On poverty

My health insurance card says medicare right on it, for which I signed up via Covered California / Healthnet Advantage.

 

Exactly. And when it comes to crime, the left and the black community don't tell blacks that crime is not OK, don't run from the police, and don't give the police ****. When something goes down wrong it is always attack the police and make heroes out of the dead criminals.

 

Well, we already do, just at a much, much lower rate than what he has in mind. Our rent is commonly known as "property taxes", which are an affront to the very idea of real property ownership. As long as that ownership is contingent on staying current with those rent/tax payments, we really don't own spit. BUT, at the risk of repeating myself, at least what we have now is better than what whatshisname wants.

 

But I know what is economically possible and impossible.

That is not possible because you can buy a new one for <$50K, and their depreciation is exponential: they spend most of their lifespans worth a small fraction of their manufacturing cost.

Ah. The fact that the rent is controlled at far below market means you share ownership rights to the land with the titular owner: you are legally entitled to pay less than the market rent for use of the site, and the difference is capitalized into the value of your home. Presumably anyone buying your mobile also gets the below-market land-use right, and that is the only reason your mobile is worth that much. It's the land.

No, because any number of mobile homes can be brought to market for their construction cost. Land can't. The only way mobile home prices can be so high is if there is a land interest associated with them, as in your case.

Demand only controls price when supply is fixed, as in the case of land. If the price was just for the mobile, mobile manufacturers would just build more to cash in.

No, it is most definitely a market value thing.

I once edited an accounting textbook.

You left out the part where you own a transferable right to use the land for less than the market rent -- i.e., your ownership of an interest in the land. It's not actual ownership of the land, but it is the explanation for your windfall.

 

Spaces in many mobile home parks are leased. No interest in land.

Like I said, you are oblivious to the market here in San Diego Country. I own a manufactured home, which, NEW, are going for $180k, installed with carports, etc. in San Diego. Here is one similar to the one I own: used ( manufactured in 1969), on leased land

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/13300-Los-Coches-Rd-E-SPC-117-El-Cajon-CA-92021/2101172861_zpid/ Asking $145k or so.

YOu see the Unit #1 ? "SPC 117" if it were owned land it would have it's own address, but it has a SPACE #, which mean it's a leased lot.

Note regular homes are averaging some $800k in San Diego. It's expensive to live here. I got in 11 years ago, when the market was way soft and could have found a regular home for $400k 11 years ago.

Oh, you once 'edited' an accounting book? Oh, wow, I'm impressed, you know grammar. Wonderful, now you are the expert? Some expert you are, you are oblivious to the market in San Diego.

Give me a break.

 

Indeed!

Having said that, we don't have property taxes in my country. We pay something known as 'council rates', which are yearly fees contributing to the upkeep of the community. These 'rates' are mostly under or around $2000 per year.

Personally I would much rather see individual households charged according to their use of community infrastructure. Don't own a car? No roads charges! Off grid for water and/or power? No utilities infrastructure charges! Did you add hard landscaping to your property? You get charged extra for creating heat sinks! Own two or more cars? Extra charges again! etc etc. Would be outrageously difficult (IOW impossible) to police, but it'd be much more people friendly. Would mean those who aren't buying a home because they can't afford those yearly fees, can choose to live in a way which would exempt them - thus making home ownership possible even for people on virtually zero income.

 

How much is worth without that leased land?

How much is the BUILDING worth?

 

Correct. That is what the right to liberty means. But it is a non-exclusive right to use, not a right to exclude others from using.

Are you proposing (or presuming) that one can rightly remove others' liberty to use what nature provided for all without making just compensation for what one is taking from them?

No it isn't. That is exactly the right to liberty that our remote ancestors exercised to survive for millions of years. You are just objectively wrong.

See? You immediately have to disingenuously change the subject from land, which is not a product of anyone's labor, to houses, which are. As they are produced by labor, houses are rightly owned first by their producers, and subsequently by those who have acquired them in consensual trade.

But other people's rights to liberty can never be acquired in consensual trade, any more than a slave can.

If we are talking about secure, exclusive tenure to land, then we know who rightly exercises it by who has paid the community of those excluded for what they are taking from that community.

Refuted above. Of course secure, exclusive tenure is necessary to an economy above the hunter-gatherer and nomadic herding stages. But those who enjoy it should rightly make just compensation to the community of those whom they deprive of what they would otherwise have.

See above. Why wouldn't those who wish to deprive others of their liberty to use the land make just compensation to those whom they deprive of it? Why do you demand that they be legally entitled to just steal it?

Yes. Violation of others' rights to liberty is inherent in exclusive land tenure. That is why just compensation is required to secure and reconcile the equal individual rights of all to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor.

There is nothing absurd or even impractical about it. If no one wants exclusive tenure, then everyone is at liberty to use all land non-exclusively, as our remote ancestors were for millions of years. If someone wants exclusive tenure on land no one else wants to use, then again there is no problem, as no one is deprived of the exercise of their right to liberty. But if anyone wants to exclude others from land that those others would also like to use, then they can simply pay the community of those excluded the market price for what they are taking from that community, same as paying the baker for a loaf of bread that you want to take from his bakery. You are merely accustomed to taking bread without paying for it. So now when I point out that you should rightly be paying the baker for what you are taking from him, you get all butt hurt, ignore the fact that you have been stealing from him all along, and falsely accuse me of proposing to steal from you.

See? You immediately have to disingenuously change the subject from land to property, pretending there is no difference between owning what you have produced and owning others' individual liberty rights to use what no one ever produced.

By paying the community of those excluded the market price for what you are taking from them. Simple. It is also self-evident justice. You merely hate justice because you are accustomed to profiting from injustice, and intend to go on doing so.

Any "argument" that could be (and was) used to justify chattel slavery is known in advance to be fallacious, disingenuous and evil, with no further argumentation needed.

Any "argument" that could be (and was) used to justify chattel slavery is known in advance to be fallacious, disingenuous and evil, with no further argumentation needed.

You have no way of knowing who built the first house on that land or when. And stop trying to change the subject from land to houses.

You mean like coming along after the fact and emancipating slaves, and then requiring their erstwhile owners to pay them wages if they want to continue benefiting from their labor...?

"They've actually already done that in wages we pay them known as housing, food and clothing."

Right, because the unimproved market value of the land is merely the market's estimate of how much the owner can expect to steal from the community net of property taxes by owning the land.

It will. If you are young enough and lucky enough, you will see it come true. And then, after you have seen the incontrovertible proof that the current system you so fallaciously and disingenuously defend is an evil that has been a cancer on all humanity for thousands of years, you will, if you have any shame, kneel in a cesspool and slit your belly in remorse for your treason to the human species.

Like slaves...?

“When the emancipation of the African was spoken of, and when the nation of Britain appeared to be taking into serious consideration the rightfulness of abolishing slavery, what tremendous evils were to follow! Trade was to be ruined, commerce was almost to cease, and manufacturers were to be bankrupt. Worse than all, private property was to be invaded (property in human flesh), the rights of planters sacrificed to the speculative notions of fanatics, and the British government was to commit an act that would forever deprive it of the confidence of British subjects.”

– Patrick Edward Dove, The Theory of Human Progression, 1850

"First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win."
-- Mohandas K Gandhi

Sure I can. People probably do it all the time.

It's still very much a deliberately disingenuous misuse of the English language to call producing additional copies of something, "stealing."

 

No, for abrogating others' rights to liberty, and only to the extent that you deprive others of more than an equal modest share of the community-created location value. You know this.

That is an absurd and disingenuous fabrication directly contrary to fact.

GARBAGE. You know better than that. Kings were not democratically accountable to the people for how they spent the land rent. The governments of advanced democracies are. That is what makes them the legitimate administrators of possession and use of land.

GARBAGE. Administration in trust is not ownership. You know this.

GARBAGE. Socialism is collective ownership of land AND PRODUCER GOODS. You know this.

No, paying the community of those whom you deprive of economic opportunity the market price for what you are taking from them, and getting, in return, secure exclusive tenure and access to the desirable public services and infrastructure the rent pays for rather than getting it as a forced subsidy at others' expense.

That is simply an absurd fabrication unrelated to anything I have said.

Constant consumption is necessary to life.

 

If the rent is controlled and the rent goes with the mobile, the mobile's owner has an interest in the land.

Because the laws of economics don't change with location.

Manufactured =/= mobile.

If it's rent controlled and the rent goes with the unit, the homeowner has an interest in the land.

I am aware of how Proposition 13 has made housing astronomically expensive in CA.

Yes, that was the bottom of the market after the GFC.

To edit technical material, you have to understand it. I do. You don't.

No, you are oblivious to the effect of rent control. Here's a little primer:

https://www.celebritynetworth.com/a...-finally-leave-rent-controlled-nyc-apartment/

If you can sell the reduced rent along with the mobile, you have a pecuniary interest in the land.

 

OK, and the medicare program is managed by a federal agency. How you signed up is immaterial.

 

I disagree regarding funding...when funding IS NOT equitably distributed we end up with ghetto areas...

 

A new 20x58 Mobile from the manufacturer (Liberty in San Marcos) is $180k, ($150k for the mobile, $30k for installation, carport, Tool shed, etc )


If you buy a used one, you can't buy it unless it is in a mobile home park. But, the value of the home doesn't include a purchase of the land, only the building and structures, the Carport, Toolshed, etc ). Those go for $125 - 150k

ALL dealers in CA sell only new homes. If you buy a used one, it is from an individual ( or a trust ).

IF you purchased the same on owned land, add $100k to the figure.

 

My title on my mobile conveys no interest in land, whatsoever. My lease is like any other lease, month to month.
Now, the fact that our park has rent control makes our home more valuable, but not much, because prices down in San Diego proper, are even higher, NOT because there is rent control (there isn't), because they are closer to the beach.

The laws of economics are dictated solely by supply and demand, and homes, regular or manufactured, are in high demand in San Diego County mainly because the weather is better here than anywhere in the USA.

I repeat:
My title on my mobile conveys no interest in land, whatsoever. My lease is like any other lease, month to month.
Now, the fact that our park has rent control makes our home more valuable, but not much, because prices down in San Diego proper, are even higher, NOT because there is rent control (there isn't), because they are closer to the beach.

Proposition 13 was initiated by Howard Jarvis, a republican. But, for senior citizens, he is to be thanked, because what proposition 13 did was
lock in taxes to original purchase price, because what was happening is that seniors on pensions and fixed incomes, with the ever increasing values of real property, and subsequent taxes rising therefrom, seniors on fixed incomes were increasingly unable to afford to pay their taxes and were being forced to sell, many had to move out ot state. Proposition 13 stopped all that and thus was a godsend to senior citizens and anyone purchasing a home.

What affects prices in CA is supply and demand.

Well now, you do not understand market values in San Diego. This is an incontrovertible fact.

First off, the issues surrounding rent controlled apartments are quite different than that of rent control park spaces. For example, with an apartment building under rent control, eviction is very difficult. That's a moot point with someone owning a mobile in a park because eviction is even more difficult, because it forces the owner to sell the home, with or without rent control. These are apples to oranges comparisons, and since you profess to be some kind of expert, having edited book on real estate which, apparently, you are now the paragon of real estate knowledge thus, one wonders why you didn't seem to notice.

When I purchased my mobile, I acquired the title, and the title conveys no interest, pecuniary or otherwise, on the land.

Besides, 'pecuniary interest' is an abstraction, one does not hold actual ownership of the land, no title to the land is conveyed and nothing is recorded at the country record. The only thing that is transferred is that the new owner signs a new lease with park management.

You are saying that lease has a measured value which is part of the purchase price, which is what 'pecuniary interest' means. But, what is the measure of it when we compare the values of mobiles in rent controlled areas to non controlled areas? There isn't much difference, so your point doesn't have much significance. You seem to me someone who, after editing a book, have an overly inflated view of your knowledge of the subject.

The value of mobiles in rent controlled regions and non rent controlled regions in San Diego are similar, but rising higher as you near the coast.

A new mobile, without land, costs $150k and $180k after installation.

I understand that rent control is a disincentive for investors in mobile home parks to create new ones and that affects supply and demand. But that is really beside the point being addressed here.

 

It says 'healthnet medicare advantage'.

Healthnet is a private firm which, in turn, bills medicare based on new terms dictated by the ACA.

 

Medicare Advantage is simply Medicare being sold through private health insurance companies with differing options depending on the plan and the company involved. They existed long before the ACA, so I'm unsure why you are insisting they are a creature of the ACA.

 

Equality should be the goal, not equity.

 

I'm asking what a 40 or 50 year old mobile home is worth. Just the building.

 

Didn't say that at all, just that there is an association, hence my card says medicare on it.

 

Well...you said you had a Medicare Advantage plan, so that's why your card says Medicare on it. That has nothing to do with the ACA.

 

I told you.

It's worth what you have pay for it when you buy it. I have two neighbors listing theirs for $145k. You might get it for $135k if you negotiate.

THAT IS ALL THAT MATTERS.

You are not purchasing land when you buy a used mobile home in a mobile home park..

What part of the above do you not understand?

 

I'm not asking about new builds, or homes with leases.

Once again, I'm ONLY asking what it would cost to go out and buy a 50 year old mobile home - just the building.

 

ACA has expanded medicare.

what does it matter? It's all the government. ACA, medicare, who cares.

 

Moot point. YOu cannot buy a used mobile home in CA that is not installed on a lot.

You cannot buy an uninstalled home that is used, in CA.

My neighbors are asking $145k, on lots, the rent is $715 for the lot.

The sales contract and the title do not convey interest in the land.

Do you understand, now?

 

I've seen many listings for used mobile homes over the years. They're sold just like RVs, as a MOBILE unit. Tiny houses are in the same vein.

What I want to know is today's going rate for a 50 year old unit. They ARE available, all over America, and even in my own country. For some reason you are really reluctant to name the price of them. This tells me they must be very inexpensive.

Edited to add, just found one!

1972 Holly Park Mobile Home For $4,500 in Ohio
Our first find is a 1972 Holly Park single wide mobile home located in Ohio. Based just on the photos, the home appears to have its original cabinets, paneling, and built-ins. It also looks to be in very good condition for a home constructed in 1972!

This home has a ton of potential and could make a great home for anyone.