very well be on economic parity and quality of life with a modern day Phillipines.  For all its ills, it actually has created the greatest and most well-dispersed wealth ever.  

But I am concerned about an eventual day of reckoning with irresponsible monetary policy (the aforementioned Monetary bailout of Fiscal). 

@Bruce Woodruff, I am not suggesting that the Fed could have prevented a run.  Far from it.  But a stated of mission of the Federal Reserve is to act as a lender of last resort to mitigate the destructive impact of a run. Remember, the amount of banks that can survive a run in the entire United States: Zero.  No bank portfolio in the U.S. is structured to survive it.  That's because they only have 10-15% reserves.  The Fed is supposed to provide them additional reserves, for a fee, to get them through a liquidity crunch. 

Your bank, where you have your money (if you have your money in a bank), is also entirely vulnerable to a run.  If that were to happen, and it was not backstopped, would you shrug your shoulders and say, "Well, I guess I'll pick my business partners better next time, because I deserved to fail.  I'm totally wiped out, but I'll rebuild, because the Fed didn't follow its charter."

The entire concept of a central bank in a fractional reserve banking system is to protect against this vulnerability.  

Now, one may argue that the concept of fractional reserve banking is deeply flawed, but that's an entirely different argument.