www.philadelphiaweekly.com Philadelphia Weekly

PW Needs An Art Director

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:31:02 PST

Philadelphia Weekly has an opening for an experienced art director. Applicant must be able to conceive and produce visually striking images and design for covers and editorial pages.

The candidate must possess excellent communication and organizational skills, and the ability to multi-task under strenuous deadlines.

Technical experience: Adobe illustrator, Photoshop, InCopy and InDesign, and an in-depth understanding of typography.

Applicants should submit cover letter, resume and samples to: designjobs@philadelphiaweekly.com

Casualties of bidding wars

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:05:22 PST

Home Sale Hindsight

Tara-Nicholle Nelson
Inman News

Q: I have been house-hunting for several months now. I have gotten outbid on several properties where the listing agent said there were 15, 20 or 30 other offers. A few weeks later, the places came back on the market! What happened? Was there something wrong with me or my offer? Why did they not just come back to me or the next-highest offer, rather than putting it back on the market? Mine would have been a guaranteed deal!

A: Reading your question was like reading my daily e-mails from my own clients! I've seen this happen a number of times, mostly with my FHA-financed buyers trying to buy bank-owned properties. I don't know enough about your offer to be able to say with certainty whether anything in particular was wrong with it, but I've been doing this long enough to know that chances are either the price wasn't right or you were bested by a seemingly more "closable" offer: a cash offer; one with more money down than yours; or one with a conventional loan (if yours is FHA-financed).

That doesn't necessarily mean, though, that you should have or could have done anything differently. In a multiple-offer situation, the rule is that you make the very best offer you can, considering how much you can and are willing to pay for that particular property, and the best downpayment, loan type and other terms you're able to offer. Don't hold back because, as you've seen, it might be the only opportunity you have to make an offer. If your very best wasn't good enough, then that just wasn't your house.

Now to the question of what happened to the offer that was in place. Probably the single most common reason, in my experience, that homes fall out of contract these days is that something happened and the buyers' loan did not receive final approval: either their credit, income or assets turned out not to be up to snuff on final inspection.

In that same vein, the property might not have appraised for the purchase price, or might have been found to have condition problems the lender refused to accept, which the seller refused to correct -- especially on FHA-financed homes. Buyers do lose their jobs during escrow, on occasion, too -- that tends to make them want to back out of the deal.

Lately, I've seen condos and townhomes fall out of escrow because the homeowners association had too many delinquent dues-payers, was involved in litigation, or otherwise couldn't pass muster with the buyer's lender. Also, in the heat of these multiple-offer situations -- especially on bank-owned and other properties where there is a long time delay between offer and acceptance -- buyers often make offers on other properties and might have simply gotten into contract on another home by the time their offer was accepted.

Whether there was a backup offer in place largely depends on whether the property was bank-owned or not. Most individually owned listings receiving 30 offers would certainly have put one or two offers in backup position. The asset managers in charge of bank-owned properties, however, often don't take backup offers.

They would rather re-expose the property to the market to make sure they are getting the highest possible offer at the time, including making sure the listing gets exposed to the new buyers who have started house-hunting in the time the home was off the market and in contract.

That's the primary reason listings that received lots of offers end up back on the market. Other times, even when one offer was placed into backup position, the backup buyer(s) might have found another home and lost interest during the time the original buyer was in contract.

With all that said, I want to address your sense that this whole scenario is unjust, because your offer would be a guaranteed-to-close deal. You'll have a better experience of homebuying this time -- and selling and buying during every transaction for the rest of your life -- if you try to look at everything from the vantage point of those sitting across the virtual bargaining table from you.

From their perspective, there is no such thing as a guaranteed deal. That is the reality of real estate. Chances are the buyer whose offer they originally selected also felt their offer was bulletproof, until the unthinkable happened.

The seller -- individual or bank -- doesn't know you, your steadfast intentions, or passion for the property, and even if you expressed all these things to them, you'd simply be one of 15, 20 or 30 offerors all saying the same thing.

What buyers can do to make their offer seem like more of a sure deal to the seller is make a well-qualified offer, document that they have sufficient assets and income to close the deal, and make an offer that requires as little bank financing as possible.

Also, buyers such as yourself can make sure they're working with an agent that writes a professional-looking offer, and has a good reputation with local listing agents for closing deals -- this you can do by ensuring that you choose your agent by referral from a buyer he or she recently helped successfully "win" a home in your area.

Keep that in mind as you move forward making offers, and work with your broker or agent to make absolutely sure that your offers reflect the most likely to close price, terms and other indicia of professionalism. Then make your offer and have no regrets. If you get outbid, ask your agent to keep an eye out for the listing to come back on the market, and try, try again!

Tara-Nicholle Nelson is author of "The Savvy Woman's Homebuying Handbook" and "Trillion Dollar Women: Use Your Power to Make Buying and Remodeling Decisions." Ask her a real estate question online or visit her Web site, www.rethinkrealestate.com.

***

What's your opinion? Leave your comments below or send a letter to the editor. To contact the writer, click the byline at the top of the story.

The Twilight Saga: New Moon

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:56:29 PST

PW intern Tara Moore caught Thursday's first late-night screening of the newest movie in the Twilight saga. Her report:

Oh the Pattz! Or is it Taylor Lautner this time around?

At 11 pm Thursday, swarms of college girls flooded the entrance to The Pearl at Avenue North, for a midnight screening of New Moon, the second movie adapted from Stephanie Meyer’s teen steamy Twilight series. When they screened Twilight a little over a year before, it was myself and four of my friends, and about 12 other Edward Cullen lovers in the entire theater. I hadn’t even read the book yet.

This was a completely different experience. Lines for entry exceeded everyone’s expectations, leaving the 11pm-and-later arrivals stunned on the steps inside The Pearl. We convinced ourselves that Edward Cullen was well worth the wait.

The movie didn’t start on time though. Around 1 am, New Moon finally struck up on the screen. The film was a winner, and compares well to the first time around with Twilight.

The non-Twilight readers who jumped on the bandwagon last night seemed irked by Kristen Stewart’s awkwardness in front of the camera. But really and truly, that is how Bella’s character is written; fragile, timid and outright peculiar, especially when she’s trying to control her hormones around Edward.

As for poor Edward, whose complete screen time probably ran about 45 minutes altogether: the audience would barely let him get a word in without oodling over his pale uber-messy ‘do. Didn’t seem like he had enough time to warm up on screen -- but I guess that’s intentional, he’s supposed to be icy cold to touch.

None of that mattered really. All the “we want Edward” chanting before the film started quickly subsided at Jacob’s (Taylor Lautner) new bod. Sizzle! The threat that he would lose the role after the first movie apparently worked, since it motivated him to buff up. Quite a few of the Pattz lovers converted to Taylor fandom. Jacob’s shirtless scenes and piercing stares at Bella made us all uncomfortable, in the most pleasing way possible.

There was one aspect of the film that I couldn’t help but laugh through for the entire 2 hours and 13 minutes running time; Bella’s visions of Edward. It was probably the least believable aspect of the film. Bella’s nighttime behavior in Edward’s absence wasn’t the most talked-about part of the film, and with good reason.

All in all though, New Moon definitely stayed true to the book, and as the swarms of college girls receded out of The Pearl, the giddiness was slightly calmed. The overarching crowd emotion, satisfied. As my fellow Twilight devoted reader put it, “It was definitely better than the first one!”

Window mandates put safety first

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:47:19 PST

Part 2: Living by the building code

Arrol Gellner
Inman News

Editor's note: This is Part 2 of a three-part series. Read Part 1 here.

Last time, we talked about building code provisions that variously baffle or irritate do-it-yourself builders (and occasionally, seasoned builders as well). While some code requirements may seem arcane at first glance, most have a very simple purpose -- to keep you reasonably safe day to day, and possibly to save your life in a real emergency.

There are still a number of different codes in use, along with regional variations (always check with your local jurisdiction), but most of them more or less agree on basic safety provisions.

By way of example, here are some typical code provisions on just one narrow topic -- windows -- and what they're meant to accomplish:

In general, codes require every habitable space to have a net window area equal to at least 8 percent of the room's floor area (a "habitable space" is defined as one intended for living, sleeping, eating or cooking). This is a direct way of ensuring that the major rooms in a house have adequate natural light.

On the other hand, a bathroom could have a much smaller window, because the code doesn't consider it a habitable space. In fact, as long as a bathroom has a means of mechanical ventilation (that is, an exhaust fan), it doesn't need a window at all. Still with me? These kinds of building code "gotchas!" are what can drive uninitiated remodelers crazy.

The equivalent of half the required glass area has to be openable for ventilation -- again, a simple way to ensure minimum access to fresh air. This provision, too, can cause do-it-yourselfers trouble, since a fixed window (or a window less than half of which opens) may well satisfy the code's requirements for natural light, but may not make the grade in terms of natural ventilation.

As we noted last time, many code provisions are meant to ensure multiple means of escape -- "egress" in code parlance -- in case of fire or other emergency. This brings us to yet another set of requirements for windows that are routinely overlooked by do-it-yourselfers. Most codes require that every ground-floor bedroom have at least one "egress window" with an opening of 5 square feet, with a minimum net opening at least 24 inches high and at least 20 inches wide.

Furthermore, the sill of this egress window can't be more than 44 inches above the floor, so that in an emergency, a small person can still climb out the window by standing on furniture. Bedrooms on upper floors need to have slightly larger egress openings of 5.7 square feet. For obvious reasons, codes also prohibit security bars from being installed over egress windows unless they're easily openable from inside.

Mind you, these minimum size requirements aren't just to allow able-bodied occupants to get out of a burning house. They're also intended to let firefighters wearing bulky breathing apparatus get inside -- to rescue, for example, an elderly person or a sleeping child.

Seen in this light -- and considering the untold tragedy that building codes have probably averted over the past century -- code compliance shouldn't seem quite such a burden.

Next time: A few genuine building code downsides.

***

What's your opinion? Leave your comments below or send a letter to the editor. To contact the writer, click the byline at the top of the story.

Become master of your energy bills

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:41:24 PST

New technology monitors usage, detects leaks

Paul Bianchina
Inman News

Lots of people are concerned about how much it costs to heat and power their homes, and the impact they have on the environment. So it's always interesting when some new products come along that can help us better understand how our homes work, and what changes we can make to improve things.

Monitoring power usage

As part of their Energy Series, Black & Decker has developed the Power Monitor (Model EM100B, $99.99). This unique and easy-to-use device allows you to monitor power usage anywhere in the house, so you can truly see the cost of running an appliance, or see how much replacing standard light bulbs with more energy-efficient ones will offer in energy savings.

The Power Monitor consists of an indoor digital display and an outdoor sensor unit. Each one operates on two AA batteries (not included). The outside sensor unit attaches to your electric meter with a simple band clamp. No electrical wiring is required, and there's even a little information tag on the unit to let your meter reader know what it is and what it's doing there. The interior display unit is freestanding, and there's no wiring required between the two units.

The instructions are quite good, with clearly illustrated setup and adjustment details. They've also included three separate booklets, each in a different language, rather than making you wade through confusing instructions where all the languages are mixed in together -- a feature I would really like to see more manufacturers adopt!

The outdoor unit has an LED sensor arm that "reads" changes in the meter. This information is then relayed to the interior display, and instantly shows you changes in electrical usage. For example, with the indoor display unit in hand, you can turn on your oven or your microwave and see the increase in power usage relayed directly from the electric meter. You can turn the lights on or off in a room, or turn a hair dryer or a television set on, and see how much power it consumes. The display reads in either dollars or kilowatts, and you can switch easily back and forth between the two.

According to the manufacturer, the sensor unit is compatible with approximately 90 percent of the electric meters currently in use. On their Web site, www.blackanddecker.com, there's a handy electric meter compatibility guide that lets you check your particular type of meter before you decide to buy the monitor.

Find those energy leaks

Also from Black & Decker is the Thermal Leak Detector (Model TLD100, $49.99). This instrument is both easy and fun to use, and it can provide you with a lot of important information about how to make your home warmer and more comfortable this winter.

The digital, pistol-grip Thermal Leak Detector operates on one 9-volt battery (not included). Simply install the battery and the unit is ready to go, without any additional setup or calibrations.

To use the Thermal Leak Detector, simply aim the unit at a reference point that you think has a fairly constant temperature, such as a wall. Press the "On" button, and the screen lights up and the detector projects a green spot at your reference point. On the digital readout screen, you'll see two temperature readings -- "reference" and "scan." Now move the detector over the surfaces you want to check for leaks. The reference temperature, which is the temperature of the surface you initially pointed the detector at, will remain constant. The scan temperature will change to reflect the temperatures of the surfaces that you're checking.

The detector continues to project a green light to show you exactly where the unit is reading. When the temperature of the surface drops in relation to the reference temperature, the light changes to blue. When the temperature increases, the light changes to red. The sensitivity of the reference light can be changed using a simple slide switch on the back of the detector. You can set it to read small changes of 1 degree, moderate changes of 5 degrees, or more substantial changes of 10 degrees or more.

Within minutes, you can get some very accurate readings of where air leaks might be located, or where hot and cold spots might be. You can see if your weatherstripping needs to be repaired, or if some areas need caulking. You can also really see just how much heat those old single-pane windows are leaking. And to help you tighten things up again, there's also a handy little Home Energy Repair Guide booklet included with the detector.

Remodeling and repair questions? E-mail Paul at paulbianchina@inman.com.

***

What's your opinion? Leave your comments below or send a letter to the editor. To contact the writer, click the byline at the top of the story.

2 homes, 2 mortgages, 2 much?

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:00:00 PST

Multiple tax breaks could make selling unwise

Bernice Ross
Inman News

DEAR BERNICE: My husband and I just relocated from Los Angeles to Arizona. I rented my condominium in Los Angeles and it's currently costing me about $500 per month over what the tenants are paying me. I bought it back in 2002 and still have equity in it, despite the downturn.

We found a really good deal on a house here in Arizona. The challenge is that it's really hard making the payments on both because my husband is still in school. He will be graduating in May and our income will go up then. I'm wondering if it would be smart to sell my condominium in Los Angeles to make it easier for us to make the house payments. --Liz W.

DEAR LIZ: I would strongly recommend that you visit with your tax professional to determine what the "after tax" cost of your Los Angeles condominium really is. You indicated that you are currently paying $500 per month to cover expenses. To determine the real cost of holding your Los Angeles condominium you must take a variety of factors into consideration.

First, are you an employee whose employer deducts your income taxes from your earnings? If this is the case, you may qualify to have less money deducted from your payroll check, as you will now have two sets of deductions: your mortgage interest on your home and possibly the net losses from your condominium as a rental.

Your tax bracket determines the amount of deductions that you can take on your mortgage. Federal law allows you to adjust the number of exemptions you claim. This in turn results in less tax being taken from your income and more net pay for you to cover expenses. (An important point to note is that if you are making a lot of money, you may be subject to the "alternative minimum tax," which can limit this deduction as well as your investment deductions.)

Assuming that the alternative minimum tax is not an issue for you, there are additional deductions that you can claim for your condominium that you could not claim when it was your primary residence. If you haven't started to do so already, be sure to track all expenses associated with your condominium, as most of these are deductible. This includes your mortgage interest, homeowner association dues, utilities, insurance, repairs, plus any other costs that you incur in managing the condominium. This generally includes the cost of any trips that you might take to Los Angeles to rent the condo or to handle other management issues.

One of the most important deductions that you can take on your rental property is depreciation. Depreciation schedules vary depending upon the type of investment property you own. For example, on a car used for business, you might have a five-year depreciation schedule. For real estate investments many people use a 20-year depreciation schedule. Here's how it works.

First, you must determine what percentage of your property value is due to the improvements and how much is associated with the land. On a $260,000 condominium, the land value may be $100,000 and the improvements would be $160,000. (You can check your tax bill to determine these ratios, hire an appraiser, or check with a Realtor as to the land value in your area.) Assuming that you elect a 20-year depreciation schedule, you could then deduct an additional $8,000 per year -- the value of the deduction is based upon your tax bracket.

An important point to note about depreciation is that it lowers your tax basis in the property. Your tax basis is your actual acquisition costs including the price and any closing costs plus any capital expenses. Each year you claim depreciation, that amount is deducted from your basis.

This means that when you sell the property, you are increasing the amount you may have to pay in capital gains. Investors can often avoid or defer their capital gains taxes by exchanging (trading) a property where they have maxed out their depreciation for a new investment property. Again, check with your tax professional to determine what applies in your specific situation.

Once you have that number, you still must take into consideration a second number. This is the amount of principal reduction that you are making each month. If you have not refinanced, you are probably paying down a fair amount of your principal each month as well.

My guess is that just the depreciation benefits alone will be enough to make your property a "break-even." If possible, hang on to your condo until the market improves.

Bernice Ross, CEO of RealEstateCoach.com, is a national speaker, trainer and author of "Real Estate Dough: Your Recipe for Real Estate Success" and other books. You can reach her at Bernice@RealEstateCoach.com and find her on Twitter: @bross.

***

What's your opinion? Leave your comments below or send a letter to the editor. To contact the writer, click the byline at the top of the story.

Some rental investments don't pay off

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:00:00 PST

Neighborhood, local economy dictate profit potential

Steve Bergsman
Inman News

Buying foreclosed, or otherwise inexpensive, residential units with the game plan of renting the property for as many years as it takes until real estate appreciation returns has proven to be a time-tested and generally successful investment strategy.

Unfortunately, it's not as easy as it appears. Just because a residence, whether a condominium or a single-family residence, can be acquired cheaply doesn't mean that a home-rental scheme can be operationally profitable.

It would seem that with so many foreclosures and REOs (bank-owned homes) on the market that now is certainly the time to make an investment in a rental property, and many experienced investors are plowing through bank auctions with vigor. Those folks I don't worry about. It's the novice investor and those new to the business to which I have these four words of caution: You are not alone!

There are so many investors buying up homes with busted mortgages, thinking they are going to transform the property into a rental, that a glut of houses for rent in your neighborhood is coming -- or might already have arrived.

New investors fall in love with a property. They see a house or visit a condominium and immediately want it, sparing no effort in making the acquisition. They become so entranced by the real estate that they don't do the research required to see if the property can, indeed, be a viable rental.

Let's say, for example, that you find a house you want to buy so you can turn it into a rental. It's in a good neighborhood and you can buy it fairly cheaply. However, you don't do any research so you fail to turn up the fact that a multifamily developer will be building a huge apartment complex one mile from your property, creating intense competition for renters. Or that most of the people in the neighborhood, where the object of your real estate desires can be found, work in a manufacturing plant that will be closing up in three months and putting everybody out of work.

Those are extreme situations. A more likely scenario is this: too many rental properties in your city, creating too much competition, driving down rental rates too severely to make investments operationally profitable.

As I mention often, I live in Mesa, Ariz., about 20 miles from downtown Phoenix. According to my local newspaper, the Arizona Republic, in my city alone there are almost 17,000 single-family home rentals; in Phoenix, there are 49,694 single-family home rentals; and in the metro area as a whole, 133,990 single-family home rentals.

I checked in with an associate and good news source, Alan Langston, executive director of the Arizona Real Estate Investors Association, about what this situation, which looked to me like a glut of homes, meant for single-family home investors.

What I got was a verbal wagging of the finger; There is no glut, he contended. There was enough demand -- at the moment -- so that home rentals in the Phoenix metro area still showed a low vacancy rate. However, even he admitted that the market was rapidly changing and there was a downward pressure on rental rates.

Phoenix isn't the only metro that might be facing a glut of home rentals. I got on a Denver home-rental blog that reported although rents were still on an upswing, the supply of home rentals was increasing as well, meaning that the upswing could easily reverse and become a downswing.

The problem in Denver was the same as in Arizona and elsewhere. Real estate investors were diving into the foreclosure market, picking up properties and then renting them out. In past years, these same homes might have been flipped, but the lack of credit and millions of workers picking up unemployment checks have combined to drastically narrow the pool of potential buyers.

When considering becoming a single-family residential landlord, use common sense. The basic law of supply and demand in regard to single-family rental properties is this: Try to avoid a neighborhood with a lot of foreclosed homes. It doesn't matter if these homes have been purchased and retain market appeal, because the owners are investors who will be renting out the property just as you hope to do. And, as in all industries, a surfeit of the same creates a glut, which will at minimum keep prices low, or at worse drive prices down hard.

If you want to invest in a single-family home that will be used as a rental property, it might make more sense to pay more for a property in a neighborhood that is not so beaten down with foreclosures. Without the intense competition you could probably set a rent that will make the property operationally profitable -- at least for near future.

"I'm still telling folks this is one of the best real estate investment markets ever," says Langston. "If you can acquire rental properties, buy and hold, it is a good strategy. You just have to be careful. Depending on how you structure your transaction will make the difference whether you will be in good shape or not."

Obviously, an all-cash investor has the flexibility to lower rents and still be in a profit position. That's not true for an investor who borrows capital to make the transaction. If there is a single-family home-rental glut in your target area, which is becoming increasingly likely, it's better to do the research and discover it before you buy.

Then tread carefully.

Steve Bergsman is a freelance writer in Arizona and author of several books, including "After the Fall: Opportunities and Strategies for Real Estate Investing in the Coming Decade."

***

What's your opinion? Leave your comments below or send a letter to the editor.

Mix-A-Six: The Newbie Edition

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:11:07 PST

Furthermore Three Foot Deep 5.5% abv

This beer will talk dirty to you. It’s an Irish-style dry stout (from Florida) with a pinch of peat that adds smokiness and an earthiness. It’s the beer I want in my hand when I hear the fire crackle for the first time this season. $2.45

Terrapin Rye Squared 8.5% abv

Ignore the turtle on the label- this beer will get you there quickly. This rye double IPA is penny- tinted pretty. It’s got double the malt, double the hops and double the character of its little sister, their flagship Rye IPA. Terrapin is one of the best new breweries to hit Philly. Try their Left Hand collaboration, Depth Charge, if you can find it. $3.60

21st Amendment Live Free or Die IPA 7% abv

There are 45 craft breweries canning around the states now. Why cans? The opacity prevents oxidation- think cardboard, and skunking- think green-bottled import lagers. Sustainability-the cylinders break down quicker. They are lighter trips to the curb at the end of the night and cans can go where no bottle has gone before. This IPA is not for the “hop head” alone, but has a nice biscuity malt backbone making it more accessible for those wanting to ease into the style. $2.20

Great Lakes Dortmunder 5.8% abv

This golden lager has the perfect balance of malt and German noble hops. Its snappy character makes for an ideal food beer. And it IS turkey time, isn’t it? Having won 13 gold medals out of the last 14 years at the World Beer Championships, this Cleveland craft might deserve a place at your Thanksgiving table. $2.35

Dark Horse Black Bier 7% abv

This is the No. 1 seller for the Marshall, Michigan brewery at the Foodery. The donkey on the label is a bit of a mystery. But my delight with the bottle’s contents was no surprise. It was a viscous, creamy, bitter chocolate, big- but balanced beer. Labeled as an American Strong, but will keep stout lovers happy all winter long. $2.35

Cigar City Impovisacion 9% abv

Tampa actually bills itself as “American’s Next Great City.” Curious. But they’re better known as Cigar City. These Floridians are all about innovation. They even have a “Humidor” series in which their beers are aged on cigar box cedar. Here you have a complex Oatmeal Rye Indian Brown Ale. There’s a distinct spiciness from the rye. It’s also like a pine tree dipped in caramel and chocolate. $16.95

Puppets, Politics and All The Rest

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:11:07 PST

Meet Morgan Fitzpatrick Andrews: artist, activist, yogi and puppeteer—to name just a few of the hats he wears. On a rainy Friday afternoon he must leave the puppets he’s been repairing in the basement of the Arden Theater in Old City to hurry back to West Philadelphia, where he’s teaching a yoga class at Studio 34 on Baltimore Avenue.

Though many people might recognize Andrews as the co-founder of Puppet Uprising, a company that brings puppeteers from around the world to Philadelphia, he’s been busy doing other things as well. Most recently, Morgan traveled to India to study with the son of Augusto Boal, the Brazilian theater director and founder of the radical popular education movement, "Theater of the Oppressed." He also studied yoga.

These days Morgan uses all of these interests as tools to create the positive social change he wants to see in his community. Click on the video to learn more.

Upcoming Headliners

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:40:39 PST

November
Nov. 20
• Lou Neglia’s Ring of Combat XXVII, Tropicana
• Boxing Fall Brawl: Prince Badi Ajamu vs. Daniel Judah, Trump Taj Mahal
Nov. 20-22
• Frankie Valli, Borgata
Nov. 21
• 311 w/ Slighty Stoopid, Borgata
• Dion, Resorts
• Real Diamond (Neil Diamond tribute), Trump Marina
• Timati and the Black Star Band, Trump Taj Mahal
Nov. 25
• New Breed Fighters, Resorts
Nov. 27
• The Hooters, Borgata
Nov. 27, Nov. 29
• Aventura, Trump Taj Mahal
Nov. 27-28
• Robin Williams, Borgata
• The Temptations, Hilton
• The Beach Boys, Tropicana
• 2009 Legends Basketball Classic, Boardwalk Hall
Nov. 28
• Brian Setzer Orchestra, Trump Taj Mahal
• Itzhak Perlman, Resorts
• Matisyahu, Borgata
• Girl Talk, House of Blues
Nov. 28-29
• Long Live the Beatles w/The Mahoney Brothers, Trump Plaza

December
Dec. 4-6
• Charlie Prose Christmas Show, Trump Plaza
Dec. 4-5
• Stephen Lynch, Borgata
Dec. 5
• Raphael Saadiq, House of Blues
• Boxing: Paul Williams vs. Sergio Martinez, Boardwalk Hall
• Boyz II Men, Resorts
Dec. 12
• Mike Birbiglia, Borgata
• Il Divo, Trump Taj Mahal
• Joan Jett & the Blackhearts, Harrah’s Resort
• New Breed Fighters, Resorts
Dec. 26
• The Roots, Borgata
Dec. 31
• O.A.R., House of Blues
• Jimmy Eat World, Harrah's Resort
• David Gray, Caesars
• Natalie Cole, Tropicana
• Jerry Blavat's New Year's Eve Celebration, Trump Taj Mahal

January, 2010
Jan. 1
• John Legend, Borgata
• Natalie Cole, Tropicana
Jan. 2
• Mariah Carey, Borgata
• New Year Gospel Celebration w/Donnie McClurkin, Mary Mary, Fred Hammond JMoss, Boardwalk Hall
Jan. 8
• Dwight Yoakam, Caesars
Jan. 9
• Greg Allman & Friends, Harrah's Resort
Jan. 10
• Lisa Williams, Trump Taj Mahal
Jan. 15-16
• Jim Norton, Borgata
Jan. 16
• Lady GaGa, Borgata
• Legends of Hip Hop II w/Chubb Rock, Big Daddy Kane, Naughty By Nature, MC Lyte, House of Blues
• Louie Anderson, Trump Plaza
Jan 17
• Lisa Lampanelli, Borgata
Jan. 29
• Shinedown, Puddle of Mud, House of Blues
Jan. 29-30
• Midget Auto Racing, Boardwalk Hall
Jan. 30
• Gary Allan, House of Blues
• Russian '80s Disco, Trump Taj Mahal

February
Feb. 12-13
• Aaron Lewis, Borgata
Feb. 13
• B.B. King & Buddy Guy, Caesars
Feb. 13-14
Engelbert Humperdinck, Trump Plaza
Feb. 14
• Air Supply, Bally's
Feb. 25
• Dropkick Murphys, House of Blues
Feb. 27
• Mummers String Band Show of Shows, Boardwalk Hall
• Furthur, Trump Taj Mahal

March
March 3-7
• NJSIAA Individual State Wrestling Championships, Boardwalk Hall
March 6
• Robert Kelly, Patrice O’Neal, Trump Taj Mahal
March 13
• Jay-Z, Borgata
• Little Anthony & The Imperials, Trump Plaza
March 20
• Kathleen Madigan, Trump Plaza

April
April 16-18
• Winter Dance Party: Rock 'n' Roll Will Never Die, Trump Taj Mahal
April 17
• John Caparulo w/Nikki Glaser, Trump Marina

Revues
Ongoing
• Kozak the Magician, Comedy Stop at Trop
• Yesterday — A Tribute to the Beatles, Tropicana
Nov. 14-Dec. 15
• Miracle on 34th Street, Tropicana
Nov. 25-Dec. 13
• Cirque Dreams Holidaze, Trump Taj Mahal
Nov. 28-Jan. 2
• Michael Turco's Wonder, Bally's
Dec. 8-20
• Spirit of Christmas, Hilton

311

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:39:57 PST

The band 311 doesn’t have to record another album. The veteran pop-rock group could tour and pack venues for the foreseeable future and, in recent years, has been going out without product to push.

“We have a very loyal base of fans,” vocalist-guitarist Nick Hexum tells Atlantic City Weekly. “It doesn’t matter if we have new songs or what they sound like. We get a lot of support and have been fortunate enough to have that for years.”

Nevertheless, 311 has released Uplifter, its first album in nearly five years. The disc is a bit of a departure for the group, which will perform Saturday night, Nov. 21, at the Borgata, with co-headliner Slightly Stoopid.

Uplifter, which came out in June, is 311’s most muscular album to date. Producer Bob Rock (Metallica, Motley Crüe) was behind the mixing board. “We don’t want to repeat ourselves,” says Hexum. “We don’t want to go out there and make the same album over and over again. Some albums are funkier, some are poppier, and some are heavier. No matter what direction we go in, we try to make the best album that we can.”

The group, which formed in Omaha 17 years ago, has been remarkably consistent. 311 has yet to deliver a clunker since it formed. After releasing its eponymous disc in 1995, which included the alt-rock hits “All Mixed Up” and “Down,” the group crafted a number of ambitious albums, such as 1997’s Transistor and 2001’s From Chaos.

Each disc was split between commercial and adventurous tracks (the same can be said for Uplifter). 311, which also includes vocalist/DJ S.A. Martinez, guitarist Tim Mahoney, bassist Aaron “P-Nut” Wills and drummer Chad Sexton, continues to combine rock, rap, funk and reggae in the mix. The band still delivers catchy, fun, smart and socially conscious lyrics. However, Uplifter contains the most visceral songs the band has recorded to date.

“We try to make things interesting for our fans and for us as well,” says Hexum. “We’re constantly challenging ourselves. We’re always trying to move forward.”

The group’s sonic attack, two vocalists, trebly guitars and a tight rhythm section, hasn’t changed. The band’s familiar sound is akin to an anchor. “I think you know 311 when you hear us, which is a good thing,” Hexum says. “But it doesn’t sound like the same song every time, which isn’t easy. We step out in different directions, but we do it with the same instrumentation. You can always tell you’re hearing 311.”

To remain intact after all these years is notable, especially since many of the group’s peers are often shuffling lineups.

“I think the key for us is that we’re incredibly tight,” Hexum says. “We’ve been through so much together. We’ve been through the ups and downs. Not only are we still a band, but we’re all still good friends. That’s what’s been most enjoyable about doing what we do. The camaraderie in the band is still there. It’s important to still have that. It’s been a great ride. We’re close and good things have happened to us.”

311 trusts each other and goes by musical feelings as a band as opposed to overanalyzing its sonic approach.

“We let the energy guide us as opposed to following a grand plan,” Hexum says. “The last thing we want to do is get all cerebral about what we’re doing with music. We follow our hearts and go from there. We all know what we’re capable of; we believe in each other and just follow what’s inside of us. After doing what we’ve done for so long, you get this level of confidence. We took our time with this album. I wish we did that with [2005’s] Don’t Tread On Me. But that was then and now we operate in a different manner. We’re in a really good place right now.”

311 with Slightly Stoopid
Where: The Borgata, Atlantic City
When: Saturday, Nov. 21, 8pm
How Much: Tickets are $49.50

Make real estate a design tool for life

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:18:22 PST

REThink Real Estate

Tara-Nicholle Nelson
Inman News

Q: I bought my first home about five years ago. Since then, I bought a multifamily home and moved into it, renting out my first home, and then bought another house and that's where I live now. I got a great deal on this house, which is in one of the best neighborhoods in my area, because it needs so much work. Now, with the economy, I'm concerned that I'll never be able to do the needed repairs.

It's too broken down to rent, and I couldn't cover my expenses on it, even if I were able to rent it out. In fact, I'm nervous that if we have a big earthquake my foundation problems will cause major, irreparable damage to the house.

On a lark, I went to look at some new condos and lofts that are being rented downtown -- I loved them, and I could rent one for less than half of what I pay to live in my current home. I believe that real estate is a big part of building wealth, but I'm seriously thinking about selling this house and living in one of those rental apartments. What do you think?

A: Well, you are certainly not alone. I have had a number of my personal real estate clients and friends make the decision to either buy investment properties before buying a home, or to sell their homes, rent and focus their real estate efforts on buying homes to rent. The situation you propose is very similar: staying in the real estate market as an investor while renting the place you live.

Mindset Management

First, you must get a clear understanding of what real estate ownership means to you. You'd be surprised at how differently different people answer this question. To some, owning a home is the American Dream. To others, ownership is primarily for wealth-building, strictly for investment.

Still others think owning a home is a burden or a blessing, or something you just have to do versus something optional that you can do someday. Many people, when asked what their home is to them, will repeat the refrain: "My home is my biggest asset."

No matter where you fall on this continuum of beliefs, I want to propose a new view of property ownership to you. I submit that your home is not actually your biggest asset. It is, of course, most people's largest financial asset.

But yourself, your wellness, your relationships, your education and career, your talents and skills, your hopes and dreams for the future: any or all of these might, perhaps, be larger life assets than your home.

It follows, then, that the measure of a good real estate decision is not necessarily one that gets you or keeps you in a property at any cost, for its own sake. Rather, a wise real estate decision is one that nurtures and develops whatever your biggest assets in life actually are. The decisions to avoid are the ones that threaten to harm your largest assets.

Your ownership decisions each present a singular opportunity to impact -- for better or for worse -- virtually every single element of your life and daily lifestyle. They impact your surroundings, your finances, your relationships, your stress level: everything. For that reason, I believe that the best view and use of real estate is as a tool for designing your whole life.

The vision of a new way of life -- half the living expenses and twice the living experience -- is what you are glimpsing and starting to understand that you might want to reach out and grab. Selling your current residence and renting might be a means to do that. Don't stay stuck in a house you can't afford to repair out of someone else's sense of what you should do.

Before you make this move, honestly analyze any opportunity costs you might experience by selling and renting, including the tax advantages of owning your home and the appreciation you might stand to build over the years you had originally planned to be in the home.

Need-to-Knows

As a real estate broker, my party line is supposed to be to always encourage homeownership -- something I still believe is an inherently valid experience for tax relief, equity-building and emotional reasons, if executed strategically by an individual who actually wants to own his or her home. In light of the recent housing crisis, however, almost every thinking homeowner has privately or publicly reconsidered the value of homeownership.

In the classic real estate book "Rich Dad, Poor Dad," and the series of books that arose therefrom, author Robert Kiyosaki has long taken the position that the home you live in is not an asset at all but a liability, because you have to pay into it every month. By contrast, Kiyosaki argues, income properties with positive cash flow are truly assets on your balance sheet.

With so much recent construction sitting on the market and being converted into rentals, it is much cheaper to live in luxury in many urban areas as a renter than it is to obtain that same high standard of living as a homeowner. It seems that you had precisely this same epiphany during your recent apartment-shopping trip.

Our whole country is undergoing a rethink these days when it comes to real estate. While renting might seem to some like throwing money out the window, if you compare your budget in owning your home (including the tax advantages) and your budget renting at a higher standard of living than you are now, and you come out significantly ahead renting, far be it from me to say that you shouldn't pursue the lifestyle upgrade.

But do so strategically, and only after you are totally clear on and OK with all the consequences and opportunity costs.

Action Plan

1. Sit down with your real estate broker or agent and get her opinion of what you would net if you sold your current home. Make a plan for how you will save or invest those funds.

2. Cultivate a clear vision of your life in the future at three-, five- and 10-year intervals, and see whether there is a time at which you would prefer to be living back in a home you own.

3. If so, stay informed about market dynamics. Appreciation rates are fairly flat in most areas, but we're talking about up to 10 years here. Avoid waiting so long that you are priced out of the housing market in areas you want to live. (Although, if your rental properties are in the same area, they might serve as your placeholder in the market.

There may also be some tax advantages to converting one of them to your primary residence in the years immediately before you sell the property, if selling is in your long-term plan. Consult with your tax professional about incorporating these sorts of strategies into your long-term plan.)

***

What's your opinion? Leave your comments below or send a letter to the editor. To contact the writer, click the byline at the top of the story.

Nonrefundable rental deposits stir debate

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 07:41:56 PST

Rent it Right

Janet Portman
Inman News

Q: We listed our rental on craigslist, which listed key terms, including a provision that the pet and cleaning deposits were nonrefundable. A couple contacted us and visited the rental, and we agreed orally, (and) with a handshake, to lease to them. It was clear to everyone that the deal was premised on the terms described in the craigslist ad.

Now our tenants are leaving, and they claim that the pet and cleaning deposits should be refundable. The ad is archived, it cannot be edited, and it plainly says they are not. If we do not return these deposits and our ex-tenants take us to court, will we win based on the clarity of the ad? --Charles and Angie G.

A: No lawyer in her right mind would predict a win for someone who's headed off to court. No matter how much the law and the facts appear to be in someone's favor, it's impossible to predict the outcome. A lot depends on how the case is presented and, of course, the sensibilities of the judge. That's why the most common answer to questions like yours is, "It depends."

So, on what does the answer depend? When you base a landlord-tenant relationship on an oral lease, the key terms are whatever the two of you agreed to. The trouble is, if you have differing memories, the case boils down to "he says" vs. "she says." When that happens, judges look for other evidence of the deal.

For example, if you own 20 rental units and all of them have written leases that include this provision, that's some indication that, more likely than not, you explained the nonrefundable issues to these tenants, too.

Ads are also useful; they at least show what you intended when you listed the rental. And therein lies the rub.

The ad by itself doesn't prove what you ultimately agreed to, because as we all know, landlords and tenants often vary the terms that were outlined in the ad. For instance, an applicant who has excellent credit and rental history may be able to convince a landlord to lower the security deposit. It would be preposterous for that tenant to demand the return of the advertised deposit, and to bring in the ad as proof of his claim.

Similarly, tenants with dogs often respond to ads that specify no pets, confident that once the landlord meets their beautiful, well-behaved and college-educated mutt, the landlord will relent (it sometimes actually works). If these folks don't sign a lease, and the landlord later tries to evict because of the pet, the ad will not defeat the tenants' stronger evidence -- that they've lived in the rental with the dog for some time without the landlord's objections, which indicates that the oral lease did in fact permit pets.

If your tenants take you to court over your retention of the cleaning and pet deposits, you'll have the ad to back you up -- but it won't necessarily win the case for you. Expect your tenants to argue that those terms were put aside during rental discussions. Who knows how the judge will rule?

Incidentally, a few states forbid landlords from requiring nonrefundable fees, including California and Montana. Some states specifically allow them, but the majority of states don't regulate this issue one way or the other. You'll need to do some legal research to find out if you're even permitted to impose nonrefundable fees.

Q: We have a two-year lease that has 18 months left on it. The home was foreclosed last month and for a time the bank was our landlord. The bank just sold our "bank owned" home to an individual who says he wants to move in. He claims he can ask us to leave with 90 days' notice. Is this correct? I thought the new law gave tenants with leases protection from such evictions? --Dave B.

A: The new law you're referring to, signed by President Obama in May 2009, does indeed give tenants with leases some protections when their home is foreclosed. When the bank forecloses, and it becomes the new owner, it must honor your lease, just as any new buyer would have to do if your landlord simply sold the property. But if an individual buys at the foreclosure or trustee's sale, and that buyer intends to occupy the property, you can be told to leave with 90 days' notice.

Your situation presents an interesting but common wrinkle on the foreclosure process. Your home was taken over by the bank upon foreclosure, making the bank the first new owner. Consistent with the rule described above, the bank had to honor your lease. Then, in a second sale, the bank sold to an individual. Even though that buyer wants to occupy the home, he cannot get you out with a 90-day notice, because he has bought from the bank-as-owner, not at a foreclosure or trustee sale from the bank-as-lender.

In other words, a would-be occupying buyer gets to hand you a 90-day notice only if he buys at the foreclosure or trustee sale -- not when he buys later. The second owner will get the property subject to any existing leases, just as he would if he had bought from a regular seller whose property is occupied by a lease-holding tenant.

Janet Portman is an attorney and managing editor at Nolo. She specializes in landlord/tenant law and is co-author of "Every Landlord's Legal Guide" and "Every Tenant's Legal Guide." She can be reached at janet@inman.com.

***

What's your opinion? Leave your comments below or send a letter to the editor. To contact the writer, click the byline at the top of the story.

Many REO buyers hit financing snag

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:00:00 PST

Can lenders dictate loan in bank-owned sale?

Tom Kelly
Inman News

Remember when lenders were content to sell foreclosed homes to any qualified buyer? Their popular message was, "We're in the lending business, not in the real estate business."

With the large number of REOs (bank-owned properties) overwhelming most mortgage lenders and driving many others out of business, it's curious that some are making stringent demands on how foreclosed homes are financed.

A few lenders are even requiring that they supply the financing for any foreclosed property in their portfolio.

The policy took Tom Lasswell, a mortgage professional with Guild Mortgage, completely by surprise. Lasswell recently had a preapproved borrower who found a bank-owned property. While the buyers were highly qualified, the lender who owned the property let it be known that two other parties were interested in the parcel.

"Our clients' offer was accepted, but only if they got a loan from the lender who held the property," Lasswell said. "If they wanted the home -- which was perfect for them -- they had to get a loan with that lender and close with (the same lender). If our clients did not comply with those terms, the lender with the foreclosure would move on to the next person in line."

No specific loan terms were discussed or promised. The potential buyers simply had to accept that the financing would come from the lender holding the property.

"I've known some builders that require borrowers to be preapproved or prequalified through their affiliate companies or relationships, but the borrower has not been required to use those services as a part of the contract. They have always been able to choose."

Is it even legal for a bank to ever dictate where a borrower obtains financing?

According to Joseph M. Vincent, general counsel for the Washington State Department of Financial Institutions, a lender can require a borrower to secure financing when the lender is acting as the "seller" of the property.

It is a violation of the Federal Anti-Tying Law for a bank, its holding company or affiliate to condition a loan on the purchase of specific property. However, it is not a violation if the institution is telling any would-be buyers that, as seller, it will not sell the property to them unless they obtain a seller-financed loan for that purpose.

However, if the bank, savings association or one of its subsidiaries or its holding company required more than the seller-financed loan, that extra requirement could be an illegal tying arrangement, according to Vincent.

For example, a bank sells you an office building it owns through foreclosure, the terms of which are 20 percent downpayment and an 80 percent bank-financed purchase loan. So far, so good. But the terms also require that, as a condition of purchase, you agree to use Property Manager "X" or Remodeling Consultant "Y."

The bank, savings association or one of its subsidiaries or its holding company has a beneficial ownership interest in or less-than-arm's-length relationship with Property Manager "X" or Remodeling Consultant "Y." This would likely be an illegal tying arrangement, Vincent wrote.

Vincent cited Sharkey v. Security Bank & Trust Co., where a bank's tying arrangement constituted a violation because the bank required a customer to purchase real estate from the bank as a condition for obtaining a loan. The court sided with the customer, and rejected the bank's argument that the customer must prove the arrangement was "anticompetitive."

In another example, a bank conditioned the extension of a loan for purchase of a restaurant property on the borrowers' agreement to also purchase (at an inflated price) a commercial property that the bank acquired through foreclosure.

When 2008 finally came to an end, there were approximately 871,000 foreclosed, or REO homes, in the U.S., up from 414,000 at the close of 2007. More than 5 percent of all "performing" mortgages were 60 or more days delinquent, pointing to a potentially precarious situation.

TransUnion, the huge credit and information-management company, expects that percentage to double in 2009 as more adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs) and option-ARM instruments click in to their adjustment mode.

These adjustables, approximately $321 billion strong and scheduled to reset before 2012, could well drive the number of bank-owned homes to more than 2 million. Most of these properties are vacant, creating a drag on neighborhoods and lessening the desire of many other homeowners to hang on.

Those numbers, while numbing, may even be conservative. Elizabeth Warren, chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel, recently said that 10 million to 12 million U.S. homes could ultimately go into foreclosure.

You would think lenders would not be too picky about who would provide the financing.

Tom Kelly's book "Cashing In on a Second Home in Mexico: How to Buy, Rent and Profit from Property South of the Border" was written with Mitch Creekmore, senior vice president of Houston-based Stewart International. The book is available in retail stores, on Amazon.com and on tomkelly.com.

***

What's your opinion? Leave your comments below or send a letter to the editor. To contact the writer, click the byline at the top of the story.

Get-out-of-lease-free card?

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:00:00 PST

Tenant buys house, seeks special treatment

Robert Griswold
Inman News

Q: I have been a tenant in a rental home for the last few years. A few months ago I signed a new 12-month lease but I just bought a new home and will be moving in next week. My lease doesn't expire for eight more months but I couldn't pass up this great opportunity to become a homeowner. Unfortunately, I can't afford to pay the rent and the new house payment. How can I break my lease?

A: In most residential leases, there are no provisions for the tenant to unilaterally break or terminate the lease because he or she purchased a home. A lease is a binding legal contract, and the landlord entered into this agreement with the understanding and expectation that you would stay for the duration of the lease. Often the landlord will even give you favorable terms such as a lower monthly rent based on this long-term lease. So to tell your landlord that you are moving next week and don't want to be responsible for the balance of the lease term is not likely to receive a positive response from your landlord.

This applies to all circumstances where a tenant might find it advantageous to break a lease, such as finding a better deal on an apartment, a job transfer, a change in a relationship, or any other personal situation that arises and the tenant suddenly decides it is in his or her best interest to relocate. The only exception would be if you had negotiated with the landlord in advance for the right to terminate the lease.

This "lease termination" clause can be specifically and narrowly written to be only for certain predetermined reasons like a home purchase, a job transfer, or it can simply allow the tenant to leave without stating a reason. In today's weak rental market for most areas, landlords are willing to agree to a lease termination clause that would allow you to break the lease under mutually agreed upon terms such as a flat dollar amount or a penalty of one or two months' rent.

Unfortunately, you did not plan ahead and now are expecting the landlord to absorb the loss of income on your rental home. You should have considered the fact that you would be obligated for another eight months on your current lease before purchasing the home. It may have been helpful to contact your landlord in advance when you first began to look at a purchase option.

Even though there is a lease and the landlord is not obligated to any changes in the terms, you may have been able to work together to start marketing the rental home while you are still there and possibly limit your liability if the landlord is able to re-lease the property before your lease expires in eight months. However, at this point, you should still contact your landlord immediately and explain the situation and see if he will agree to take a set amount of money if you agree to vacate this weekend and leave the property in excellent condition so he can have it back on the market immediately.

Q: I have been renting a house to three college students and their lease is up soon. However, I just learned that only one of the original students on the lease is still there. He does not plan to renew the lease and I am wondering what to do with the security deposit. How do I make out the refund check for the security deposit? Do I divide the security deposit into separate shares and send out checks to each of them? Or do I send one check to all three names? I am concerned that the one remaining tenant will claim he is entitled to all of the deposit back and then I will be sued by the other tenants. I am in a bind as I have no idea where the other two tenants are currently living.

A: You should make the check payable to all three tenants listed on the currently valid lease. So unless the vacated tenants have given you a written statement releasing any interest they have in the security deposit, you should make the refund check payable to all three named tenants. You do not have any information on the current whereabouts of the other two tenants, so your only option is to mail the check to the address of your rental unit.

It is likely that the current tenant will be the one who receives the refund check, but any challenges the tenants face in negotiating the check are their issues not yours. It is possible that you will be provided with the current contact information for the other two tenants before sending the refund check. In that case, I would suggest you still send the check to the property address and also send a copy of the check and the final accounting of the security deposit to the other tenants so they would be aware of the status of the deposit.

This column on issues confronting tenants and landlords is written by property manager Robert Griswold, author of "Property Management for Dummies" and "Property Management Kit for Dummies" and co-author of "Real Estate Investing for Dummies."

E-mail your questions to Rental Q&A at rgriswold.inman@retodayradio.com.

Questions should be brief and cannot be answered individually.

***

What's your opinion? Leave your comments below or send a letter to the editor. To contact the writer, click the byline at the top of the story.

Construction plan falls outside the 'zone'

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:20:27 PST

Law of the Land

Tara-Nicholle Nelson
Inman News

In the case Cimino v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Woodbridge, Christine Cimino purchased a 5-acre parcel of undeveloped land in an area where a lot was required to have 2 acres of contiguous non-wetland as a specific setback requirement in order to get a building permit.

More than 20 years prior to Cimino's purchase of the property, a prior owner had applied on three separate occasions for the parcel to be zoned a buildable lot. While the surrounding land was subdivided into buildable lots, the inland wetlands agency denied each of the prior owner's applications to approve this particular parcel. The rest of the parcels became numbered lots, while the remaining parcel was labeled "Remaining Land of __________, Trustee." It was transferred along with a neighboring lot until purchased from the owner of the neighboring lot by Cimino.

Cimino applied to the zoning board for a variance from the setback requirement and a variance allowing her to build on the property despite it having only 1 acre of contiguous non-wetland. The zoning board denied Cimino's application for a variance, given that the parcel had not been a buildable lot when originally subdivided, nor when purchased by Cimino, so the value of the lot was the same after the board's denial of a variance and permit as it had been when Cimino purchased it.

Cimino's appeal of the board's decision to the superior court was denied on grounds that the parcel was never a zoned lot and that Cimino had not demonstrated a hardship or compliance with the town's zoning ordinances.

The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed the lower court's denial of Cimino's appeal. First, the court explained, the fact that Cimino's parcel was never a buildable lot in the first place was not a dilemma that was even legally capable of having been resolved or overcome by a variance.

Additionally, the court opined, the fact that the owner was aware that the property was not a buildable lot at the time she purchased it invoked the "purchase with knowledge rule," and meant that her purchase with knowledge, not the denial of the variance, was the cause of any hardship the owner experienced.

As such, the appellate court upheld the lower court's ruling.

***

What's your opinion? Leave your comments below or send a letter to the editor. To contact the writer, click the byline at the top of the story.

Fireplace demo done right

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:01:07 PST

Homebuyers seek to swap chimney for French doors

Bill and Kevin Burnett
Inman News

Q: My husband and I are in escrow on a home that has an old fireplace. We had it inspected by a professional who has a good reputation for restoration. The report came back that it is in hazardous condition and requires removal or major renovation. Removal is our preference.

It is on an exterior wall of the living room that would be better suited to having French doors in its place.

Neither of us has a problem with getting physical in removing the fireplace, but what harm to the house (or ourselves) are we in danger of getting into?

A: We can promise that you will get physical. You won't harm the house, unless a wayward brick goes through a window. And you won't harm yourselves -- except for some sore muscles -- if you pay attention and work safely.

These days, fireplaces don't have the same panache as in days gone by. Yes, a fire is nice on the occasional winter's eve, but for most folks, the mess and energy inefficiency outweigh the occasional coziness. We're not surprised that, faced with a big repair bill or demolition, you're opting to rip it out.

Kevin gave his wife Heidi the option of having a fireplace when we built his house. She said no thanks. Rather strange for a mason's daughter, but true.

Taking down the fireplace is a job you can do yourself, but it will take some time and you must use extreme caution.

When Kevin first moved to Boise, Idaho, a friend from Alameda, Calif., was already there. Mike was a renovator. He owned a little house on a big lot in an old part of town. The house had a chimney that needed to come down. One day a crew of guys showed up. They tied one end of a rope around the top of the chimney and the other end to the bumper of a pickup and yanked it down -- quick and efficient, but dangerous and felony stupid.

Demolish your fireplace from the top down, one brick at a time. Erect or rent a scaffold and work from it. Make sure that the scaffold is equipped with stable flooring and safety rails and that it is securely attached to the building.

Then, equipped with a hammer and cold chisel, begin removing the bricks one at a time, starting at the top. Don't throw the bricks off the scaffold. Stack them on the scaffold deck until you get a pile.

Lower them to the ground using a 5-gallon bucket attached to a rope. Neatly stack the bricks in an out-of-the-way place.

As you get below the roofline, you'll probably notice that there will be a fair amount of reconstruction you'll have to do to close up the hole created when you remove the chimney.

It will include patching the roof and framing and finishing soffits and eaves. Going down the exterior wall, there will be siding that should be patched in. When you finally get to the firebox, you'll have a gaping hole in the wall letting the outside in.

So far, none of it will affect the structure of the house. Below the floor line might be a different story. You're definitely looking at fixing some floor framing and, depending on how the foundation was constructed, possibly doing a little foundation work.

From this point on, it's a relatively simple matter of framing the opening for the new French doors and installing them.

Make no mistake about it: It's a lot of work, but doable. The added bonus you'll have is hundreds of used bricks that, once cleaned, can be recycled into handsome walkways, planters or even a new barbecue.

***

What's your opinion? Leave your comments below or send a letter to the editor. To contact the writer, click the byline at the top of the story.

I Love You, You're Perfect, Now Change

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 07:31:58 PST

Male-female relationships are the focus of the popular musical revue I Love You, You’re Perfect, Now Change, which is currently on stage in a diverting production at Bristol Riverside Theatre.

Featuring a book and lyrics by Joe Di Pietro and music by Jimmy Roberts, the show is constructed as a series of musical vignettes exploring the joys and pitfalls of dating, marriage and parenthood.

Director Susan D. Atkinson’s production begins strongly with Christine Toy Johnson and Greg Mills delivering winning performances on the yuppie dating number “We Had it All” and Kevin Duda and Renee Rakelle proving equally likable as two nerds in search of love on the amusing “A Stud and a Babe.”

The show’s premise soon grows tiresome, though, and the first act sputters to a close. Act II is only a slight improvement. Di Pietro’s book is sporadically funny in its depiction of gender stereotypes, but his lyrics are juvenile and Roberts’ pedestrian pop score lacks variety. The cast is strong, especially Dada, who is terrific as a man still in love with his wife in the poignant love song “Shouldn’t I Be Less in Love.”

Change has been described as the perfect date show, and many couples will find it amusing, provided they are heterosexual. Barely a mention is made of same-sex relationships, which makes Change not only dated, but woefully limited in portraying the scope of romantic entanglements.

Through Nov. 22. $10-$42. Bristol Riverside Theatre, 120 Radcliffe St. 215.785.0100. brtstage.org

No Strings Attached

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 05:21:26 PST

I am a happily married, happily nonmonogamous male. We aren’t wild swinger types. For us it’s more about the fact that monogamy doesn’t work than about nailing everything that walks by. Anyway, I have encountered an odd situation a few times now, and again last night, where I’ll be flirting with a potential fling and she knows I’m married and she’s very interested. But when she finds out my marriage is nonmonogamous, she suddenly backs out. Case in point, a coworker: We have been flirting since I started my new job a few months ago. Today she asked me what my wife would do if she found out I was sneaking around on her. Good time to make a full disclosure! But when I told her my situation, that was the end of our flirtation.

Any idea why women find the idea of cheating with me okay, but once they find out I have a free go of things, they walk?

No Figuring Women

This woman didn’t find the idea of cheating with you “okay,” NFW, she wanted to fuck you because you’re married and presumably monogamous. Try to look at it from her perspective: When she thought you were willing to cheat on your wife to be with her, NFW, that meant you found her so attractive, so utterly irresistible, that you would break your marriage vows and risk everything to get into her pants. Sleeping with her with your wife’s permission? Meh, where’s the ego boost in that?.

I am a 40-ish married straight woman living in New York. I have been happily married in a monogamous relationship for 11 years. My husband and I met when we were in our early 20s. After listening to all of the Savage Lovecasts together, we started to talk about the idea of “some degree of openness,” as you put it.

In the past year, I have had a crush on a coworker. My husband is okay with me having something on the side with this coworker. This coworker is single (last I heard) and 17 years younger (yikes!), and he knows I’m married. We had a great working relationship while we were assigned to a project together, but now he’s in another department. My question is, how to go from here? After having a few good talks with my husband, I am excited about this idea and terrified. I’m having a private lunch with my coworker soon. This is fine with my husband. What can you tell me to calm me the hell down and not be so stressed? After being conditioned my whole life that monogamy is the only way to go, I am having a hard time shifting!

Newly Open Couple Lacks Understanding & Education

Have that lunch, and tell your coworker/crush that you and the husband are just beginning to explore the idea of openness. For all you know now, your much-younger coworker may not be interested in being your piece on the side. If it turns out that he is interested, take things very, very slowly and keep your husband fully informed. But even if I could relieve you of your stress and anxiety with a few words, NOCLUE, I wouldn’t. You should be anxious and stressed out; it’s appropriate to be anxious and stressed out. Your nervousness is prompting you to take things slowly and to be careful and conscientious about your husband’s feelings. If this works out—for you, for your coworker, for your husband—it will be in large part thanks to the stress, NOCLUE, not despite it. Enjoy.

I am in a strange situation. I work in the corporate sector in marketing and sales. It is a high-stress, fast-paced job, and everyone has a short fuse. I have a coworker who is losing business to a competitor who happens to be gay. In her fits of anger, she keeps calling him a faggot. I hate it. The thing is, I am not gay. And if anyone in our office is, they are in the closet. She has used the word in front of other coworkers and even our boss, and no one seems to be bothered.

I am torn about what I should do. I am black, and if she was using the word “nigger,” I would call her on it and raise issue with our HR department. Can I file a complaint on behalf of a group I do not belong to? If she found out I complained, she would see it as a threat to her own job, which could lead to a decidedly hostile workplace. But if it was a racial slur, I would not let that deter me. I want to do the right thing. How would you handle the situation?

Not My Problem?

If someone at my office were tossing the word “nigger” around, NMP, I would lodge a complaint. I would resent the assumption on my coworker’s part that since I’m white she can use racist speech in my presence, because, hey, all us white people are racist POS, right? And I would complain because a workplace that tolerates racist remarks is a workplace that tolerates homophobic remarks. If people are using “nigger” when there aren’t any black people in the room, they’re doubtless using “faggot” when there aren’t any gay people in the room. And vice versa. Have a word with HR.

I have a new coworker, a young man who is gay and quite effeminate. He’s slim, wears makeup, has boyish/feminine features, and has done some modeling work as a woman. He said in a lunchroom discussion today that he prefers to wear women’s clothes. He said he had worn women’s clothes at a previous workplace, and no one had been offended. I suggested he talk to HR to protect his job before coming to work dressed in women’s clothing. Good advice or should I just mind my own business? One coworker suggested that he work up to it, while another said he should just do it and let the chips fall where they may. The question of what restroom he should use when dressed as a woman came up. I’m not 100 percent comfortable sharing the ladies’ room with him. Though I am certain most of the men won’t be comfortable sharing the men’s room with him either.

Do you have any suggestions on how to handle situations where I might find myself in the same restroom as my newest coworker?

She Knows It’s Really Trivial

If your coworker identifies as female, she should use the women’s room. If he identifies as male, he should use the men’s room. And seeing as he’s using the men’s room now—despite his wearing makeup and being openly gay—I don’t see how the addition of a dress should change things for his male coworkers. And from the way you describe that lunchroom conversation, SKIRT, it sounds like your effeminate new coworker has at least some support at work—but yes, he should have a talk with HR.

As for “handl[ing] situations” where you find yourself in the same restroom with your newest coworker, SKIRT, unless you routinely offer to zip up your coworkers or wipe their asses for them, I don’t see how his presence—or his attire or the particular brand of genitalia tucked into his panties—really impacts you at all.

Find the Savage Lovecast (my weekly podcast) at philadelphiaweekly.com.

TWU Strikes Again

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 05:21:16 PST

Philadelphia Weekly has learned that Transportation Workers Union (TWU) Local 234 is considering legal action against SEPTA, alleging mismanagement of workers’ pension funds. Local 234, which ended a six-day strike on November 8, has retained the law firm of Kaufman, Coren & Ress, P.C. The issue at hand: Workers want to know what firm the money is being invested with, what the rate of return is and what fees investors are being paid.

“We believe that SEPTA is not properly managing our pension,” Local 234 President Willie Brown says. “Even before the recession it wasn’t funded at proper levels. We want to ensure for future retirees.”

“I think members are very concerned about how underfunded the pension has been,” says Local 234 spokesperson Jamie Horowtiz. “This is a different era. People from all walks of life want more transparency and more oversight. And the kind of reporting we’ve seen from the authority is not sufficient.” 

Local 234’s allegation that SEPTA is underfunding worker pensions was widely reported during the strike. Workers’ pensions are 53 percent funded, while managers’ funds are 65 percent funded.

SEPTA Press Relations Officer Andrew Busch says, “Our actuary tells us what is required to meet our pension obligation, and we meet that amount. Pension payments are guaranteed. We provide more funding to the union pension fund than to the management pension fund.”  

During the tense contract negotiations the local even demanded a forensic audit of workers’ pensions. Unlike a standard audit, a forensic audit is a highly detailed examination of funds often used to show evidence of mismanagement or wrongdoing in court. SEPTA refused, even though the union offered to pay for the audit.

SEPTA General Manager Joe Casey told the Inquirer that the request for a forensic audit was a “red herring,” saying the annual audit by Milliman Inc. was sufficient.  

According to Local 234, the union first requested a forensic audit early in contract negotiations before the strike began. Busch says the request came late in the negotiating process, and was withdrawn soon thereafter. 

Brown believes SEPTA may be trying to hide wrongdoing. “If I was SEPTA and I wasn’t doing things above board, I wouldn’t want it either.” 

The Local 234 executive board will meet tomorrow to make a decision on whether to pursue legal action. On Friday, union members will vote to take a ratification vote on a new contract with SEPTA. 

In an engagement letter obtained by PW , the union makes it clear that concerns include potential mishandling of funds. Local 234 appears to believe that there are problems beyond complaints over pension funding levels saying, “many Plan Beneficiaries have expressed concerns to representatives of the Union regarding the chronic underfunding and possible mismanagement of the Trust Funds set up under the Plan to support the pension benefits negotiated by the Union.” 

Brown reiterated these concerns, saying “SEPTA has a history of giving out contracts to friends of the board. And we just want to make sure that this isn’t going on with our pension plan. It’s basically a precaution.” 

The letter says that if SEPTA does not voluntarily share the necessary information, Local 234 “will pursue appropriate legal actions to address and remedy the issues of concern to the Plan Beneficiaries.” Kaufman, Coren & Ress, P.C. will likely contract its own pension experts to investigate.

While the demand for a forensic audit was an issue that stymied an early resolution to the strike, the union decided to end the strike after resolving important issues related to health care and seniority, opting to pursue concerns over pension mismanagement through legal channels.

“The audit was the only sticking point, which they had really dug in on—somewhat to the union’s surprise,” says Horowitz. “The feeling was that this was something we would have to compromise on in the contract in order to live and fight another day. So we are pursuing other means.”

Buses, trolleys and subways are once again on the move, but it appears that the conflict between Local 234 and SEPTA is far from over.

“Workers know that this has been a long term problem, perhaps as long as 20 years,” says Horowitz. “And I think the SEPTA administration’s recent attempts during the strikes to blame it on the stock market only hardened the feeling that they need more answers.” ■