Houses are selling like crazy in Mountain View
Mountain View Voice Mountain View Voice: Home sales buck downward trend (November 28, 2008)
Home sales buck downward trend
Larger market turmoil fails to deter real estate buyers in Mountain Viewby Daniel DeBolt
Share:
ADVERTISEMENT
Stanford Terrace Inn
While the median price of a home has decreased in Mountain View over the last year, the number of home sales has gone up.In October of last year there were 48 home sales. This October there were 53, four of which were foreclosures.
Strangely, the sales are happening in a very shaky market, says broker Nick French.
“Talk about uncertainty,” French said. “There’s job market uncertainty, economic uncertainty, stock market uncertainty.”
But it’s times like these that are the best time to buy, he says, when fewer people are looking. He added that he’s been buying up property himself. Others apparently have been, too.
French likes to quote the character Ricky Roma in the movie “Glengarry Glen Ross”: “I subscribe to the law of contrary public opinion. … If everyone thinks one thing, then I say, bet the other way.”
The public’s opinion may be reflected in Mountain View’s median home prices for October: $971,858 for single family homes and $646,803 for condos, compared to $1,037,654 for single family homes and $561,604 for condos during the same month last year.
If now isn’t an awesome time to buy in Mountain View, I don’t know what is. Real Bay Area at its best!
Check this out:
Historically, Mountain View housing prices don’t go down very much in a down market, French says. Many buyers have been able to justify the investment.
At the corner of Calderon and Dana streets, the new “Wild Orchid” development is evidence the housing market is still alive and kicking. After going on sale in May, 30 of the 39 town homes sold for over $900,000. Sales didn’t even slow in October.
It’s clear, the bottom has been reached in Mountain View. At this point, prices are set to soar in 2009. Buy now, and sit tight for the ride. Just think, in 40 years, you can post a comment just like this guy did:
Posted by Mr. Bernier, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Nov 27, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Every MV resident that has owned real estate in MV for over 20 years should be tax exempt from property taxes. I think this would be a nice little bonus for those of us that were here first.
Be a founder today! Buy buy buy!
December 7th, 2008 at 9:26 am
This latest news is another slap in the face to the fools who preach the theory of housing downturn spreading from Manteca to RBA. As I stated many times: Based on the facts, there is no downturn here.
December 7th, 2008 at 9:41 am
> Every MV resident that has owned real estate in MV for over 20 years should be tax exempt from property taxes. I think this would be a nice little bonus for those of us that were here first.
Yes, because Prop 13 is not enough.
I love the other (sarcastic) comments too:
> Free utilities should also be included as a nice bonus for long time residents.
> yeah- and ice cream!
December 7th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Come on Burbed, you left out the most important part of the article:
On Colony Street, a 108-unit Regis Homes development sold five homes in October alone.
This is Gables End! They’re selling like sprinkles cupcakes!
December 7th, 2008 at 9:58 am
From the Chronicle: SF Local housing shows 5-year net value growth
Excerpts:
“according to the third-quarter survey released Nov. 25 by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, out of 292 metropolitan markets, 273 showed positive net home values over the previous five years, while 19 were negative.”
“Buy a house and hold on to it for five to 10 years in all but the most severely depressed local economies, and you’ll probably see growth in its value, even if a rough patch of price deflation intervenes.”
“In the latest quarterly study, dozens of local markets showed positive appreciation for the past 12 months, despite negative national numbers.”
“the statistical fact is that values in the overwhelming majority of markets are positive over a five-year timeline.”
**********
Reviewing the key concepts:
1. Real Estate is always local.
2. Real Estate is a great long term investment.
December 7th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Correction:
The first line should read:
From the SF Chronicle: Local housing shows 5-year net value growth
December 7th, 2008 at 10:09 am
New listings from Sunnyvale 94087 shows no sign of price moderation:
1149 Snowberry Ct. – Eichler for $1.087M
1431 Knowlton Dr. – 3 bedroom for $1.2M
Donnock Way – 3 bedroom for $995K
And of course, the now famous $2.1M listing introduced earlier.
December 7th, 2008 at 10:11 am
But the price did go down in Mountain View! It looks as though the price per square foot (which I think is a much more telling measure) fell 10% over the last 11 months in Mountain View.
http://www.altosresearch.com/research/CA/MOUNTAIN+VIEW
Considering that we’re in a historical financial meltdown, I don’t think that you should use any 5 year stat to predict anything.
December 7th, 2008 at 10:13 am
More good news: Silicon valley companies seeking to reprice stock options.
December 7th, 2008 at 10:14 am
If you think the sky is falling, just remember: there is a rescue plan for everything.
December 7th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Wasn’t the primary reason for the crazy price appreciations of the past 10 years the irresponsible lending practices of these financial institutions?
What makes you suddenly believe that the price will shoot up again? Even if there’s no dramatic downfall, I don’t see any crazy appreciation any time soon.
December 7th, 2008 at 10:18 am
>>But the price did go down in Mountain View!
Don’t look at useless aggregate data. What’s happening in this economy is that the low end of the city is selling more than the high end. Price has not changed whatsoever in the desirable areas.
December 7th, 2008 at 10:19 am
>>What makes you suddenly believe that the price will shoot up again?
The 4.5% interest rate that the Treasury is cooking up right now.
December 7th, 2008 at 10:24 am
> Considering that we’re in a historical financial meltdown, I don’t think that you should use any 5 year stat to predict anything.
Depends what your agenda is…
If we were listening to (and believing) only the “good news” RealEstater regurgitates the Dow would be at 20,000 already.
December 7th, 2008 at 10:30 am
> Don’t look at useless aggregate data. What’s happening in this economy is that the low end of the city is selling more than the high end. Price has not changed whatsoever in the desirable areas.
I’ve been monitoring these areas (Palo Alto, Cupertino, Mountain View, Sunnyvale) for the past year periodically. I almost made a mistake of buying a townhouse in Palo Alto (whose price has since fallen 100k+).
I’ve noticed that
1. I’m seeing more properties than ever that are for sale now.
2. Prices on some of outrageously priced properties (houses with 1300 sqft lot size, condos) have all fallen quite a bit.
With more layoffs coming in tech companies, it would be a mistake to jump in to buy IMO.
And there are a lot of much cheaper alternatives nearby now. Not everyone who works in Mountain View areas need to buy overpriced 1000 sqft.
December 7th, 2008 at 10:47 am
If you think the sky is falling, just remember: there is a rescue plan for everything.
Bankruptcy is so overrated.
December 7th, 2008 at 11:10 am
>> The 4.5% interest rate that the Treasury is cooking up right now.
I agree that an interest rate of 4.5% would spur home purchases. However, this rumored home loan interest rate drop is the brainchild of the Paulson led Treasury. Thus far, the Paulson policies have shown the department’s ineptitude and ineffectiveness. Somehow, Treasury will screw this up.
My guess is that the 4.5% will only extend to a subset of refis. Or, if they could somehow extend this to new loans, there would be a loan amount cap.
December 7th, 2008 at 11:42 am
WaitingForTheFall Says:
>>I’ve been monitoring these areas (Palo Alto, Cupertino, Mountain View, Sunnyvale) for the past year periodically. I almost made a mistake of buying a townhouse in Palo Alto (whose price has since fallen 100k+).
I would not recommend you to buy a townhouse or condo anywhere, including Palo Alto. The reasons are:
1. Ever increasing association fees.
2. Lack of land ownership.
3. Over-building in many places, including parts of Palo Alto and Cupertino.
In my view, prices for townhomes and condos will not follow the same trajectory as single family homes. It’s better to buy a small, old, and crappy house on a standard sized lot than to buy a brand new condo with state of the art appliances.
December 7th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
wow, where to begin?
Doesn’t anyone find this part of the article a bit disturbing?
French said he was surprised recently when the prospective buyers of a $1.5 million house couldn’t qualify for a loan even with a 40 percent down payment.
RE#4 – that just means prices haven’t fallen below 2003 levels on a useless aggregate level. Not very comforting, IMO. Not to mention that the shit didn’t start hitting the fan until late 2007. This party is just getting started. For a look at the future, check this out:
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/Changing_Prospects_for_Building_Home_Equity_2008_10.pdf
The link in #8 didn’t work, but I’d MUCH rather companies were doing well enough not to need to re-price stock options. Just another sign of how crappy the economy is doing.
December 7th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Where to begin, where to begin. It’s like Thanksgiving potluck. So many yummy choices, and still Roger brings nothing to the table. Didn’t help with the clean-up either.
December 7th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Re #4:
From the same article, we learn this:
Compare this with the official pronouncement from our average tech guy:
Now I wonder why RE omitted the Austin statistic, when it actually bolsters his argument?
December 7th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
You will never hear Roger say anything good about anything that’s not Palo Alto 94301
The poor guy has to work days and night just to satisfy his boss and the needs of his trophy wife, give him a break.
December 7th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
To clarify the last sentence of #20, it should read: “Now I wonder why RE omitted the Austin statistic when quoting from the article in #4…”
December 7th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Don’t look at useless aggregate data. What’s happening in this economy is that the low end of the city is selling more than the high end. Price has not changed whatsoever in the desirable areas.
———–
Don’t you guys think that our Roger should substantiate with some data before making this claim?
In addition, if low enders are selling more than high enders – that does not sound good. Of course if that is true at all.
December 7th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Pralay, there are two kinds of data; useless aggregate data and irrelevent anecdotal data. That’s why Roger never offers any.
December 7th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Of course not. Roger is the lord of ipse-dixitism.
December 7th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
>>What makes you suddenly believe that the price will shoot up again?
The 4.5% interest rate that the Treasury is cooking up right now.
————–
And this is not a prediction, but fact. Our Roger hates prediction.
December 7th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
If we were listening to (and believing) only the “good news” RealEstater regurgitates the Dow would be at 20,000 already.
———
And overbidding would have been everywhere and Cupertino SP/LP would still would have been 106% instead of 94.2%. And his “desirable” home would have been sold over million dollar after crazy overbidding.
December 7th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Pralay, there are two kinds of data; useless aggregate data and irrelevent anecdotal data. That’s why Roger never offers any.
———
Yes we should always rely on his “firm grip on the pulse of the market”. After all he is here to help us. We must trust him.
December 7th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
From the Chronicle: SF Local housing shows 5-year net value growth
————
Another “pathetic” story from doom and gloom SF Chronicle.
December 7th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
@ 18, good find.
“Historically, home prices and rents have moved in line with the economy and with each other.
Home prices nationwide have typically risen at approximately the same rate as the overall rate of
inflation. As a result, over most of the 20th century – from 1895 to 1995 – there was virtually no
change in real home prices. Rental costs show a similar trend, moving up and down with home
prices.”
They did forget however to preface the statement by stating that this naturally excludes the bay area, to which basic economic principles do not apply.
December 7th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Meh. I liked burbed better when it was “look at this CRAZY listing, LOl!” Lately it’s gotten to be just another permabear site.
December 7th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
R found one interesting nugget from what I referenced in #18. Here are a couple of others:
Given the remaining mismatch between home prices and rent levels in most bubble markets, we
argue it is still unwise for policy makers to attempt to directly intervene in housing markets to
maintain what are historically unprecedented high home prices. Policies that encourage occupancy,
discourage vacancy, and maintain employment to stabilize hard hit communities are likely to be the
best approach to assuring prices do not fall any further than is necessary to reestablish a stable
housing market.
.
Out of 33 metropolitan areas that saw a
decrease in ownership costs, 26 were in bubble markets, 19 of which were located in California and
Florida.
.
Nevertheless, house prices across the
bubble markets still have a long way to fall.
.
see figure 2 on page 8. They predict the largest amount of negative equity from now to 2012 for the SF Bay area – WE’RE #1!
.
The other interesting thing, related to table 2 at the end, is they calcluate the drop in equity based on low-, mid-, and high cost scenarios represented by interest rates at 6, 7 and 8% respectively. For the San Jose MSA, the drop is the same regardless of interest rate. So unless I’m reading the report wrong, interest rates have a negligible impact on the local market. I find that surprising.
December 7th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Prof Bleen says,
>>Now I wonder why RE omitted the Austin statistic, when it actually bolsters his argument?
I’m sure you’re familiar with the term “Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics”. Quoting statistics without understanding the underlying dynamics is what mass media does best. When Mountain View has 4 foreclosures, they will print a headline saying: Foreclosures rose 400% in Silicon Valley!
Big freaking deal Austin increased by “35%” since 2003. It rose 35% from the dismal level it was at before, and it rose 35% during a period when many homes in the Bay Area rose 80% or more.
The “quick sand” analogy is applicable in that homes over there take much longer to sell than the Bay Area. If you bought in 2003, it’s unlikely you can actually sell for 35% more. It only means that builders in the area are charging 35% more for new construction, which there is no shortage of. Again, refer back to my exchange with AustinDweller. There wasn’t much disagreement in our exchange.
Finally, it’s my opinion that Austin will fall back to trend over the longer term, meaning, the homeowner will hardly gain anything in appreciation.
December 7th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Pralay says,
>>Don’t you guys think that our Roger should substantiate with some data before making this claim?
Forget about data, Pralay, How about you provide us with one data point to support your crash theory? A single data point is all we ask for: Idnentify one house that has dropped by 20% in any neighborhood you would consider buying.
December 7th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Herve says,
>>You will never hear Roger say anything good about anything that’s not Palo Alto 94301
We already have Pralay here. We don’t need another bullshiter.
As madhaus can attest to, I talk plenty about 94087. I doubt you’ll even find much mention of 94301.
December 7th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
> We already have Pralay here. We don’t need another bullshiter.
So why do you keep coming back?
December 7th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
“Finally, it’s my opinion that Austin will fall back to trend over the longer term, meaning, the homeowner will hardly gain anything in appreciation.”
L
L
L
L
L
LLLLLLLL
OOOOOOOO
O O
O O
O O
O O
OOOOOOOO
L
L
L
L
L
LLLLLLLL
December 7th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
I guess not everyone has enough imagination to pick a screen name for themselves, they have to use someone elses.
December 7th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Reading that comment from Mr. Bernier about everybody owning property for 20 years being exempt from taxes really pisses me off.
What he really means is that he thinks everybody over 55 should be exempt from property taxes.
December 7th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Waiting for the fall, I agree with you that prices have fallen, in some cases a lot. Many desirable areas have seen significant price reductions, but most of you are not satisfied.
December 7th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Forget about data, Pralay, How about you provide us with one data point to support your crash theory?
———-
Well, that’s a separate topic. Would you substantiate your post #11? Even if my theory is wrong, that does not make your #11 correct. Does it? As you did not provide data, I assume it is pure bullshit.
December 7th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
“Many desirable areas have seen significant price reductions, but most of you are not satisfied.”
Life in the RBA will get interesting when Google is trading in double digits. Won’t have too long to wait for that.
December 7th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
RE, did you read the whole article? You said: “When Mountain View has 4 foreclosures…”
Your article said it already did have 4 that sold in October. What do you suppose the odds are that those four were the ONLY ones in all of Mountain View?
December 7th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
“Many desirable areas have seen significant price reductions, but most of you are not satisfied.”
WG, I find this a little odd. Your language infers that people who assert prices are unsupportable are chasing some sort of satisfaction in the market. I can assure you that, in at least one instance, this is not the case. The fact that income levels do not support housing prices is an objectively true statement. You’ve said this before. Nobody thinks that the market follows individual desires. Perhaps you wish it followed yours and thus displace that desire on others.
At this point, the only people who are bullish regarding real estate are people who have a vested interest. The smart money found a way out 2 years ago.
December 7th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
this is mostly off topic, but I was at two open house this weekend in 94301. Hard to explain but easy to observe — 94301 is just different. The sunny sidewalks are filled with strollers and friends. Every family is perfect and people are willing to pay for their slice of pleasantville.
The change is very noticeable when you cross into 94306, and buyers are different still in surrounding cities. Allied Arts in Menlo Park has the same feel as 94301, but until you visit these area you won’t understand. Prices are going to be very sticky here on the way down, and judging from the attendence at this week’s open houses, pent up demand remains huge. Now, if people stop having babies…
December 7th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Steve, you just fed the troll…
December 7th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Someone’s gotta keep it alive…
The facts are killing it.
December 8th, 2008 at 6:42 am
Big freaking deal Austin increased by “35%” since 2003. It rose 35% from the dismal level it was at before, and it rose 35% during a period when many homes in the Bay Area rose 80% or more.
Be careful, RE: If you keep moving those goal posts, the field will be so full of post holes that it won’t be good for anything but soccer games between teams of hooligans infiltrating from East Palo Alto.
December 8th, 2008 at 8:05 am
The smart money found a way out 2 years ago.
Probably one of the best statements I’ve heard on this site in months. Indeed, the folks on here who are still behaving like its the 2003 housing market in the BA, which even now, after 2 years of crashing is still priced way the hell out of line with even the upper 20% income average are in my opinion making some stupid decisions. Sure- buying up “investment” homes this year is cheaper than last year. But the price is still way beyond logical investment practice.
I was listening to a financial show a few weeks ago and the guy who is on there for one would probably give people like RE a sound spanking for suggesting real estate as a primary investment. BUT he did mention that if you truly felt like you had to invest in it, do so in areas that are less volitile and with financial levels that are more inline with incomes. In other words, you could buy a few ramshackle 400-450k starter homes in the Bay Area… or you could buy 3-4 homes in areas like NC, TX, AL, GA, and in most cases have fairly healthy rental returns immediately. Of course the likely outcome would be that you might not get the chance to experience another crazy bubble like the one we just had here- which I assume is the brand of kool-aid RE investors are still drunk on here- but on the other hand, investing in areas that have predictable and steady growth would be safer and more reliable bets than betting it all in one volatile area like the BA.
And RE… again I think its sad that you basically think an entire area is bad( Austin) just because of what?- housing appreciation? Who cares about housing appreciation when the life in general you could have there would likely be a higher quality of life than the same in the Bay Area. Home appreciation is not the key to life or happiness. I recall that you mentioned you were 24 years old. You have a lot of maturing to do.
December 8th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Dow soars again!
December 8th, 2008 at 9:04 am
Bob says,
>>you could buy a few ramshackle 400-450k starter homes in the Bay Area… or you could buy 3-4 homes in areas like NC, TX, AL, GA, and in most cases have fairly healthy rental returns immediately.
You don’t even need to go out to those places. You can find similar prices within 2 hours of where you are, in Tracy, Stockton, down to the depths of the Central Valley. You can also buy a 4-plex apartment in parts of the Bay Area for not much more, and get 4 rental checks each month. When you do that, you’re investing for income rather than appreciation. It’s a lot of hard work having to deal with many tenants and doing repairs. These properties are often in remote or undesirable areas, therefore the management of them may affect your quality of life. I’m not saying you won’t make money that way, but compare that to buying a couple of selective properties in the RBA and watch your money double every 10 years. Anytime you want to sell, you can easily get out. That’s not something you can say for other locations. When you sell, you have the option of moving into the properties for 2 years, and get a $500K tax exemption. If you do that with 4 homes in NC, TX, AL, GA, you’ll squander your life away.
December 8th, 2008 at 9:14 am
double every ten years?! To hell with that. You said up there that some RBA homes appreciated 80% (OMG!) in just the last FIVE years! During a time when two of those years saw overall declines. Just think; if you sold two years ago as anon mentioned, you coulda’ had your doubling in just THREE FREAKIN’ YEARS! Booya!
December 8th, 2008 at 9:17 am
on a more serious note, RE said “When you sell, you have the option of moving into the properties for 2 years, and get a $500K tax exemption.
Investor-dood, you really have to keep up with the tax laws. The first bailout changed that rule. Now your tax exemption is pro-rated based on how many years you lived there. So rent it for 8 years, live in it for 2 and you get 20% of $500k tax-free.
December 8th, 2008 at 9:19 am
I’m not saying you won’t make money that way, but compare that to buying a couple of selective properties in the RBA and watch your money double every 10 years.
———-
Yes baby, time is changing. Just RBA does not cut anymore. You need “selective properties”.
December 8th, 2008 at 9:42 am
“DOW Soars Again!!!!”
- which doesn’t automatically mean people will buy houses, so stop urinating all over yourself.
Secondly, once again you display your financial stupidity. Buying investment homes in Stockton would be committing financial suicide. There are thousands upon thousands of abandoned homes in the valley. The jobless rate is one of the highest in the country. Rent has spiraled downward. Even if you did buy one or two there, good luck finding renters, and good luck trying to come close to even breaking even on their sale 5-10 years from now.
I mention NC,GA, and TX because these states have some of the fastest growing cities for several good reasons.
A: They’re affordable and people like me, who though make good money in the Bay Area are moving to, or planning to move to.
B: They’re constantly hailed in various magazines, news reports, and surveys as being the best places to raise families. I think the Bay Area is now scraping the bottom in that regard. Places that attract families also tends to attract solid, reliable workforces of people intent on getting jobs and keeping them, which equals healthier economics for businesses.
C: Many of these states- My home state included- offer steep tax incentives and property deals for out of state and out of country businesses and manufactures. The industrial dynamics there is more flexible.
D: These same states also have lower business tax as well. Additionally, companies that deal in manufacturing including everything from electronics, cars and furniture don’t suffer from having to deal with union demands, hence another positive benefit for doing business.
E: On average, less income and personal gains taxation. This appeals to the elderly, whom at one time flocked to FL, but are now going to other places, like outside Austin, within Raleigh, and sprinkled throughout the South.
Lastly, the boom never hit these areas as hard as it did on the coasts. They are having a correction of their own. But the gap between income and housing prices is a fraction of what it is in the Bay Area, hence there’s a lot less downward pressure. The area is assumed as a safe-haven for middle class families, and in this country, the middle class still makes up the backbone of the economy. So if you want to chase after the opportunity, this region is a good bet.
Then again, I really don’t like locusts from other states buying up land either and screwing up once-beautiful areas with their Mcmansions. So perhaps its just as well that you squander your money here.
December 8th, 2008 at 10:30 am
nomadic says,
>>Now your tax exemption is pro-rated based on how many years you lived there. So rent it for 8 years, live in it for 2 and you get 20% of $500k tax-free.
Check bankrate.com. Get your facts straight.
December 8th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Excerpts from the bankrate.com article:
“You don’t have to buy another home with your sale proceeds. You can use the money to travel to Europe in style, buy an RV and drive across the country or get all those designer shoes you never could afford before.
Even better, there’s no limit on the number of times you can use the home-sale exemption. In most cases, you can make tax-free profits of $250,000 (or $500,000 depending on your filing status) every time you sell a home.”
December 8th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Bob,
If those states are so great, why do they need to give so many incentives for people to move there? Why are these places so cheap? Is it like a free meal that nobody cares to pick up? You know how the saying goes, “If it sounds too good to be true…”
December 8th, 2008 at 10:57 am
RE, even with “facts” you are a complete babbling idiot. You left out the key part of my post: The first bailout changed that rule.
See the very end of your dumb link? – Posted: Jan. 2, 2006
When was the bailout? Hmm, 2008. Which comes first? 2006 or 2008. Take your time. Check your answer.
Here’s an article that puts it into language you can understand:
http://www.thirdage.com/real-estate/new-tax-rules-could-cost-second-home-owners
(My original post assumed this is a new investment property that was being acquired.)
December 8th, 2008 at 11:01 am
If those states are so great, why do they need to give so many incentives for people to move there? Why are these places so cheap? Is it like a free meal that nobody cares to pick up? You know how the saying goes, “If it sounds too good to be true…”
I can answer it very easily for you as someone who actually grew up and still has family members there. 20 years ago, the entire Southeast was economically depressed. In fact, many parts of it was isolated from the rest of the country and didn’t get a freeway system that linked it to the East Coast until the 60′s. Even as a kid, the area was wallowing in economic stagnation.
Since the late 80′s, the area has had a Renaissance. To give you an idea of just how much growth has occurred, Atlanta was a city of around 1.5 million when I was a kid. As it stands now, its well over 5 million, and most of that growth happened since 2000.
But the short answer is that there’s simply a lot less people. California is around 38 million people. TN’s population is just over 6 million. Less people equals less competition for space. Hence it is more affordable. You seem to be making a really retarded assumption that if an area is actually affordable, then it must not be a good place to live.
Anyhow, I’m wasting more time on you since you will FOREVER claim that real estate is never-failing. Its impossible that you’re not a real estate agent. Otherwise you’re just a plebeian, blind consumer making misinformed decisions all on the sole purpose of home appreciation. That you can’t see that yourself is endlessly fascinating to me and probably others.
December 8th, 2008 at 11:20 am
“When was the bailout? Hmm, 2008. Which comes first? 2006 or 2008. Take your time. Check your answer.”
LOL.
Someone’s getting out their calculator…
December 8th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Someone’s getting out their calculator…
——
Wait for his extra-ordinary convincing explanation. Probably it will be along the line of “does it matter”. Real estate is long term investment. It does not matter if it is 2008 or 2006 – just two year difference.
December 8th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Good gawd, I just cleaned up in here (without any help) and the bickering starts again.
Would you all just STOP IT?
December 8th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
aw, ma, that’s no fun!
Look on the bright side – the troll went away for awhile. When he reappears, he’ll bring a whole new topic!
December 8th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Sorry, nomadic, but I was cleaning up that room for HOURS! Everyone just ate and left. It was a real pain to scrub the stew off my bass amp, too.
December 8th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Oh yeah, madhaus, I tried a Sprinkles cupcake this weekend. Red velvet. I have to say, Sprinkles appears to be much ado about nothing. Unless red velvet isn’t supposed to have a discernible chocolate flavor. (I’ve never had it before.) The cream cheese frosting had a bit of a crust on it too. I’ll admit it was very “tender” – it was so crumbly it was hard to eat.
I’ll have to try Kara’s next. See if they can beat “Icing on the Cake” in LG. (Or homemade.)
December 8th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
My son didn’t really care for Sprinkles that much, and I’ve been meaning to try Kara’s too. Be sure to let us know if they’re any good.
I haven’t been back since the week I posted about them. They’re in the dinner because they seem to have become a running joke, along with the engraved bricks and Zanon‘s never appearing Alt-A report.
December 8th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
I love this “prices double every year” argument which comes up.
Let’s say I buy a choice place in PA just off University for $1M. After 10 years, it should be worth $2m, after my 30 year loan is paid off, it’s worth $8M, woohoo! Now, if I pass it on to my kids, and they own it for 30 years, it’s doubled another three times, so it’s worth $64M. Awesome! My grandkids may inherit a $64 million house which will double three more times over their generation, and it will be worth $512 million.
If people don’t understand why this rule can’t hold, they’re being very foolish.
December 8th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Oops, type, “prices double every 10 years”. Prices only double every year in RE’s neighborhood.
December 8th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
To the burbed regulars on Alt-A, it looks like it is time to retire that never ending round robin. The entire reason anyone argued that Alt-A was a problem was due to whatever resets were forthcoming. But with rates so low, adjustables are lower than fixed right now. These people should probably refi anyway and they may have difficulty doing so for now, but the fed seems like it is getting something ready for them.
We never had many Alt-A’s here anyway, and many of those that exist are fixed. But just to humor people here is what BW has to say:
Is there relief in sight for borrowers who want to refinance jumbo adjustable-rate mortgages but have been shut out of the market?
People got paranoid about adjustable-rate jumbo mortgages&mortgages that exceed $417,000&about a year ago. So many people have them, and there were worries people wouldn’t be able to cover mortgage payments if they reset at higher rates. But now there has been a 180-degree turnaround. The rates on adjustable-rate jumbo mortgages are actually lower than fixed-rate jumbo mortgages. For example, the popular 5/1 jumbo adjustable-rate, which has an initial interest rate for five years and then resets annually, is 6.72%. The traditional 30-year fixed rate is 7.49%. So even if you want to get out of a jumbo adjustable-rate mortgage into a fixed-rate mortgage, now is not the best time to refinance. Ride it out, and you will probably save a few bucks if rates go lower.
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/dec2008/db2008125_725021.htm?chan=rss_topStories_ssi_5
December 8th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
> Dow soars again!
Is it 20,000 yet?
December 8th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Almost. Another 37 days like this and we’ll be there!
December 8th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
> Almost. Another 37 days like this and we’ll be there!
Thanks for the tip. Any stock you recommend? Seriously, is Chuckie going to post every single time the Dow is up?!?
Hey Roger, check that out. Remember the best 5 days since 1932? Well it looks like it took quite some time to go back to pre-1930 levels.
December 8th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Herve, it took around 25 years for it to rebound.
Now, if someone had bought RBA property during the time, they would have enjoyed the usual doubling every 10 years.
Their home would be worth roughly 5x what they paid for it after that same amount of time.
Moral of the story? Buy RBA property.
December 8th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
You’re not thinking positively enough, anon. If you consider the percentage change (+3.46%) rather than the arithmetic change (+298.76), and extrapolate using that, we’ll make 20,000 in only 24 days (log(20000/8934.18) / log(1.0346)). Runway Two Eight Left, you’re cleared for takeoff!
December 8th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Waow, I can’t imagine how much brie I’ll be able to buy with all that money in 24 days!
December 8th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Moral of the story? Buy RBA property.
——
As we speak, powerful people are framing all the rescue plan and keeping interest rate low. Once that happens, RBA real estate market will be crazy. And don’t forget foreigners. Once they arrive, they will make it super-crazy. All the doom and gloom people will be sitting duck like losers.
BTW, powerful people will make sure that Austin does not get benefited by rescue plan and low interest rate. All the Austiners will be sitting duck like losers too.
December 8th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
You’re not thinking positively enough, Prof. Bleen.
Indeed, assuming an EXPONENTIAL recovery, following the form a*x*x + b*x + c, we plug in the following (taking x = 0 as the value this morning)
a(x)2 + bx + c = 8,635.42 (yesterday)
a(x+1)2 + bx + c = 8934.18 (today)
a(x+???)2 + bx + c = 20,000 (our goal)
A quick computation gives us our equation for x=0 (yesterday):
95.677(x)2 + 203.082x + 8635.42
And resolving for ??? (subtracting the day that already passed by) we find that THERE ARE ONLY 8.8888 DAYS LEFT BEFORE THE DOW EXPLODES 20,0000!!!!!!! THIS IS A SIGN!!!! THE CHINESE ARE COMING!!!!
December 8th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
DT, you’re being ridiculous.
No assets increase in value exponentially.
December 8th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
You win, DreamT—even I am no quadratic fanatic. : )
December 8th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
anon – Ah?
Don’t force me to look up stocks that contradict your statement over a period of nine days 
December 8th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
> THIS IS A SIGN!!!! THE CHINESE ARE COMING!!!!
That would seem to corroborate that.
December 8th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
“Don’t force me to look up stocks that contradict your statement over a period of nine days”
What? A bank account isn’t good enough?
December 8th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
The Chinese are coming, to buy Volvo from Ford.
December 8th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
RealEstater – I think my post didn’t need the subtext, it was self-explanatory. The numbers don’t lie.
December 8th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
nomadic,
You are correct that the tax law changed. For the record, I have no problem admitting my mistake, unlike the loser Pralay who refused to admit his mis-statement, later apologized, and then tried to take it back.
In any case, this is not a deal breaker, as there is a strategy to counter every policy. For example, taxes can be deferred perpetually via the well known 1031 exchange method, then you just put in into a Living Trust and leave it to your next generation, without ever paying any taxes.
December 8th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
DreamT,
I didn’t read your post.
December 8th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
RealEstater,
I didn’t read yours either.
December 8th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
If it makes you feel better.
December 8th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
mtv-renter,
>>Let’s say I buy a choice place in PA just off University for $1M. After 10 years, it should be worth $2m, after my 30 year loan is paid off, it’s worth $8M, woohoo!
That sounds about right. If you work backwards 30 years, you’d see that this is not a fantasy.
December 8th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
It makes me feel great! You quote my post verbatim, then assert that you didn’t read it, while dropping a act of paragon of humility. It’s rich! It’s precious! It’s a gem!
December 8th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
And to top it all off, he even finds time to give a bad ‘lesson’ which exemplifies one of the most commonly held misconceptions.
Pretty incredible.
December 8th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
DreamT says,
>>You quote my post verbatim, then assert that you didn’t read it
OK, what did I quote, and where did you write that?
(This is a serious post, not a joke)
December 8th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Another example of well-rounded personality from prestigious zipcode. Before #87 DreamT posted only 3 comments, and Roger The Brickster only 2. But yet the well-rounded personality cannot figure out what he quoted.
December 9th, 2008 at 12:04 am
Pralay – My Math was obviously not well-rounded enough: next time I won’t include decimals!
December 9th, 2008 at 12:05 am
Seriously, I only read #82, which contains the quote the Chinese are coming.
December 9th, 2008 at 12:07 am
DT,
This is not a post.
December 9th, 2008 at 12:10 am
I’ll grant that #82 was well worth the read.
anon: I’ll just say this
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
December 9th, 2008 at 12:10 am
Pralay – My Math was obviously not well-rounded enough: next time I won’t include decimals!
—–
Not really. You need to put all the number large enough to be visible. I am talking about multi-million range.
December 9th, 2008 at 12:13 am
I’ll grant that #82 was well worth the read.
anon: I’ll just say this
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
——-
And just to make sure #98 is well-read by well-rounded personalities, I am quoting it.
December 9th, 2008 at 12:17 am
RE – Since you like it spelled out, #85 was a _not serious_ post, meant to poke fun at the folks that rely too heavily on past & obsolete numbers to infer stock market health or real estate health, by pointing out that 8.8888 is sufficient proof and doesn’t need a link to an article. Phew!
Loosen up, man!
December 9th, 2008 at 12:21 am
I read today on Wikipedia that a drone is the male of the honeybee and other bees, stingless and making no honey. Or alternately, “a person who lives on the labor of others; parasitic loafer.”
Here I thought a drone was instead a predictable, rambling, monotonous and persistent poster! You learn something everyday on the Internet.
December 9th, 2008 at 12:25 am
DreamT says,
>>Since you like it spelled out, #85 was a _not serious_ post, meant to poke fun at the folks that rely too heavily on past & obsolete numbers to infer stock market health or real estate health,
It’s all relative. When Pralay is here, everything else looks like serious posts.
December 9th, 2008 at 12:27 am
> I’ll grant that #82 was well worth the read.
Thank you. A lot of thoughts went into it.
December 9th, 2008 at 12:29 am
I read today on Wikipedia that a drone is the male of the honeybee and other bees, stingless and making no honey. Or alternately, “a person who lives on the labor of others; parasitic loafer.”
——
Testosterone, testosterone! Of course if one has engraved brick, more power to testosterone.
December 9th, 2008 at 12:29 am
It read like a novel.
December 9th, 2008 at 12:31 am
Here I thought a drone was instead a predictable, rambling, monotonous and persistent poster!
—–
Or unmanned aerial vehicle remotely controlled by
someonesome industry.December 9th, 2008 at 12:33 am
“My Math was obviously not well-rounded enough: next time I won’t include decimals!”
DreamT, I’m going to let you in on a little secret . In this world, you don’t need to be able to be some sort of math wizard genius who can use decimals or solve systems of equations, or spell wright, or really have ne uzeful skillz or ahbility.
Wat u needz is a shitty eggo centrick personality, a attitude that values objects more than people, and an inability to empathize.
December 9th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Wow, either you guys are all learning, or you’re catching some disease from Pralay.
December 9th, 2008 at 12:57 am
Hey.
Leggo my eggo.
December 9th, 2008 at 1:04 am
DreamT, I’m going to let you in on a little secret .
——–
LOL! Diploma, address and mate.
December 9th, 2008 at 1:30 am
Wow, either you guys are all learning, or you’re catching some disease from Pralay.
———-
Yes, it is indeed getting old.
December 9th, 2008 at 6:12 am
Definitely. Let’s cut the games and eat dinner in peace. Will someone please pass the mustard?
December 9th, 2008 at 7:49 am
To the burbed regulars on Alt-A, it looks like it is time to retire that never ending round robin.
Again, its anybody’s call. You can’t deny that a LOT of people took out these loans, and as seen by the steady growth of foreclosures, many could barely afford the payments prior to the loans resetting.
Latest reports I’ve read projects an increase of foreclosures from 4%-8% by 2009. NAR also released a report today that pending home sales slipped for October.
Bottom line: I know a lot of the RE cheerleaders here are wishing, hoping, praying for the market to recover right now, but it ain’t happening. Sorry.
December 9th, 2008 at 8:40 am
Bob says,
>>You can’t deny that a LOT of people took out these loans, and as seen by the steady growth of foreclosures,
Again, there are minimal foreclosures in the Real Bay Area cities. That should be an indication such loan is not a factor there.
December 9th, 2008 at 9:21 am
RE,
once again: Domino effect. Other areas did and their prices are coming down dramatically. This has the effect of causing young families and professionals to consider other options. Cheaper areas next to expensive ones will erode the later’s prices.
December 9th, 2008 at 10:17 am
from Bloomberg:
“Fewer Americans signed contracts to buy previously owned homes in October as credit markets seized, signaling the housing slump will extend into a fourth year.”
FOURTH YEAR??? For real?
December 9th, 2008 at 11:02 am
nomadic, stop being such a Negative Nelly. The Dow soared today! Oh wait, that was yesterday. No, Friday. But houses in Mountain View are selling like crazy!
DreamT, a drone is a musical term as well. It’s far more useful than in your examples so I’m not going to bother explaining it, especially since it will simply be piped into an explanation of why we’re cleared for take-off.
Sorry I missed the fun last night, everyone.
December 9th, 2008 at 11:10 am
“Again, there are minimal foreclosures in the Real Bay Area cities. That should be an indication such loan is not a factor there.”
Remember, this is why RBA ***DOES NOT*** double every 10 years. The money has to actually come from people’s earnings – as opposed to coming from the bank like in the case of the shit boxes.
December 9th, 2008 at 11:37 am
anon,
Wake up and smell the Latte! Immigration and smart people are the two pillars of wealth generation in the Real Bay Area. Check out this latest article showing massive amount of Indian immigration into Cupertino. I can tell you they don’t come from Tennessee! Some notable excerpts similar to what I’ve been telling you guys:
“Cupertino has joined Milpitas as the second city in the South Bay where a majority of residents is now Asian”
“Cupertino’s rapidly growing Indian community has pushed its overall Asian population to 56 percent of residents”
“What is happening this decade in cities like Milpitas and Cupertino, demographers say, is partly the culmination of years of immigration, as growing immigrant communities act as a powerful magnet, drawing relatives and others lured by cultural comforts and good schools.”
“Some things in Silicon Valley didn’t change. Much of the valley defended its crème de la crème status in wealth and education, despite the economic roller-coaster the region has endured”
“Los Altos and Palo Alto, respectively, were among the top three places among U.S. cities with 20,000 people or more with the highest median household income and with the largest share of adults with a master’s or doctoral degree.
Both cities were among a handful of Bay Area cities that saw their incomes grow faster than inflation through the down-and-up economic cycle since 1999. Palo Alto, Saratoga, Los Gatos, Los Altos and Menlo Park were among the only 19 places in America — all but three in California — where the median-price home was more than $1 million.”
“it’s almost impossible to find a parking spot at lunch,”
“While people from Taiwan and Hong Kong were the first Chinese in Cupertino, the growth more recently has come from mainland Chinese. Meanwhile, the Indian population more than doubled since 2000 to nearly 10,000. The main reason: Cupertino schools.”
“For Patricia Rod, a 17-year Cupertino resident who is white, most of the changes that have come from having “lovely neighbors” who are Chinese, Indian and Vietnamese have been positive — including her property values.”
December 9th, 2008 at 11:38 am
In summary:
The foreigners keep coming. They’ll keep buying up properties in areas with good schools.
December 9th, 2008 at 11:50 am
They’ll keep buying up properties in areas with good schools.
—————-
And that’s not a prediction but fact. Our Roger The Realtor hates prediction. And that’s the very reason when he quoted one of the para from article he carefully omitted the last line. Here goes the complete para (and omitted line in bold font):
December 9th, 2008 at 11:50 am
We’ve heard the whole foreigners bullshit for years now, and frankly it is old and without any actual merit. last time I looked, the world’s top economies, ( USA, Japan, Germany, India, China, and the UK are in severe recessions of their own, some worse than ours.There’s zero reason or advantage for “foreigners” to buy in overpriced areas of the US during economic and housing downturns. There is absolutely zero evidence that “foreigners” are moving in and swooping in to take away all our precious real etate. Maybe from across the border,but I don’t see them buying houses in Palo Alto either.
December 9th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Dear Real Estater,
1) I stopped at “Cupertino” Crappertino is not RBA. Consequently, it bears no relevance to my assertion that RBA does not double every 10 years.
2) What’d I tell you about addressing me and your lack of qualifications to do so?
December 9th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
1) I stopped at “Cupertino” Crappertino is not RBA. Consequently, it bears no relevance to my assertion that RBA does not double every 10 years.
—–
Anon,
Stop picking on Crappertino. That’s our favorite city in RBA where “overbidding is everywhere” and “on average 6% over asking”.
BTW, don’t follow the link to Juliana Lee’s website for current Crappertino sale info. On average 6% below asking is NOT a norm here. This is just statistical error.
December 9th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
That is not a statistical error. That is obviously a mistake by tech gal. Cupertino is our favorite city. It’s almost as good as Sunnyvale.
December 9th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
I don’t know about you guys but I’ll give credit to RealEstater for that very funny quote:
“most of the changes that have come from having “lovely neighbors” [...] have been positive — including her property values.”
Cupertino – where your neighbors appreciate you primarily and essentially for pecuniary reasons!
December 9th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
With the Indian and Chinese neighbors, there is no way Madhaus’ shack can appreciate to 1M by itself.
December 9th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Bob says,
>>We’ve heard the whole foreigners bullshit for years now, and frankly it is old and without any actual merit.
Did you not read the article? Did you not see the census statistics? The only explanation is that you are in denial.
>>India, China, and the UK are in severe recessions of their own, some worse than ours.There’s zero reason or advantage for “foreigners” to buy in overpriced areas of the US during economic and housing downturns.
If conditions are tough back home, that’s the more reason for them to seek opportunities elsewhere. They’re not going toto move to one of those 4 states in your shortlist, because that would totally defeat the purpose of coming to America. They come here to live in the first world, to work in tech for 6 figures, and give their children a good education. They didn’t come here to eat fried casseroles or be isolated from civilization.
December 9th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Cupertino – where your neighbors appreciate you primarily and essentially for pecuniary reasons!
——-
DT,
It would be difficult to understand the culture of RBA from Real Gray Area. It seems the 94301 zipcoder is not alone for that kind of mindset.
December 9th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
They didn’t come here to eat fried casseroles or be isolated from civilization.
You’ll want to check the demographics at Stu’s Casserole Haus, Lorain, OH, before you go making an assertion like that. A third of Stu’s clientele hail from Vietnam.
December 9th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Prof Bleen,
There are two types of immigrants. The ones that came earlier were mostly displaced by their home country due to war, poverty, or political reasons. The new wave of immigrants are completely different. Back home, they already grew up with sky scrapers, cell phones, internet, Star Bucks and so forth. They are here to live the modern life styles, not to go live in some rural place where you have to drive 2 hours to find Indian or Chinese food.
December 9th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Bleen, before RE posted I was JUST going to say, “but Vietnam isn’t REAL Asia” but I couldn’t come up with snappy acronym quickly enough.
December 9th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
If they grew up back home with “sky scrapers” and “Star Bucks” why the heck would they want to move to Cupertino, which is essentially a glorified suburb? Back home they have all the Star Bucks they can spend, plus they don’t have to deal with the foreigners here and their bizarre cultural practices such as Mormon Salad and martial arts classes whose names nobody can pronounce properly.
December 9th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
The new wave of immigrants are completely different. Back home, they already grew up with sky scrapers, cell phones, internet, Star Bucks and so forth.
——-
Considering the fact every popular US product has a Chinese clone, including iPhone, I have no doubt they have a “Star Bucks” too.
December 9th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Re #132: There’s a Starbucks in Skagway, Alaska. Lagos, Nigeria has skyscrapers. And even villagers in rural Namibia have intermittent Web access. Y’know what all of these places—as well as the entirety of Asia—lack? A good fried casserole.
December 9th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
If they grew up back home with “sky scrapers” and “Star Bucks” why the heck would they want to move to Cupertino, which is essentially a glorified suburb?
——-
Madhaus,
It’s not skyscraper. It’s scrapping sky, which essentially means scrapping all the skyscraper and making it look like Palo Alto.
And Star Bucks is where all the stars with modern lifestyle and bucks (=equity) come and drink coffee.
December 9th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
There are two types of immigrants. The ones that came earlier were mostly displaced by their home country due to war, poverty, or political reasons. The new wave of immigrants are completely different.
——–
Whenever our Roger talks about anything outside RBA (especially about foreigners and immigrants), it definitely makes it hilarious. Our Roger’s categorization of immigrants are very simple – those who come here and buy RBA properties (with modern lifestyle) and those who “came earlier” and live in Ohio.
Here some stats of “new wave of immigrants”. It’s mixed, unlike Roger’s simple of view of immigrants. Go to page #3.
Total immigrants: 1 million
Family-based: 689K
Employment based: 162K
Refugee and Asylee: 136K
Employment based category is the only area where the direct reason for coming to USA is job (and they normally settle where jobs are available).
And “mostly displaced by their home country due to war, poverty, or political reasons“? 136K (that’s only 26K less than employment based).
December 9th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Huh, interesting Pralay. I guess one of my former employees hit the immigrant trifecta: he left his country seeking asylum, moved to Ohio where he could get a job (so his wife could re-qualify her MD credentials), then moved to SF to be near family!
Sweet.
December 9th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
and I left out the most important part on here! He bought a house in SF, with Kaiser’s generous assistance program.
December 9th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Pralay says,
>>Employment based category is the only area where the direct reason for coming to USA is job
I suppose the family based immigrants don’t care about employment. Their family will feed them.
December 9th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
What part of “indirect” don’t you understand?
December 9th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
I suppose the family based immigrants don’t care about employment. Their family will feed them.
——–
Exactly!!!! And that disqualifies your earlier simpleton categorization of “two types of immigrants” – one group who “came earlier” due to war, poverty and political reason and another group who are “new wave of immigrants” and came here to get 6 figure salaries. Those six figure salary is probably applies to only employment-based immigrants which is only 162K among 1 million immigrants.
Keep in mind that immigrants who “came earlier” due to war/politics and living in Ohio also sponsor their siblings, children, spouses, parents. And they are included in those 689K (that’s nearly 70% of total immigrants). After coming to America, some of them look for employment and some of them don’t.
Same thing true for refugee and asylum seekers. If you have taken taxi in Vegas strip you would know that many of them are from those 136K refugee and asylum immigrants.
Of course if our Roger has little bit of intellectual curiosity he would go through the other stats provided in same document. Page #4 – country-wise categorization of immigrant. At the top Mexico 14%, 148K, mostly family based.
So, Mr Roger, how does your “new wave of immigrants are completely different” argument fit into these 1 million immigrants?
December 9th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
What part of “indirect” don’t you understand?
——-
Well-roundedness, well-roundedness.
December 9th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
With such well-roundedness, the guy must be weighting north of 300 pounds.
December 9th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
That’s funny, DreamT. I always picture him as a pasty white guy who’s a bit pudgy. All soft, no edge.
December 9th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Pralay says,
>>how does your “new wave of immigrants are completely different” argument fit into these 1 million immigrants?
How many RBA homes do you see on the market right now? 1 million listings? half million perhaps?
December 9th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Pralay, how many listings for moon real estate do you see on the market?
No crash there.
How about in Narnia?
No crash there either.
Therefore, buy RBA property.
December 9th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Therefore, buy RBA property.
———-
I think our Roger The Brickster’s argument is boiling down to exactly that. There is limited supply of home in RBA. Therefore, his dumb argument that all the Vietnamese immigrants in Stu’s Casserole Haus, Lorain, OH came to America due to “war, poverty, or political reasons” got to be true.
December 9th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Pralay,
I see that you have elected not to respond to my question.
From that, I conclude that everything you write is incorrect.
December 9th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
I see that you have elected not to respond to my question.
——
Do Narnia or Moon have sky scapers and Star Bucks? If not, “new wave of immigrants” don’t go there.
December 9th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Pralay,
is there a crash in lunar or narnial real estate? If you answer yes, you are apologizing to me. If you answer no, you are an idiot.
Make your choice.
December 9th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
If you don’t respond in the next minute, you are also apologizing to me by default!
December 9th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
I see lots of listings for moon property. A Google search gives millions of hits. I wonder how much acreage is available on the moon?
December 9th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Hey! Nobody is responding to my post #126, where I said Sunnyvale is better than Cupertino. Therefore you all must apologize to me for the insult of living anywhere else.
December 9th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
madhaus, we didn’t respond because we were silently agreeing with you.
(a bow to your superior locale)
December 9th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
is there a crash in lunar or narnial real estate? If you answer yes, you are apologizing to me. If you answer no, you are an idiot.
——
Answer my question: will “new wave of immigrants” will go to a place where there is no sky scapers and Star Bucks?
Anon is still spinning, twisting, try to clean up the lunar and narnial mud. Yet, all he needs to do is be a man and issue an apology.
If Anon The Investor don’t buy an investment property in RBA within end of this year, he is apologizing to me by default!
If he is sitting with his notebook and reading burbed, he is he is apologizing to me by default!
If he is not sitting with his nootebook and/or not reading burbed, he is apologizing to me by default!
December 9th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
> madhaus, we didn’t respond because we were silently agreeing with you.
I was too agreeing by default.
December 9th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
I see lots of listings for moon property.
——
Just put a Star Bucks and sky scaper there. Home price there will double in 10 years.
Meteor fried coffee – that’s all new wave of immigrants need.
December 9th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Well then.
It’s fortunate that I am standing here, willfully blind to the actual circumstances and facts – ISN’T IT PRALAY!? That doesn’t fit into any of your above mentioned scenarios.
I think that I know more than you think I think. Therefore what you think may not be what I am actually thinking.
You do realize that wipro is a tool by which people communicate, right? I thought so.
Think about it. You’ll soon realize these are facts.
December 9th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Sunnyvale is maybe better than Cupertino, but Santa Clara leaves them both in the dust. So I’m agreeing by default too, and yet it does not matter at the end.
December 9th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Sunnyvale is now in the same league as Cupertino. Cupertino has a 2 million dollar listing, so does Sunnyvale. Where Sunnyvale trails Cupertino is in the number of Asian/Indian immigrants. Cupertino is at 56%. Can Sunnyvale beat that?
December 9th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
SF’s Chinatown beats Cupertino based on that criteria. And your point was?
December 9th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
madhaus – quick, list your shack for $2.5M so 94087 will be definitively better!
December 9th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
You do realize that wipro is a tool by which people communicate, right? I thought so.
—–
Anon,
Ever heard of 24X7 IT Infrastructure? Ever worked with Wipro? That’s not a communication tool btw. It’s a multi-timezone, multi-country, multi-million-dollar mega-project. If the answer is no and no, you are apologizing to me by default!
December 9th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
SF’s Chinatown beats Cupertino based on that criteria. And your point was?
——
Those Chinatown Chinese don’t count because they hate sky scapers and Star Bucks.
December 9th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
>>SF’s Chinatown beats Cupertino based on that criteria. And your point was?
The point was that it was a joke.
December 10th, 2008 at 12:02 am
Loll.
It was a very funny joke.
(drooling heavily)
December 10th, 2008 at 12:04 am
(pssssst…. that means it sucked.)
December 10th, 2008 at 1:04 am
It’s only funny in Chinatown. Or on the moon. Not in RBA.
I’m listing my shack for $2.5 million. No one says Santa Clara is better than Sunnyvale and lives to tell the tale. I’m going to demand you apologize with Star Bucks.
December 10th, 2008 at 1:24 am
Santa Clara has got Intel; Sunnyvale has AMD. Therefore, Santa Clara is kicking Sunnyvale’s ass. Santa Clara also has better Korean food than Sunnyvale. Santa Clara plays fireworks on July 4th in Central Park; Sunnyvale does not.
OK, DreamT, you can pay me later.
December 10th, 2008 at 1:59 am
Bad logic is only funny when created by a person who is capable of creating good logic.
December 10th, 2008 at 8:56 am
hey, how’s the exchange rate between Dollars and Star Bucks?