amarante

I don't understand how the term "generational wealth" became trendy. My parents were fairly frugal and saved for retirement. They lived in their relatively modest starter home until they retired to a condo in Laguna. They drove Honda Accords or the equivalent but paid cash for cars. They did have enough money to enable my brother and I to go through grad school without student loans (albeit at relatively inexpensive state universities) and helped with a portion of the down payments for our first homes. I never heard them speak of "generational wealth" as their primary goal was being able to retire comfortably and not be a burden on their kids. Ironically they did retire with a relatively large estate but I think it was a shock to them as they never thought they would accumulate "wealth" nor was it a specific goal. I remember my father being amazed when he was looking at his brokerage account and I happened to be there. I never knew exactly how much they had until I became a Trustee of the Intervivos Trust after my mother died and was very thankful that they had accumulated enough in assets so that he could afford a very comfortable life even after he wasn't able to be fully independent - he died at 99 with no financial worries.

Yes - you have outlined all of the non-functional aspects of a clawfoot or freestanding tub especially when used as a shower. In college we had the same circular "shower" set up and water would get all over and it was a very tiny shower to actually in when the plastic curtains surrounded you. They are also extremely difficult to maneuver in and out of if you have any kind of mobility or balance issues or even if you don't and step out onto a slightly damp floor. They are actually higher than regular tubs and so you have to lift your foot up high and then the drop to the bathroom floor is much more precipitous. But they have become "trendy" for those who value form over function and don't think through what it would be like to actually use them and clean around them. I don't even like tub showers and when I remodeled removed my standard tub/shower combination for a walk in shower that follows the foot print of the tub and has a comfortable wide bench at one end and grab bars for safety. It is also beautifully tiled and much more elegant and prettier than any tub would be.

Claw foot tubs - or more broadly - free standing tubs have become a style trend and are utterly ridiculous. Freestanding tubs look beautiful in a large bathroom in which they have space all around and are a sculptural element in a room. Also when the "trend" started they were installed in the homes of rich people who have housekeepers who clean around them. Then the style trickled down to the middle class with normal or small bathrooms which are ridiculous for a free standing tub of any style because there is no "space" around them so they look ridiculous and are almost impossible to clean around. Kohler introduced the "modern" drop in built in style bath tub in the 1920's precisely because it was considered to be more sanitary than the clawfoot tubs because it was easy to keep clean. I had a claw foot tub in college and it was hard to clean and really terrible to use as a tub/shower. Princesse was ridiculous - I have never seen a rose gold tub - there are some copper freestanding tubs which people buy for the style but not rose gold. But she was an idiot as those trendy white/gray kitchens that she wanted were built very cheaply and weren't very functional - very little storage and the cabinets were not more expensive drawers but less functional doors. I think she is not factoring in the difficulty and potential expense of being a landlord - you don't just sit back and collect your money. You have to deal with maintenance and potentially not having rent every month. However, even in a tenant friendly place like New Jersey the more onerous aspects of rent control don't generally apply to owner occupied multi-family homes with three or fewer units because the "small" landlord is treated differently than a large scale landlord. Also - to some extent - it also is viewed as a way of encouraging building housing where it is needed. In this episode, there are probably incentives for developers to build two and three family homes to encourage gentrification. Newark was ravaged by a riot in 1967 and is only now apparently being developed. The other areas close to it like South, East and West Orange are on the same train route and so people didn't move back into Newark nor was Newark gentrified a decade ago like Hoboken and the area directly across the river from Manhattan. Princesse grew up in public housing because her mother qualified years ago based on low income and the mother is still probably low income although my understanding is that they don't kick you out even if your income rises. As a child of a legal resident Princesse would be allowed to legally stay if she wanted although probably would not be able to assume the lease in her own name with a higher income. And what a name - to saddle a kid with that name and have to use it on resumes or be introduced in professional settings. It is bad enough when a celebrity like Michael Jackson or the Kardashians use ridiculous names like Prince or Saint but at least those kids are never going to send out a resume for a job in a profession where your credibility is being judged.

I didn't necessarily take her statement as literally meaning she got no child support. She was making a high income when she was divorced presumably and so perhaps neither spouse paid child support - that is not uncommon custody. Or her income was so much higher that the amount the father paid or paid is minimal. Also it might not have been literal in terms of not getting child support but just a vague statement that she is supporting a relatively high standard of living and probably didn't receive spousal support as that is not commonly awarded in California if spouses are both working. I am not familiar with her at all but I am assuming she once had a more successful high paying job which is why she is now downsizing and presumably using the equity in her old home which must be considerable since she said she bought about 20 years ago. I can't imagine podcasts make that much money. I realize there are some very lucrative podcasters but I doubt she is in that category.

Los Angeles is an expensive housing market just as others are but a housing market by definition can’t be “overpriced” because for the most part a price will be determined by the market place - what a seller and buyer come to terms on. The desirable areas in Los Angeles and other areas didn’t lose value even in the bust. At worse they didn’t increase in value for awhile. Obviously location determines fair market value. Arlington will be more expensive than areas further out just as is true of any metropolitan area in terms of closer in desirable suburbs being pricier than ones with a leg commute where land values are less expensive. If one wants to live somewhere in the greater Los Angeles area, there are certainly places where one can find relatively inexpensive homes just as one can find a relatively inexpensive home in the far reaches of the Bronx.

Location determines the FMV of a house and unless a buyer has been actively deceived, a home price isn't a "rip off". That location got her more house for $1.5 million than a more centrally located location that would be more desirable. There are many areas which have very high housing prices - San Francisco, New York. D.C. and even Boston

Jillian bought in Calabasas which is a long commute if you work in Los Angeles. There are some very expensive areas which attract celebrities like the Kardashians but the area also has more modest or relatively modest homes like this one. Location is really everything as the same house would be significantly more expensive in a location that was closer to Los Angeles. ETA At least the agent was more or less realistic about the cost of updating the second house. It would be AT LEAST $150,000 if not more plus the cost of renting a home and the carrying costs during renovation. Not to mention that any good GC is booked in Los Angeles (and many other places) so you wouldn't be able to start for at least six months anyway. The $150,000 figure was probably based on the agent's cost to do the flip which was lower than it would cost a "civilian" since she and her husband were probably doing in regularly and were getting better pricing for both labor and materials. As I recall there was another episode in which a Calabasas home was shown and that episode was pretty crazy because the HH were looking for property with close proximity to the beach but were actually looking at properties in the Valley which no one considers as being close to the beach. The realtor was claiming you could be at the beach in 20 minutes which could only occur at 3 AM with no traffic and if you were reasonably proximate to one of the main North South routes that would take you over the Santa Monica mountains.

I am with Jill in that both of those lasagnas were no doubt mediocre because this recipe is like something from a dumbed down woman's magazine of the 1960's. Nobody's Nonna made a lasagna using these ingredients unless the Nonna was a terrible cook using bad "American" recipes. Surprised ketchup isn't the base of the tomato sauce. My mother was not a Nonna but made better lasagna than this 30 years ago. Her joke was that people use their mother's and grandmother's cooking as a hallmark but in reality the mothers/grandmothers/nonnas were terrible cooks and so the kids grow up with terrible taste in food. She would say this regularly whenever we went to a restaurant that a friend had recommended.

Zoning is everything in terms of land use and there almost always is a demarcation that might appear arbitrary. I live on one side of a street and the zoning on the other side is zoned for large scale commercial and recreational use - e.g. there are taller buildings, retail type of stuff as well as theaters and clubs as it is actually a major tourist zone - now my neighborhood is actually walkable LOL but I digress. I was involved when a building across from the commercial zoning was bought and the developer attempted to get a variance which would have enable the developer to build a high rise with commercial establishments on the ground floor and our neighborhood successfully fought City Hall on that one - in part by having the Church that was there declared a historic monument. Zoning for churches is generally allowed along certain streets in a neighborhood even if they are otherwise residential. So in the Nashville location the street probably was zoned for heavy industrial use on one side and residential on the other. However the original houses were probably built for the workers and were pretty low class. If the neighborhood had higher end houses they would have been built in the area that was furthest away from the industrial zoning. Like old mill towns where the modest homes built for the workers in the mills and factories are close to the factories and houses get bigger and more luxurious as you move further away. I went to school in upstate New York where there was a major river with lots of small towns and the occasional larger city like Binghamton/Endicott built along the river and there were generally palatial homes along the riverbank which housed the very prosperous at the end of the 19th century when they were originally built.

I think almost everyone on this forum knows that the houses are in escrow and the storylines are exaggerated. I do think that for the most part the actual realtors are shown on HH - it is the International show where there is more fakery because some of the HH have been living in the place for a year or more and the "realtor" is often just a friend and the decoys don't even represent actual available housing as they are often the apartments or homes of friends. However the reality is that the HH were shown this awful house in Nashville and decided to purchase it - awful location; not particularly "walkable" or at least not walkable in the sense that any urbanite actually means as walkable - e.g. being able to walk to amenities of urban life.

The developer knew exactly what they were doing when they built that home. The finishes are not that expensive for a builder but they are new and shiny and trendy and so will attract exactly the kind of idiotic buyer who is *dazzled* by the shiny like a toddler. Those finishes are builder grade and a relatively small cost in order to be able to sell a home in that terrible location to some idiots. I would suspect nothing is truly of high quality and the cabinets are white but poor quality and the lower cabinets were doors instead of more expensive deep drawers. It wasn’t really an upscale kitchen but just what unsophisticated buyers think is upscale. ETA Whether the Nashville home was newly built or just completely gutted is irrelevant as whoever the developer or flipper was knew exactly what was needed in terms of trendy finishes in order to get the prospective idiot buyer to overlook the issues of location. Once a "professional" does a gut remodel it is not more expensive to put in builder grade trendy finishes which will command a significantly higher purchase price because the target market is stupid for the most part. We see it all on the time on HH in some way or another - HH exclaim about the stainless appliances without realizing that stainless appliances can be cheap and lower end or if the kitchen is trendy looking HH overlook that the cabinets are cheap and not configured as well as they could be.

In fairness I think the choice was because the HH had set impossible criteria in terms of wanting to be "walkable" to what I am assuming is "downtown" Nashville - whatever that means. Realtor said that if the house weren't across the street from the substation it would sell for about $100,000 more in that specific neighborhood. The couple weren't willing to make any other compromise in order to live in a neighborhood that was *walkable" in terms of an older home or one that didn't have new trendy features and layout. Their definition of *walkable* differs completely from my definition as I don't think their location or even that neighborhood is what I would call *walkable* compared to standard definitions. At best it is a shorter commute to central business district or is a cheaper UBER ride. But bottom line is that it really isn't different from having an unrealistically low budget for one's "wants. I can *want* to have a great condo in Manhattan or London for $500,000 but that doesn't mean I will find one so either I buy a tiny dilapidated condo facing an air shaft in an inconvenient neighborhood (by Manhattan standards) or I expand my location. In this episode if they wanted location PLUS new/shiny/trendy they needed to spend at least $100,000 more.

Maybe my idea of a "walkable" neighborhood where you stroll to nice coffee shops and restaurants is a based on metropolitan areas like NYC, Boston, D.C, San Francisco - hell even Los Angeles in terms of many areas. However also having located that area on the map, how is that considered to be walkable. Where are they walking to?

That Nashville episode was quite something. I grew up in an urban area so I can sympathize with not wanting to live in the suburbs but my parents chose to live in an urban area because of commutes; proximity to jobs, family; tax advantages; good public transportation; the kids being able to walk to school; cultural advantages - not because they needed to walk to bars. Granted the guy is in the beer distribution business but that doesn't mean he will still have the frat lifestyle of a childless person. I found the choice of being across the street from a power plant to be awful and that ratty park across the street wasn't much of an inducement. When people discuss the. benefit of parks and communal areas they generally mean ones that are beautifully landscaped and have great playgrounds for kids - not a stretch of what is essentially dirt with a few tufts of pitiful grass. I am not sure what the health hazard is of electricity. At one time high power lines were thought to be unhealthy. But I would worry about how the power is generated and because a lot of industrial land was used to discard toxic products. And of course beyond that who would want to live next to that kind of edifice - it would be the same if it were a large factory. And they really weren't even thinking rationally - the odds of there being in any home they bought when their kid is in school or they have another kid are minimal. I don't think any of the choices were good. The third house (Craftsman) had a terrible layout for anyone with children and I hate those attic conversions into a master suite - especially with no door. I think in general the attics are incredibly hot even with air conditioning because attics are intended to help ventilate homes even with A/C. I am pretty sure that both of the homeowners wanted the new and shiny style of the first home but didn't have the money to purchase one. I also think that a home in such an undesirable location is going to be hard to sell when the inevitable happens and the market cools down a bit. Only someone desperate AND stupid is going to buy a home in that location.

The stupidity and utter trashiness of Vicki and Tamra never fail to astound me - they are truly trash that got lucky and came into some money and then got really lucky by being cast on RHOC. Not only did they have no knowledge of the Berkshires or appreciation for it - Vicki indicated that her cultural references are Target and Home Goods. Not surprising that the interior design and architecture of BSM eluded them - while it might not be to everyone's taste it represents ACTUAL taste as opposed to that faux Tuscan edifice that Vicki thought was the epitome of elegance. But these were the women who had the great fortune to have a meal at The Laundry when they went on a visit to Napa and literally gagged and spit out the food.

Completely agree - it looked awful and that layout was also awkward and as I recall there were bars on the window. By the time that place was renovated to even *normal* standards it could well exceed $50,000 or even more and that is assuming there aren't structural issues because I am assuming that whoever lived in that house was probably not fastidious about maintenance. I thought the third house was the most suitable for someone in her position. It wasn't a fabulous house but it didn't seem to require immediate expensive work just to make it habitable for a normal person. And I really don't understand why someone in her position is so hell bent on buying a single family home if what is in her budget is in terrible shape and in a questionable area. Far better for her to get a condo or townhouse that was in good shape. Bonus if it had a pool or other simple amenities for her kid.

It also drives me insane. Also I am never sure whether poor grammar in a movie or television show is because of the stupidity of the writer or whether it is deliberately done as part of the development of the character.

I think it also depends on economics and how she is using funding. I do agree that getting "new" is special. On the other hand, there is stylish new clothing that is relatively inexpensive and so does it make more sense to use $1000 to buy new "teenage" clothing of the kind that most middle class girls are wearing or solicit very high end expensive clothing. It wasn't clear exactly what kind of clothing was being solicited but I doubt that Fendi or Gucci are going away large numbers of their $1000 t-shirts.

I doubt that the sister has been incarcerated for years because of a traffic infraction. While the criminal justice system is flawed they don't hold people for years on a traffic offense unless it is a DUI in which someone was seriously hurt or killed. This isn't a question of inequities in the system for poor people who can't afford bail because Marlo would have had the resources to bail her out This would be especially true since Marlo would be able to provide a good attorney to maneuver the system. I don't know of any place in which someone can be held against their will because of mental health issues or even drug abuse. One can provide a "carrot" by offering rehabilitation instead of prison time for first offenders on a possession charge but one of the major issues of mental health is that it is extremely hard to *force* people to get treatment for mental health after they turn 18 because the test is whether the person present an *immediate* threat to himself or others. In California you can get what is called a 5150 which is a 72 hour psychiatric hold but in my experience they often aren't held that long. I suspect there is a back story that Marlo didn't want to get into - the boys have now been living with her for about 3 years. I couldn't find any information on the sister's current situation but there was a record of her arrest except that she is hospitalized for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder but as I wrote there has to be more to it because there isn't that kind of compulsory long term institutionalization in the US anymore.

In terms of "used" clothing I do understand both points of view. I think Marlo is projecting her own experiences of rejection as being personified in the clothing and toys she received. I would imagine that the quality of the clothing was poor and it was probably presented in a very impersonal manner - perhaps handed to her in a bag without having any impact in terms of choices. However there are many organizations that rely on providing quality used clothing to women and girls in a non-insulting manner. There are organizations that provide prom dresses which have the dresses on racks and so it is like shopping for the girls as they are permitted to try on and select dresses. There are organizations that solicit stylish clothing for women to be able to return to work or go on job interviews and the clothing must be in good condition - current styles and the women are allowed to select their wardrobe.

No shade on Kenya but wasn't wasn't it all her own hair in the early seasons. I thought that was her thing and she did some kind of "test" at some point to show that it was her hair. It seems that even when she isn't wearing the bad wigs her hair has very obvious hair extensions.

If one has ducts already in place for forced air heat then I understand how it can be done but the older homes I am familiar with have the steam radiator systems with no ducting and generally plaster walls. My childhood home was built after WWI and had a coal furnace originally and the cellar actually still had a little room where the coal used to come down. At some point it was converted to oil but it resembled something out of the depths of hell - I can't imagine the amount of asbestos that must have been coating it. Then my father got a new gas burning furnace when oil prices began originally rising in the 1970's with the first embargo Maybe I am misunderstanding but having an air conditioner in each room being cooled but placed in the wall is what I am familiar with in terms of older homes not be retrofitted for central air. People would have the units placed below the window and not in the window so they were fairly unobtrusive. My dog would position himself in front of the unit when we came in from a walk on a summer day - he hated the heat and sun.

It appears that you need to put a unit in every room - the difference is that the condenser is one unit (or possibly two) located outside the home instead of each wall unit having its own condenser. So it is probably more energy efficient than having separate wall units but it would also have other disadvantages especially in some metropolitan areas where one might not want to have equipment outside. In the older homes I am familiar with running ducts into rooms would be a major undertaking. Probably why many relatively upscale homes in the Northeast don't have central air if they were built a certain time. Upgrading electricity is probably another major undertaking but probably simpler because you are snaking wires as opposed to solid ducting.

How does one do a retro install of central air conditioning? I grew up in the North East and much of the housing stock was built before there was air conditioning let alone central air conditioning. People used room units - if you were a bit more upscale you installed the units in the wall below a window they weren't that obtrusive. However I can't imagine how you run ducts inside the walls - seems enormously expensive to tear up the walls and run the ducting. And a lot of those walls are plaster rather than wall board so not easy to repair either. We had the old cast iron radiators that were actually a very efficient method of heating a room. Instead of hot water heaters you had a boiler next to the furnace in the basement which provided hot water as well as steam for radiators

I agree that people don't necessarily work in their majors as I don't think of college as being a from of trade school. I think Liberal Arts provides a flexible background that enables one to successfully work in many fields - logical thinking and good verbal skills are an asset in any field. However I was just wondering why someone without a burning desire to be a police office, PO would decide to pick such a specialized field. Perhaps it is because the HH with that degree seemed to be doing such a turnabout. Not that there is anything wrong with that except that I would think one would try to get an early education degree because I got the sense that she was just a full time babysitter and not a "nanny" in the way that the English Nanny School graduates its nannies with child development courses and first aid emergency training for starters.