97 year old Burlingame woman is being evicted from the small home she has rented for 66 YEARS (Fresno: condo, living)

[RMESMH]

Originally Posted by coolgato

Poster RMESMH explains it well.

Thanks coolgato.


And thank you (and HereOnMars) for the rep points.

[DoggieMatic]

We can quibble over legalities & debate the moralities forever, but the bottom-line would be that
ownership had advantages over rentership, and someone renting/leasing real-property should never
get overly confident or complacent.

People that have the time to argue so much about her should certainly have the time & disposable funds to actually
HELP her find a new place.

[JGC97]

Originally Posted by DoggieMatic

We can quibble over legalities & debate the moralities forever, but the bottom-line would be that
ownership had advantages over rentership, and someone renting/leasing real-property should never
get overly confident or complacent.

People that have the time to argue so much about her should certainly have the time & disposable funds to actually
HELP her find a new place.

I wish I had the disposable income to help her find a place or, better yet, buy the place outright and let her live out her days there. I did try to help in the best way I could, though. How about you? Care to throw a couple bucks her way?

https://www.gofundme.com/mjqf7pjw?ut...campaign=upd_n

[RMESMH]

Originally Posted by DoggieMatic

We can quibble over legalities & debate the moralities forever, but the bottom-line would be that
ownership had advantages over rentership, and someone renting/leasing real-property should never
get overly confident or complacent.

People that have the time to argue so much about her should certainly have the time & disposable funds to actually
HELP her find a new place.

If you really think this thread = arguing then, IMO, you have an unusual view re what constitutes arguing. Marie may also have muted some sympathy that would normally have come her way by essentially calling Mr. Kantz a liar.

[seain dublin]

Originally Posted by MountainHi

That's not what I asked you. Do you know anything about her circumstances during her life? No, you don't. And $10,000 was a lot of money back then. Back then, women weren't even allowed to get their own checking account. How do you think she'd be able to get a home loan? Even if she were working (unlikely, but who knows), a receptionist's wage wouldn't cover it, unless she took in a renter.

Good point, my parents bought their first house in 1960. My father told me the bank asked if my mother was going to start having children and not continue to work. Can you imagine that now?

A single woman who was working wouldn't get approved for a home loan in those days.

[sav858]

Well she died today , figured something like this would stress someone in that condition to death. They said natural causes but I don't doubt this played some role in accelerating the inevitable.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by fluffythewondercat

This woman lived there for 66 years, for part of the time at below-market rent. A cottage in Burlingame for $900 a month? Seriously? I couldn't have rented it for that 20 years ago.

This is what I'm thinking. My (below market) studio apartment costs more than $900 a month.

A modest $100 per month investment in a balanced mutual fund like Vanguard Wellington starting 50 years ago would now be worth almost $800,000 today.

[mysticaltyger]

If there is greed here, I think there are a lot of people who are parties to it:

--The landlord wants to make a fortune on the house.

--The woman who lived in a house for $900 a month. You have to be in complete denial to not know you're getting an incredible deal with rent that low. Not realistic to expect such things to last forever. As always, Murphy's Law always happens at the worst possible time.

--The NIMBYs on the Peninsula and Bay Area in general, who like to play the "Yes, of course we need to build new housing, but......". Once all the "buts" are taken into account, the amount of housing built falls far short of what's needed. It sure does benefit the home values of existing homeowners at the expense of people like this woman, though. Hmmmm.

It's easy to point the finger at other people's greed. Not so easy to look in the mirror and see one's own contribution to it, though.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

A modest $100 per month investment in a balanced mutual fund like Vanguard Wellington starting 50 years ago would now be worth almost $800,000 today.

Which is why everybody who was a working adult 50 years ago is worth at least $800,000 today.





Except not many are. Fact is the % who are is really really low. All stupid people?

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

Dang those entitled millennials...I mean silent generation members...

Actually, she would be the last of the GI Generation.