The newly enacted measures call for the following:

          Watering of lawns and landscapes throughout the city and its jurisdictions can only be done from 6 p.m. to 10 a.m. 

          Outside watering ( applicable to residential and commercial properties) can only be done three days per week.

          Each property owner must follow the  assigned days of week according to the property address.

Homeowners and Commercial properties are assigned the following watering days:

• Odd number addresses will be assigned Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday only.
• Even numbered Address will be assigned Monday, Wednesday and Saturday.
• Apartment Buildings, Condominiums and Commercial properties are assigned Monday, Wednesday and Friday.

The watering time limit on all property both residential and commercial is 10 minutes.

There is a further restriction for car washing at residences can only be done between the hours of 6PM and 10AM.

This proposal and enactment yesterday by unanimous city council vote supersedes the previous and more onerous proposal that would have capped each water customer to a specific overall amount of water usage and then charged that customer  extra if they exceeded the capped amount.

For more information about this new measure that is effective June 1st, 2009 and the consequences for not abiding by it can be found at http://uniontrib.com/more/conserve

The Governor signed into law a senate bill that provides  New Home Buyers with a tax credit

Between March 1, 2009 and March 1, 2010, New Home Buyers can earn a tax credit up to $10,000 on a qualified personal residence. The qualified property an be a single family home or an attached property. There is 100 million in tax credit available so it will be available on the next two years on a first come, first serve basis.

The qualifying rules are as follows:

The Buyer must occupy the New Home for at least 2 consecutive years after the purchase.

The Seller of the new home must certify within one week of the sale that the New Home has never been lived in.

The Buyer must be eligible for the homeowner tax exemption.

Buyer must make application for the tax credit prior to the close of escrow.

The amount of the credit will be the lesser of 5% of the sales price up to $10,000.

The credit will be claimed over three consecutive years and a copy of the Seller Certification must accompany the tax return.

The Franchise Tax Board will be working with Title and Escrow companies to implement the program throughout the state. What’s is especially nice is that the New Home Buyers may also qualify for the Federal $8000 tax credit if they are first time home Buyers.

The 9.3 Billion Dollar bond proposal includes $3 billion for reservoirs and other storage projects, with costs to be split between the state and local water providers; $2 billion for projects to use water more efficiently, protect its quality and reduce runoff; $1.9 billion to develop a Delta management plan; $1.3 billion for conservation programs along the Sacramento, San Joaquin and Klamath rivers and the Salton Sea; and more than $1 billion to improve ground water quality and recycle water.

The legislature must approve the proposal and put it forth for the voters to decide in November. But the resistance seems to be growing there and foot dragging and excuses are makes it seem that there is inaction on the water issues. San Diego , the 2^nd largest city in the state is most affected as there was a judicial action that cuts the water supplies form the Sacramento River Delta due to the risk to some smelt if the Delta level continues to drop. The judicial decision called for a 50% cut back of water supplies to San Diego and since over 90 percent of our water is purchased, this is going to have a stunning effect on available water resources in our  region. Thinking conservation will cure the shortfall is wishful thinking.

This proposal though could go a long way in getting new storage facilities built to provide needed reserves. The 1.9 million for the Delta Management plan would help getting the judicial decision to either be reconsidered or set aside.

The water agencies through out the state all see this as a vital issue and they are in praise of the bi-partisan proposal. Next step, get the legislature to take action ASAP and get this measure approved so that people around the state can be made aware of how important it is and get approved come the fall elections.

If this doesn’t get done San Diego stands to hurt to most and the potential for job loss and many other ill effects  will be felt in every household. San Diego has seen one water plan after another at the state level  having the life sucked out it and it must be realized by everyone that a controlling part of the legislature believes that dams and storage projects are harmful to the environment.

We of course can be hopeful for rain showers but the weather man says the forecast is for more drought. So good luck with that. Desalination is opposed, recycling plan not ready, importing more water seems to off the table. So if this proposal doesn’t get done, we best hope someone has some connections with the rain gods and start praying.

While I certainly agree with the intent of the bill, I wouldn’t count on anything changing to much in the way REO’s are maintained while on the market. I am not sure if lenders give authority to their listing agents for other than utilities but from the REO’s I have seen, they certainly do not get the maintenance attention they need.

Whose responsibility should it be?. The listing agent, the Lender, or an outside service procured by and expensed back to the holder of the title ( in this case the bank ).

The bill permits the local communities to impose the fines after giving a 14 day notice to fix the problems. There is more to this bill as it provides for Lenders giving notice to consumers ( by Telephone or in person) 30 days before starting foreclosure proceedings. I am less inclined to believe that this will help much in slowing down foreclosures but I was more intrigued with the Bill’s call for accountability of the Lenders ( the new owners of foreclosed properties ) to the communities in the way their properties are maintained ( or lack there of) as is often evident.

The reason I question this is that in most cases there is no one other than the neighbors paying much attention. And If someone reported a property that is in some state of neglect, who would they report it to. And if reported, who would file a claim and to whom. These questions unanswered would leave this bill without any real teeth to enforce it. Having an REO in my own neighborhood for months, it has become quite unsightly and I doubt I would see any change if this bill becomes law. Another well intentioned bill but it may fail the test for real life application.

This bill will be interesting to watch and see how it fares. Watch this site, as the Voice of San Diego Real Estate, I will keep you updated on the progress of this Senate Bill.

The State Assembly here in California is busy trying to do all the right things for the citizens that live here when it comes to using energy. In their quest to be sure that we begin conserving energy, our legislators here in California have this new idea that we should all have an Energy Audit and to take it one step further , even to make it mandatory that we all do it just in time to sell our homes to another Buyer that doesn’t yet have an understanding of what energy conservation is. AB 2678 (Núñez) which among other things, requires that ALL homes and commercial property in California have an energy audit at point-of-sale and that mandatory energy efficiency investments be made.

As well intended as this might be, such mandates will even further erode and weaken the housing market. If enacted, AB 2678 could also add potentially thousands of dollars to the cost of selling or purchasing a home, including hundreds of dollars just to have a home audited. Now , what we all need is to waste a lot more paper, time and energy with yet another disclosure and report. Not to mention whatever the energy efficiency investments would be. Perhaps a new cottage industry the legislators are encouraging. Maybe this is what is meant by encouraging new business here in California?

Now, I don’t know about you but there must be a better way to encourage energy conversation than these onerous point of sale mandates. Well intended but just plain wrong.

In particular there is legislation being discussed that wants to reach down to the investor level that buy the mortgage securities. One such proposal has the mortgage securities and the investors that buy them to be held liable for any loan fraud involved in the securities that the packaged loans for investment contain.

The fear in any such bill is that if mortgage securities and the investors have to review each of the loans, it could spell disaster and be a sword whose edge cuts negatively on both edges.

Cutting from the one edge, the restructuring of the loan industry would get even tougher and inadvertently create situations that might resemble the very predatory lending practices that the legislatures want to clean up.

The other edge of the sword would cur even more dramatically and forcibly demonstate that if the mortgage backed bonds and the investors would face unlimited liability, the mortgage loan funding would simply dry up.

The question now is not if legislation will have these kinds of provisions, but more importantly would they pass both houses and if passed, would the President veto these bills? What about the next president?

If this legislation were to actually prevail, might it give a whole new meaning to the expression of throwing out the baby with the bath water? Stay tuned.

The Real Estate Text Book

Have you noticed how willing our state legislators are to spending the tax revenues? Rhetorical question of course. How could one help but notice? The better question to ask is on what? It isnt like our roads and infrastructure are forefront on their 1st page of discretionary spending.

If the funding was for maintaining streets and bridges, thats one thing but since it isnt sexy, those funds are appropriated for things in districts that hallmark the legislators image. And what would that look like you might wonder. Well we are all wondering, but we can be sure the funds are going there because they certainly are not going to streets and bridges and other aging and updated infrastructure.

If the state revenue bonds were not enough, the federal system might be considered worse. Its those little things called earmarks that seem to take from the roads named Peter and give to the bridges to nowhere name Paul.

When there are complaints that there isnt enough money being spent on roads, Congress with its infinite wisdom hopes to include another 5 cents to the gasoline tax. For Californians, dont expect much if they do this. You see California is a what is called in Congress as a donor state. That means that for every dollar, we put into the federal system, we get 90 cents back.

The state legislature puts so much emphasis on transit and environmental improvements that less than half of the 20 Billion in State Transportation Bond funds will ever end up on the roads.

It seems clear, that unless we want to tax more on gasoline both at the state and federal level, the only other choice will be to charge tolls on the new roads. There is at least one advantage in that the funds raised would have to go to local projects instead of being spent through every legislative district in the state.

Another benefit of this tolling approach is that the revenues collected goes first to a guaranteed maintenance funding. The investors that put the money up require the operators to make its 1st priority the ongoing maintenance from where the tool comes from. That’s even before applying the toll revenue to pay the debt service on the toll revenue bonds.

We need to increase pressure on the state legislature to pass the laws needed to create these new toll roads. Otherwise the overcrowding continue and a gas tax may still get imposed.