Text 6241, 98 rader
Skriven 2007-09-18 12:26:18 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
   Kommentar till text 6107 av Dale Shipp (1:261/1466.0)
Ärende: Global Warming
======================
16 Sep 07 23:19, Dale Shipp wrote to Roy Witt:

 DS>  -=> On 09-16-07  15:21,  Roy Witt <=-
 DS>  -=> spoke to Dale Shipp about Global Warming <=-

 RW>>>> AKA a condominium.

 ml>>> we always called them duplexes...

 RW>>> I wanted to spare him the embarrasment. Duplexes are usually
 RW>>> rentals.

 DS>>   From where did you pull that condesending remark?

 RW>> Many years of experience in real estate investments.

 DS>   Then you did not learn the definitions of the terms very well.

Actually, I did.

 DS>> A duplex is a building type, i.e.  two living units connected by a
 DS>> common wall. Someone owns it -- and it may be rented out or owner
 DS>> occupied.

 RW>> Unless the owner is of middle class or higher and lives in an mid to
 RW>> upper class neighborhood. (where there are no duplexes.

 DS>   Another condesending remark -- and not true.   In the town where I
 DS>   live there are many forms of multiple dwelling units -- town homes,
 DS>   condominiums, and duplexes.   Lowest price is $158,000 for a 1
 DS> bedroom
 DS>   condominium.  Some townhomes have prices of $500,000 and more.
 DS> This
 DS>   town is definitely middle class or higher.  You are wrong in your
 DS>   assumptions.

Wrong. I lived in a much bigger city than you do. In Mira Mesa, a recent
development, they were called condos. In a not so recent part of town,
they were called duplexes. Both parts of town were upper middle class. The
difference was that the condos were owned by the occupant, most of the
time. In the duplexes were rentals, owned by people who lived in a more
affluent part of town, also upper middle class. The part of town that was
duplexes, was deteriorating as the lower middle class expanded out of the
ghetto's rental duplexes; owned by upper middle class and the more
affluent who lived in an area of town that was out of reach of the upper
middle class. Even so, they also had condos there too. The duplexes they
had, from the 30s and 40s, were torn down in favor of, you guessed it,
condos.

 DS>> Each living unit may well have a separate title.

 RW>> That's a condo.

 DS>    Nope.  You are wrong again.

Better clean your mirror.

 DS>    A condominium is where each owner owns a part of a building in fee
 DS>    simple and the rest of the building is owned in joint title,
 DS> usually
 DS>    managed by a condominium association.

Wrong again. Condos can be owned by anyone, middle class, upper middle
class, the more affluent people you'd consider rich. They in turn, rent
the condo or condos they own to people who can't or dont' want to own
them.


 DS>>   A more common form of multiple dwelling these days seems to be
 DS>>   townhomes, aka row houses -- same statement, they may be rental
 DS>>   properties or owner occupied, and each unit may have separate
 DS>> title.

 RW>> Yeup. Just like condos...

 DS>    Very different form of title between condominiums and most
 DS> townhomes
 DS>    or duplexes.   A condominium owner does not have sole title to the
 DS>    part of the building external to their own particular unit (often
 DS>    things like halls, elevators, parking lots, common furnaces are
 DS>    jointly owned). They do not normally have sole title to any land.

 DS>    The owner of a duplex or town home owns their entire part of the
 DS>    building, and usually the land it sits own (in some places no home
 DS>    owner owns the land the house sits on -- in such places they pay
 DS>    ground rent).

Great, you're learning.


                R\%/itt


"Beware the lollipop of mediocrity! Lick it once and you'll suck
forever..."

--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)