The water features in the backyard of that house are great, but the inside has a REALLY serious attack of pink marble, mirror, and chandelier overdose!
Ikea has a few bar stools with light wood legs including a few specifically designed for kitchen counters rather than bar tables. Not sure I’d like them for everyday use but certainly should be goodenough for bringing out for extra seating at get togethers. And you don’t have to build them until you need them!
@Consolation, that stuff is easily fixable, and it is a good thing they have not remodeled it to the popular fifty shades of grey. But I would not pay that much for the house. 
The tile and marble would be very expensive to replace.
Obviously the house is staged, since the furniture doesn’t match the taste of the finishes in the least. The DR set is very strange. How about those two carpet cutouts and matching chandeliers? ETA: OMG, I just realized it’s another mirrored wall!
But true, at least it isn’t grey.
The front hallway is completely mirrored to look three times its actual size, the master bath is the Hall of Mirrors (Versailles?), and there’s a mirrored wall next to the master bed. And possibly on the ceiling for all I know… 
Finally had a chance to view all the photos for the Garrison house. I don’t think I’ve ever personally seen so much pink in a So Cal house. Pink kitchen countertops? Yikes!!
The homes on that side of that street have some outstanding views to downtown San Diego and the harbor. I think the photos should have emphasized the views a little more to justify the pricing. The photos don’t show that there is any view captured through windows or anything.
BTW… they have been trying to sell that house since September last year, dropping down from original asking price of $3.2 million. I think they are going to have to price it under $2 million because all buyers can see is a lot of money needed for renovations to rip out all of that tile, cabinetry and marble. Most buyers will want to carve out another 4th bedroom or office in the 3,000 sq ft.
Ok, regarding general contractor license in Ca.
I had a hart to hart discussion with an owner of a contracting company and here is the scoop on contractor’s license.
With a general contractors license, the contractor can hire anyone with or without license to do the construction and when a licensed contractor completes his job, the owner can immediately sell his house. A home owner can be the contractor no problem. OTOH, if you apply for a permit as owner but not a licensed contractor, you are not suppose to sell the house until one year later after completion of the project. You are also able to hire anyone with or without licensed to do the work.
The catches of being with a general contractor license are as follows:
- If a licensed general contractor hires some one unlicensed to do the construction, you need show him on the payroll AND has workman's comp insurance to the city. The trick is that workman's comp is VERY expensive in California, they charge 40% of the cost of construction for framing and foundation work, 80% for roofing work.
- If a licensed general contract sub out the work to any contractor, the city wants to see if the sub contractor is licensed or not. Your license and the bond is in jeopardy if you hire non-licensed contractor and pay them on 1099.
- For each type of contractor, you need to post a bond.
The cities got that covered left and right, either way flippers has to pay.
I am not going to get a contractor’s license.
I have full workmans comp insurance for employees and anyone working on project who is not licensed or insured (considered subcontractors under my direction as owner)
And, when I pull a permit as owner, I do have to sign a lot of forms with fine print about not selling for 1 year.
However the local authorities could care less about the 1 year limit. It is something the Contractors lobby got onto the books up at the State level. There is NO enforcing entity at the State. I assume that an individual contractor could complain to the contractor lobby or something and, eventually there might be a fine.
But, it is utterly ridiculous to enforce. Every day people have to move due to death or divorce, job relocation, etc. And they cannot sell their house because they did a kitchen remodel or upgraded their roof or windows 6 months ago? I don’t think so.
When I questioned the managers at our large City Building Department they just shrugged and said they have no idea what it’s for and it’s only on the form because it’s a State form.
I found the specific primary residence exemption. This helps people who have to move after a remodel
Owner Builders can pull permits and complete construction or manage employees and subs if the property is their primary residence for at least one year prior to completion of construction. There is no restriction on the sale of the house. However, limited to two primary residence exemptions in a three year period.
So, I guess you change your address and homeowner exemption to the project property for a year. But that technically only works every 1 1/2 yrs
I bet that the one year restriction will not hold water in court if it is ever challenged. Such a ridiculous law.
We now have a septic system at my Cape Cod house!
https://www.■■■■■■■■■■/photos/32532343@N00/36355546321/in/dateposted-public/
Closing is scheduled for next Tuesday, hopefully everything holds together. There may be a last-minute issue with flood insurance…
=D> and :)>-
trust me, in Calif, NO ONE enforces that ridiculous state rule.
In the first place, given the relentless increases in property values Calif, when a property is sold , the NEW owners will probably pay MORE in state and local taxes than the prior owners.
I can’t imagine ANYONE in their right mind from the state government trying to prevent that from happening. :))
@notrichenough
Did you put in a brand new septic system? Or was the old one repaired?
Is that something that has to be repaired/certified by Seller before you can close escrow? Is that enforceable by a City ordinance?.. required by a lender to provide a home loan? Just curious. Many transactions are cash transactions As Is. Not sure how they enforce that if it is a private transaction.
In MA, Title V septic inspections are mandated by state law, and must be done within a certain amount of time of the transaction. If the system passes, you receive a certification from the state and are good for two years, three if you regularly pump out the system. The inspection results get filed with the state and the local board of health.
Banks and mortgage companies will not commit to the loan until the septic system is certified. They used to allow funds to be escrowed at closing so that the buyer could handle it after the transaction completed, but this can lead to problems later, so they have stopped doing this for the most part. So in any situation where the property is being financed, the onus is on the seller to get the system in compliance.
In a private all-cash transaction, you can probably get away with not doing the inspection, but if the town is on the ball when the change of ownership is registered with the town, they will check if the inspection was filed with the town, and if not go after the new owner. It’s a big risk to the buyer to forgo the inspection, unless they already know they are going to replace the system.
This property had a system which used a tank that then drained into a pit. This type of system is pretty much an instant fail since the pits are inadequate for the flow. This pit had to be pumped out and filled in. Since we weren’t expanding the capacity of the system, the tank was able to be reused (this is a little alarming since the tank is 40+ years old, but it was deemed ok) and a new distribution box and leaching field were installed to handle the outflow from the tank. And since the pipe from the tank to the d-box crossed the water line, the water line had to be encased to protect from contamination.
The tank and the new leach field are on opposite sides of the property, so all of this required the installer to blow up a good chunk of the front yard. It took them about three days to do all the work. I’m guessing it cost in the $20,000 range, but since the seller is paying we weren’t told. Maybe I’ll ask the agent.
Yikes yikes yikes… that is a big chunk of money by the Seller. Especially if it happens in low value areas.
@coralbrook IIRC, the property @notrichenough is talking about actually has some waterfront. That doesn’t happen in low value areas where she bought.
@thumper, not sure what you mean by “That doesn’t happen in low value areas where she bought.”
Title V applies to any property with a septic system, not just ones near water. While the property we are buying is not low value, there are plenty of towns in MA where the average price is in the $1xx,000 range. And for many of these people Title V compliance could be a huge burden.
I meant that waterfront property is not usually “low value”.
And I know about the septic guidelines in MA…I was just saying…your property, like most waterfront, is probably NOT low value.
“Yikes yikes yikes… that is a big chunk of money by the Seller. Especially if it happens in low value areas.”
But without a working septic, that property would be priced even lover!
We pumped our septic and got it certified for RE transactions. The buyers would be stupid to have their own cert done. It costs $500 here in my neck of the woods.