All Forum Posts by: Matt Devincenzo

Quote from @Dulce Davis:

There is a legal recourse to do this...it is called 'Adverse possession'. If you seriously want to clean this up and are willing to take a risk, I would absolutely switch things into my name and begin taking care of the property as my own...it takes up to 10 years, but if you'd be willing to start caring for the property and were able to at least rent as a break even, pay taxes etc, then it's no big loss if the owner came back and stopped your claim. The benefit for you is in the neighborhood being cleaned up...and maybe in 10 years you own the property...

From what I see there are two separate issues that may or may not be solved concurrently. For the railing height, I'd find a local carpenter to ask about completely removing the railing and balusters and doweling in an additional length on them. The profile looks simple enough at the top and bottom that this should be doable without having to turn a new profile. I'd probably try adding on the bottom since there is more meat to the square profile there to connect to...but I'd trust your chosen professional. 

For the wobble I assume that the issue is wear and tear which has made the connections loose. Doing the above probably doesn't solve this directly, but by removing and reattaching all the balusters the connections are tight and the glue joints are solid...if that's not the issue then you may need to introduce some other improvement to prevent the wobble. You may want to consider having the newel matched and adding a few more...place another at the corner at the top of the stair and one at the corner closest to you in the photo. This may help stiffen it up more than the balusters can. 

Find a local bank and build a relationship...banks make money on deposit funds, your business seems to have a pretty decent deposit base. Your low credit score isn't something a credit committee who knows the full picture cares as much about. A truly local bank will be able to help get you where you want to be as you help them be profittable by maintaining a deposit base with them.

No, you can't so don't worry about the rest of it.

@K S. unfortunately I'm not familiar enough with SB to comment specifically on what you were told. That said my go to 'line' in situations like this is something to the effect of: "Thanks for clarifying that requirement for me, could you point me to the specific section or sections in the code that covers this?" In your case another question could be "Could you share the code section on STR guidelines for condos in the area?"

There are plenty of times that planners are 'interpreting' a section that doesn't say exactly what they imply it does. That interpretation may be the policy and what Senior management are directing, but being clearly specified in the code vs. a policy/interpretation can have two different ways of resolving it. In San Diego I'm familiar with the codes and I know how and where to look myself, but I still ask those questions because I want them to tell me where they think the requirement comes from. If possible I use that same section to refute the requirement...or provide an alternate path to approval. 

Once you have the specific section they reference go look it up and read it yourself, and see if you can do the same. Does it actually say what they're telling you it does? If it does, does it also have a section that gives another option? Or does it provide details for when it applies that  maybe don't apply to your site? All are reasonable options to identify how you meet the code when it is correctly applied.  

Quote from @Jeremy Taggart:

You could make it your mailing address for a year and keep it empty, which should satisfy that requirement. 

This does not satisfy the occupancy provision. The guidelines are clear that what counts as occupancy is the place you sleep the majority of the nights. So you need to physically move in and sleep in the home more nights than anywhere else for that year. 

I do land use planning in SoCal but not SB specifically. From a quick read of the SB ordinance I don't think you adding the ADU has anything to do with it. Their STR ordinance only allows STR in mountain and desert areas and does not allow it in MFR structures at all. So adding the ADU isn't somehow making the site ineligible for a STR, the use as MFR is what makes it ineligible.

Of course site specific details could change my take above, but based on what you shared you need to buy a SFR in the two allowable areas above in order to obtain a STR permit.

Who cares if he's over estimating materials, is his price for the work being done reasonable? And more importantly is the quality for the price appropriate? If so then if he keeps a couple hundred in extra materials vs charging it as profit the result is the same. 

I'm not sure of the legality so I can't comment there....either way though I'd just go get a personal loan for a balance that low or transfer the property sub-to...(title transfers but the loan stays in place and is not formally transfered to you via an assumption). You may be able to find a local bank that would hold the note if you bought it outright, but anything under $50k and most times under $75k is hard to borrow against...it's just too low for a bank to make any money without triggering usury or State/Federal fee limits like they mentioned.

Where is the rule about equal equity coming from?...at its most basic titling the TIC, does not require equal contributions it's just a deed defining percentages. So the requirement must be from some other aspect of the deal....funds are coming from a 1031 or SDIRA etc that is driving this requirement.

As far as the contribution/buy out idea and being dilluted, I don't see how that is any different than your original proposal. In both three people end up contributing all of the equity and one manages the project. The only difference being the fourth temporarily funds equity for a few days/weeks until you refund him...