HSC Lottery

Deank wrote:hey does anyone know if the vacations can be sold? I am nto much of a vacation guy.

Vacations can be transferred/sold if you can prove you're not ABLE to make the trip (ie. disabled, can't get a passport, etc.)

Bartron wrote:Does not matter, I'm going to sell it when I win.

Not that you have to worry about selling my house...but selling it is actually a stupid thing to do.

Tax-wise, it should be lived in by the winner to avoid capital-gains tax for at least a year. Selling it after that would be ok...but it would be better to use it as collateral for a new home (more affordable), and THEN sell it...using the proceeds to pay off the new home, and moving anything left into some investments. Those investments should be able to pay the property taxes on the newly built home...forever.

Which is probably what I'll do once I win the house.

I'll live in that new house and rent my house out.

Goth_chic wrote:I'll live in that new house and rent my house out.

You mean live in the HSC house and rent your current house?

Or build a new house to live in and rent the HSC house?

To address the second option...you wouldn't be allowed. Part of the Royalwood Development contract indicates no renting the properties out.

Part of my reason for not wanting to be in Royalwood, is the ridiculous rules in place to maintain property values. Can't plant certain grass types, can't paint certain colours, can't add sheds, can't build fences except meeting certain designs.

Some friends of mine just built a home in Pritchard Farms (similar housing), and I could not believe all the stupid things they had to comply with in order to build on their OWN land. All the stupid rules and guidelines for land they OWN!!! I could understand if the land was owned by a development group or something...but here, they have title to the land...and if they don't comply...they get fined!!!

But...I know I can tolerate it for a year...so we've already started packing up our house .

AGEsAces wrote:

To address the second option...you wouldn't be allowed. Part of the Royalwood Development contract indicates no renting the properties out.

How do they enforce that?

FlyingRat wrote:

AGEsAces wrote:

To address the second option...you wouldn't be allowed. Part of the Royalwood Development contract indicates no renting the properties out.

How do they enforce that?

Part of the contract signed.

Apparently rental units are considered to deflate property values...so they aren't allowed to rent them out.

To be fair...I haven't seen the Royalwood one...but my friend in Pritchard Farms says it's part of his contract...and Royalwood is basically the same type of development.

I would live in the HSC house and rent my house out. My house is paid off, no mortgage baby!

"Part of my reason for not wanting to be in Royalwood, is the ridiculous rules in place to maintain property values. Can't plant certain grass types, can't paint certain colours, can't add sheds, can't build fences except meeting certain designs."

too bad for them that those rules aren't anywhere in the HSC material eh?

We're talking million dollar-ish homes here right? If so, the rental market for those is pretty limited, if non-existant here I'd say, so including a non-renting clause would be silly, and unless it was on the title, a pretty hard thing to enforce in any event.

A contract is a contract no? If you buy the home and promise to never rent it out you are certainly obligated to the terms of that contract no?

Who would enforce it and how would they show they've been injured I ask, for it to be anything more than an empty note.

I expect the developer would enforce it through the courts. I would think there would be language in the contract that spells out the damages.

Is the contract any different than a renter being restricted from sub-letting a suite? If not then I fear many landlords would be in for a rude awakening eh? Since you are a landlord I imagine you'd have a better insight than I.

Once the developer has sold the houses, he's outa' there. Everyone's on their own I suspect.

What do you guys think the property taxes are on a house like that?

JTF wrote:Once the developer has sold the houses, he's outa' there. Everyone's on their own I suspect.

yeah not sure how anyone could enforce that in Canada. The USA... well thats a completely different matter.

my house is 15% of that.
my house is 2200ish including school taxes so.....
15Kish?

Yikes! The property taxes would probably be as much as my mortgage payments per month!

yeah.. but you would not have mortage payments.. so its wash right?

well as wash until you realize you have to pay the utilities in that place....

15000 in 12 monthly payments would be $1250 per month! My current mortgage is $500 a month! LOL
I'm only 23 don't laugh at my pitiful property value!

The utilitys are not so bad the taxes are comparable with Tuxedo from what one developer told me at work.

Remember that the $1 million price tag includes furnishings, so probably something like $600K.

If you assume 1.5%, then that's $9K? I think that's high - probably more like $6K a year. that's $500 / month.

Remember that compared to mortgage and taxes for current residence, you'll only have taxes for this one.

The reason for the $10k bonus with the house, is to cover property taxes the first year.

Those developments have a neighborhood association. Helps to maintain the common areas, streets, etc. Mows the non-private lands behind the homes and on the boulevards. They are the ones who would enforce the contracts.

According to my friend in Pritchard Farms...it's part of the title that the homeowners must be part of the association. Again though, I'm only assuming Royalwood has one, as it's a similar type of development.

again ... even if they do.. There is NO mention of that on any advertisements for the lottery and nothing on the ticket...

so its just a little too bad for them if they do.

Not a lot of information available here...but at least it indicates the association exists.

Royalwood Neighbourhood Association

Seems pretty inactive right now though, last update to their newsletter is 2007.

JTF wrote:We're talking million dollar-ish homes here right? If so, the rental market for those is pretty limited, if non-existant here I'd say, so including a non-renting clause would be silly, and unless it was on the title, a pretty hard thing to enforce in any event.

Where do Hollywood stars stay when they are in town shooting a movie? They need to rent a mansion! I don't see how having Renee Zellwegger rent in your neighbourhood would detract from property values too much!