04-03-2011 05:07 PM
Yes, UCWino, that is the one. Sadly, a friend owns a condo in that beautiful complex (that's how I'm familiar with the backstory, through his tale of woe). Amazing what a forum like this brings into the light of day.
Uncorking now. To health!
04-03-2011 05:40 PM - edited 04-03-2011 05:41 PM
Particularly riveting weekend reading can be obtained by clicking above--you will arrive at a DRAFT of pending rules to enhance the Bureau of Indian Affairs' involvement with the property rights of individuals (Indian and non-Indian). Among the rules encountered during a quick browse of the !!! 172 !!! pages is a provision to limit future lease terms, including any renewal period options, to a maximum of 50 years. That should pretty much kill all for-sale residential development agreements.
I anticipate retail, commercial, or apartment developers might be willing to build, then turn the property back to the Indian landlords after 50 years of hard wear and tear. Perhaps that is the intent of the Bureau's newly promulgated rules--keeping themselves and their Indian clients out of the glare of bad press resulting from dealing with groups of angry homeowners.
04-04-2011 04:58 PM
We've been watching the Palm Springs area for several years now. I've witnessed the mass exodus out of Seven Lakes as the land deal was finalized. It seems that quite a few of the owners there didn't want to cough up the 70K for the land. Prices there have been in a nose dive ever since.
I believe we also looked into a couple of condos in the PUD that REHound mentioned. My recolection was that the property is divided in half (north and south) and that one side had a deal and the other didn't.
I agree, the land lease factor complicates an already bizantine purchase process. My wife and I pretty much rule them out also. But there are some killer mid century modern condos and houses sitting on those lots. It's a shame really. I think the only way to approach a purchase like this would be as an income property if you can get the numbers to work.
Even this is made difficult by the HOA's limiting you to a certain number of days you can rent per season.
The biggest turn off for me however, is having to pay someone else's property taxes.
04-05-2011 04:59 PM
Trooper, read some of the comments on this link. I think it will give an idea of what to do when it comes to Indian land leases or any leased land for that matter.
04-10-2011 11:53 PM
Holy Cow Lizard - thanks for that eye opener! REHound, thank you for your informative post as well. I have indeed been eyeing Canyon Sands with their lease extension now to 2061, but WTH about the property taxes. If I'm a buyer, *I* pay them even if I don't own the land? What a crock! I considered that one of the huge perks of buying on leased land, no property tax. I think you all have opened my eyes. Thank you.
04-11-2011 12:21 AM
Does anyone out there have a link to a current list of P.S. condos that are on fee simple land, as opposed to Indian lease land?
Also, REHound - if the Bureau of Indian Affairs is contemplating limiting all future leases to a term of 50 years, wouldn't that just about kill anything positive about purchase an existing condo/house on Indian land? I'll use the Canyon Sands condos as an example of how I think I understand it. If I bought today, my "land lease" goes until 2061 - BUT renewal negotiations would have to begin around 2026 (giving it a 4/5 year negotiation period - as seems customary in the articles I've just read). And maybe even sooner since it seems lenders won't lend on the condo if it doesn't at least have 30 + 5 years (for a standard 30 yr fixed mortgage). SO, that means my "investment" would only be solid for about 10, maybe 15 years. After that, all hell could break loose.
And you make a good point that any future residential (purchase) developments that are planned on leased land could be destroyed by this landmine. Is this just a ploy of theirs to get developers to pony up and buy the land outright in the beginning?
04-12-2011 09:25 PM
Formally trained as an architect, my master fell in love with Canyon Sands. It's like having a little pavilion where you can have no drapes or blinds yet maintain total privacy. The basic 'bones' are terrific, with high vaulted wood ceilings, two-car garages, every room opening to a private patio, even the once-dated and now honestly different slumpstone fireplaces! Oh, and wet bars--belly up, Dino!
But when it came time to open the wallet, my master opted for the dull safety of Sunrise Racquet Club and fee simple title. Since he will probably retire to and die from the community, and still needs shelter for 30 or perhaps 40 years, it just seemed prudent to fix as many expenses as possible.
As to shutting down new (for sale) residential development on Indian lands through the limited term of land leases, I think it is the Bureau of Indian Affairs' way of discouraging non-Indians from developing any feelings of ownership toward reservation lands. I don't think the BIA realized, 30 or 40 years ago, how short and painful a 65 year lease would prove to be. Administering the current leases, lease extensions, and lawsuits is more than those good bureaucrats can cope with. And I'm guessing that BIA does not want, in the future, to be found culpable for the wholesale transfer of Indian lands to non-Indians, therefore the pohibition of either sale or long-term leases.
One more example of the Federal Government's ongoing Father-Knows-Best attitude towards Native Americans (and my master is a white boy). Me, I'm an 11 year old Standard Poodle; what would I care about an expiring land lease? I'd have taken the private patios of Canyon Sands. Woof!
PS: I don't know of a link to the "LIST" of lease/fee simple condos, but on Redfin it usually appears in the listing (we begged for this and ultimately the wise geeks who write for Redfin added the field--Property Information>Land).