The Real Estate Pain-in-the-Ass That Nobody's Telling You About

Let me just start with a disclaimer: I just became a homeowner with a whole lot of help from my parents, and I am in no way an expert on the ins and outs of buying a home. I'm just speaking as someone who has witnessed the buying and selling side of real estate this year, and who has come into contact with a little pain in the ass thing we'll just call the "10% rule."

With any home loan you apply for, the federal government (via Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac) has to back up the bank. I guess that's what it means for your loan to be FHA approved. As of about two years ago, the federal government has instituted a rule saying that it will not back up any loan that will be used to finance the purchase of a condo in which one owner owns more than 10% of the complex. As a result, banks generally won't bother issuing loans that will be used to finance the purchase of a condo in which one owner owns more than 10% of the complex.

This rule was put in place in response to the housing crisis. It makes sense in the context of giant establishments (say, hotels) in which one big investor may own a good chunk of the building. Say that investor owns 50% of the building-- If that investor goes bankrupt for whatever reason, the rest of the investors in that building would also get screwed. And so do the banks. So this 10% rule is meant to protect "little" owners, I suppose. It makes it difficult for any one body to own too much of one complex, balances out the distribution of ownership and power, and allows the banks to also protect their assets.

But even the most well-intentioned rules cannot be universally applied. This rule has been quite the pain in the ass for "little" people like my family. For a while now, my dad has been helping my greataunt, who is elderly and senile, with her estate. Seeing that she was running out of money, my dad applied on her behalf for a reverse mortgage. For some reason, this 10% rule came into the picture, and the banks denied her application, precisely because one owner in her complex owned more than 10% of the units. (This is also the fault of her homeowner's association, who didn't step in to prevent this one owner from purchasing that many units.) I don't understand why this 10% rule should apply to reverse mortgages. Seems like an exception should be made, especially for someone in my greataunt's situation. After all, what good is a house you've invested in your entire life if you can't live off of what it's worth once you're too old to support yourself?

My greataunt was not only running out of money, but she was also running out of the mental capabilities of taking care of herself. In order to facilitate her move into an assisted living establishment, my dad had to help her sell her condo. Sure enough, the 10% rule became a huge obstacle. No potential buyer would have been able to get a bank to approve a loan in order to finance the purchase. We were seriously worried that my greataunt would be stuck with this condo as her finances kept draining.

Miraculously, we did get a buyer who was able to pay in cash. So we were able to sell my greataunt's condo, and now she hopefully has enough cash to live on for the rest of her life. But had that buyer never come along, my greataunt would be in dire straits. And even though things worked out in the end, this 10% rule probably cost her tens of thousands of dollars. Given our desperate situation, we had to sell the place at a lower price than we could have had we been open to buyers who could get their loans approved.

This 10% rule continued to be a pain in the ass for my family when we went out to Cambridge to hunt for my condo. The first place we were interested in was one unit of seven, in a building owned by a developer who was selling each unit one buy one. The developer still owned five of the units, so, of course, he owned more than 10% of the units. We were told right away from the New England Moves, the mortgage company affiliated with Coldwell Banker, that they would not be able to finance this purchase. A local lender, East Cambridge Bank, would have been able to, but at a slightly higher interest rate. We did make an offer on that unit, but with some reservations. Even if I could secure the purchase with a loan from East Cambridge Bank, what will happen a few years down the road, when I want to sell the place? If the developer still owned more than 10% of the units, would I have trouble selling the place because no buyer could get a loan? Not willing to risk this, we made a low-ball offer (figuring that we'd get a counter-offer, and thus wouldn't be tied to the contract), and went looking for other units. Luckily, we ended up finding one that we liked even better and in building where this 10% rule wouldn't be a problem. But in the end we couldn't ignore the fact that this rule was affecting our lives at many junctures.

What's truly upsetting is the fact that no one seems to be upset or bothered by this 10% rule. The sellers I've come across during my real estate hunt completely dismiss it. And the morons in my greataunt's homeowner's association totally whitewash the problems the rule causes, in spite of the fact that not one of them will be able to sell their properties. You'd think there would be some amount of public outrage, at least enough for the federal government and the banks to tweak the rule, add an addendum or exception here and there, so that it doesn't end up screwing over average folks who need to meet simple goals like buying a home or selling it, in order to secure their futures. This rule is not helping or protecting people like me or my greataunt. On the contrary, it's only helping super rich people who could buy real estate in cash and bypass the banks entirely. Or, it's helping mafioso banks that are willing to issue unconventional loans at high interest rates. The 10% rule is a good idea gone very, very bad.

Well, maybe my little anecdote here can help spark some conversation at least.

Big Step

So I haven't blogged in a couple of weeks, largely because I've been consumed with the best kind of busy: I just became a homeowner! After several weeks of applying for home loan pre-approvals, talking with realtors, figuring out how real estate works in Massachusetts, and scouring MLS listings, I went out to Cambridge with my parents to scout for a condo. And after looking at many properties that were either too small to be livable, in less-than-convenient locations, or in crap condition (for, after all, I was working with a limited budget), I managed to find a place that is quite perfect for my needs. I made an offer on a modest 2-bedroom condo located very near a major T station. After some counteroffering from the seller, I got my bid accepted. I've secured a fantastic interest rate (30 years, 4.8%). The home inspection has been conducted. Should no big hiccup come up, I will officially close and own the place mid-July.

So now to plan for my cross-country move! There's certainly something scary about moving so far away from my family, living on my own, and having mortgage payments. But I'm also very excited about starting this new phase of my life.

Sex and a City of Hot Asian Men

Last night, a good friend of mine hosted a Sex and the City party, in which we wore our cutest shoes, drank girly cocktails and watched our favorite episodes of the series. Revisiting the series reminded me of how neatly it manages to encapsulate the thrills and frustrations of being a single woman. The "A Woman's Right to Shoes" episode points out how much money I've spent on friends' weddings and baby showers, and dares me to register for gifts so that all those bitches have to validate my life choice of getting a PhD. (After all, the 8 years I took to get the degree is longer than the duration of any of their marriages so far.) I also can't help but applaud when Carrie goes on her rant after being dumped via Post-It note. As a woman whose last long-term relationship ended with the guy breaking up with me over the phone and then never talking to me again, and as as single gal who recently went on a date that ended with the guy giving me a Christian side hug, I also think that an ending that is thoughtful and decent shouldn't be too much to ask for. I guess the fact that so many women could relate to the show, in spite of its fantasy-creating glamour, is what made it successful.

But as much as I relate to the show, and as much as I've caught myself in conversations where somebody says, "Oh, this is like the SATC episode where...", there's also something incredibly alienating about watching it. Part of it is class, of course. I don't know anyone in their 30s who can live the kind of lifestyle that these women do on the show. Plus, there's the show's unbearable whiteness of being. The four leading ladies are white. All their friends are white. All the passersby in the background whenever they go shopping, eat at trendy restaurants, or attend club openings are white. They all end up with white men (unless you count Charlotte's Jewish husband as non-white). And with the exception of a few men of color (like the truly drool-worthy Blair Underwood), all the men they fuck are white.

And this is what truly bothers me: Not once in the entire series or subsequent films does any one of the ladies date or fuck an Asian man. (Samantha does spend one episode lusting after her South Asian yoga instructor, but the entire episode is also about the fact that she CAN'T fuck him because he's taken a vow of celibacy. Of course.) The lack of Asian beefcake on the show is not so surprising. Asian men don't get represented as sexy or desirable in American popular culture, and perhaps the most famous Asian man who has circulated through American media in recent years has been, lamentably, THIS GUY. And THIS GUY is not much better. Latino men have the macho Latin lover stereotype going for them. African American men, stereotyped as having big penises, produce catchphrases like, "Once you go black, you can't go back." Asian men, however, are small and anemic computer nerds who wouldn't know how to navigate a woman's body with a map and a flashlight. Asian men have no place in the world of Sex and the City.

As an Asian woman who has known quite a few hot Asian men, and who's always looking out for my Asian brothas, I present the following evidence of what the makers and viewers of Sex and the City have been missing out on:

Daniel Henney

Daniel Dae Kim

Naveen Andrews

John Cho

Sendhil Ramamurthy

Victor Basa

Russell Wong

Hidetoshi Nakata

Aaron Kwok

Rick Yune

Archie Kao

Johnny Tri Nguyen

Takeshi Kaneshiro

Holy hotness. What heterosexual woman of any ethnicity wouldn't want to tap some of that? Here's what I propose: If the Sex and the City movie franchise were to end in a trilogy, the last installment should feature no men BUT hot Asian men. That's my idea of a thoughtful and decent ending. In fact, I'll volunteer to write the screenplay. And work as the casting director.

Ew.

This may be the most horrifying video I've seen in a long time:

The fact that Katie Holmes has no stage presence and can't hold a tune to save her life is the least of my problems with this routine. Any attempts to display sexual attraction between these two makes me throw up in my mouth. I have the distinct feeling, too, that Katie Holmes has been rehearsing this routine in her bedroom since she was a teenager (the amateurish performance just screams high school musical), around the same time that she first dreamed about marrying Tom Cruise. Gross. And yet, as if I were watching a train wreck, I can't look away. This video may almost be as bad as "2 girls 1 cup." (Don't go looking for that video if you don't know what it is. Seriously.)

Happy Mother's Day

From all the anecdotes I offer about my mama, anyone can tell that my mother is a pretty special lady. Today, she had one piece of wisdom to offer me:

"When looking for a husband, you must make sure he has three things: high age, high income, and high blood pressure."

It's a lot funnier in Chinese.

Happy Mother's Day!

Fuck You, Arizona

Dear Arizona,

You really are on a roll, aren't you? First you push SB 1070, which I don't find all that surprising. After all, the atmosphere in your state is such that angry white folks who call themselves "Minutemen" have felt empowered to dress up as law enforcement officers and murder innocent people (including a 9-year-old girl) in the name of "homeland security" and "border control." Of course you're going to enact an immigration law that gives local law enforcement officers the right to determine the citizenship status of anyone they detain or arrest. Before I find myself driving through your state, I'll make sure to tattoo my social security number on my ass. Just in case I get pulled over for speeding or something. Because lord knows that Asian folks don't look sufficiently "American" enough, either.

So to ride on the momentum of that racist bullshit, you decide to also pass HB 2281, which prohibits schools from offering courses that "are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group" or "advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals." Not that the language of the bill explicitly says this, but HB 2281 effectively bans ethnic studies programs, such as the Tucson public school district's Mexican American Studies program. Reasons for targeting ethnic studies? The state superintendent has called such programs "ethnic chauvinism," and state senator Russell Pearce, the architect of SB 1070, calls ethnic studies "hateful speech" and "sedition."

As an instructor of Asian American Studies, I have to lament the passing of 2281, not because I had hoped to get a job as one of your teachers (hell, I'd sooner live in Texas), but because the racial tensions and rampant anti-immigrant sentiments in your state indicate that now, more than ever, is precisely when ethnic studies curriculum is needed.

First, let's just establish that ethnic studies is not now, nor has it ever been, an advocate of "ethnic chauvinism" or "hateful speech." It is the opposite of those things. As a discipline, ethnic studies was established by students, teachers, activists and community organizers who opposed racism in all its forms, advocated for human rights regardless of privilege, and recognized the experiences of all Americans, regardless of ethnicity, as having a legitimate place in American history. Yes, an ethnic studies curriculum is going to educate people on the fact that the 1790 Naturalization Act explicitly declared that only white male persons could apply for citizenship rights, that the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ceded a large chunk of Mexico to the United States in 1848, that the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act was the first of many race-based immigration bans to be enacted in the United States, that it wasn't until the 1952 McCarran-Walter Act that race-based and national origins-based immigration legislation even began to be overturned. To teach these historical facts is to acknowledge the existence of white privilege, but to acknowledge the existence of white privilege is not equal to teaching hate. In fact, closer to teaching hate is the refusal to acknowledge this side of American history, for it is precisely ignorance that allows people to shout with anger and entitlement, "We need to keep 'our' country away from 'them'."

While we're on the topic of collective identification, let's touch upon the second gripe I have with HB 2281, which is its implication that "ethnic solidarity" is the antithesis of individuality. Ethnic studies is not just for "ethnic" people. In fact, it serves its purpose of equality and empowerment best when it reaches out to all people. To get rid of ethnic studies altogether does not treat each pupil as an individual. On the contrary, it erases the individual histories and experiences of so many people in America and serves one prominent collective: namely, white Americans. What collective are we identifying when we speak of "our" Founding Fathers? Do we not assume a collective identification when we study our Constitution, which begins with the words, "We the People"? I understand that buzzwords like "individualism" are a handy way to promote "American" values and undermine anything that smells of pinko-commie-socialism, which any critique of our hegemonic social order seems to be associated with. I'm just saying that that supposed opposition is a fallacy. As people who live and work within America's borders, regardless of our citizenship status, we are always called upon to be a part of collective. There's nothing seditious about acknowledging the different ways in which we experience being Americans at the same time that we respond to that call.

Though if I had known that ethnic studies was about overthrowing the government, I probably could have made my courses a lot more interesting...

So this is just my long-winded way of saying, Fuck You, Arizona. Go ahead and practice your racist laws and your historical amnesia. I can only hope that more of your brave citizenry will resist this kind of injustice and stupidity.

Sincerely,

Me

Happy

Today hasn't been particularly special. I got up after a decent night's sleep, went to a dermatologist appointment (turns out, my face suffers from a variant of rosacea), got groceries, picked up some books at the library, returned some emails. There was nothing extraordinary about today except the weather: 75 degrees, sunny, cool breeze. (Oh, spring in northern California, how I will miss you.) Maybe the general pleasantness of the day put me in the mood to recognize just how good my life is. I love my job. I get to have my Fridays off, to shop for wine and cheeses and take leisurely walks. I have two working legs so that I can take those walks. I have friends who believe in me and a family that always has my back. I may be poor, but I love my life.

If I am this happy now, I can only imagine how happy I will be once I start making a real salary, see my work get published, and meet a man who truly loves me. So much to look forward to!