The Bottom Has really been reached in San Jose
1175 Pipe Dream Ct, San Jose, CA 95122 MLS# 80940692 – Property Details
1175 Pipe Dream Ct, San Jose, CA$275,000
Status: Active
Bedroom: 3
Bathroom: 2&1/2* Year Built: 1998
* Lot Size: 2613
* Square Footage: 1292
* List Date: 8/24/2009
* Garage Spaces: 1
* MLS#: 80940692
Thanks to Burbed reader sonarrat for this find.
Hm, this sure seems familiar. Oh wait…
But nonetheless, I’m sharing this fine East San Jose home with you because Burbed reader Jeff thought I should. Something about the name of the the street really struck him: Pipe Dream Ct.
If this house isn’t the apex, the epitome, the pinnacle of the American dream, I’m not sure what is. And now, it can be yours at the low price of just $495 per square foot, and located in the up and coming, vibrant, colorful neighborhood known as East San Jose.
As noted in the past few entries, the bottom has clearly been reached, so don’t hesitate – go now to buy this slice of your dream.
Uh. Yeah.
So I might have been a bit premature about calling the bottom there. You can’t fault me – I mean, who expected Lehman to disappear? That clearly impacted the price of this house! But this time, I am absolutely sure that the bottom has been reached. That now is the perfect time to buy.
I mean… seriously… can this house get any lower than $275,000?
September 11th, 2009 at 7:33 am
Fat Chance Burbed.
September 11th, 2009 at 8:49 am
aw, Joe, of course it could go lower… but it is just a hair above the 1999 purchase price so maybe not. The neighborhood is rather, uh, due for gentrification! What with the new Vietnam Town and Wal-Mart close by….
I’m really surprised PropertyShark doesn’t show this as a foreclosure. The current owner refinanced four times; the last in 2007 for $570,000. It has been on and off the market since 2006. Nowadays, the refi people frown on new loans for houses that are (or recently were) listed for sale. The second 2006 refi ($550k) was while the house was for sale; the 2007 refi was two months after it was taken off the market.
September 11th, 2009 at 9:09 am
I think it’s now priced fairly given current market conditions. It’s a newer home (duet) in a cul de sac. As for gentrification, I think that is the real pipe dream. Have you looked at where this house is?
September 11th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Uh, who approved the name ‘Pipe Dream Ct?’ If it was the developer, were they retarded? If it was the city planner, he had a wicked sense of humor and a carefree boss.
September 11th, 2009 at 9:27 am
sonarrat – I was being sarcastic. C’mon, I used “gentrification” and “Wal-Mart” in the same paragraph!
I know the neighborhood very well; used to work close by. I’d drive past that street a couple times a week and laugh at the name on it.
September 11th, 2009 at 11:08 am
I drive by here a lot too. There’s a 7-11 across McClaughlin where people beg for beer. The intersection of McClaughlin and Story has about 3 major accidents a week. You would be a moron to buy that even for $275. Even to purchase as a rental property, your monthly payment is roughly $1800, and you couldn’t rent that out for that much in that area. Just an all in all disaster for that buyer.
September 11th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Of course this could still go lower. How does it compare to duplexes in other parts of the country?
Problem is people still have their head in the clouds pertaining to the perceived massive premium they think Silicon Valley still commands. Those days are done. While we will still be more expensive based on our higher salaries, that premium is around 30%. That being said, a house like that (a duplex in a mediocre area) should at MOST carry a similar premium relative to its peers in other areas of the country.
September 11th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Mortgage costs on $275,000 would probably cover rent, making it cash flow positive. There’s your floor.
September 11th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Evren, don’t forget the roaming meth addicts.
September 11th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Mortgage costs on $275,000 would probably cover rent, making it cash flow positive. There’s your floor.
Generally, yes. But that calculation is based on current interest rates, which are at unsustainable lows. When we return to more normal lending rates with mortgages hovering in the 7-9% range, that home will no longer be cash flow positive. So if one does that calculation, they should be using average interest rates to determine the floor.
September 11th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
LOL! Pipe dream court!
September 11th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
#10 makes zero sense to me unless one presumes the buyer would get an ARM, which doesn’t make much sense for a long-term investment property considering how low rates are today. Or I “misunderstood” one of BAI’s posts again.
September 11th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
I didn’t “get it” either, DreamT.
September 11th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
lol bob just noticed pipe dream court…
September 11th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Mortgage costs on $275,000 would probably cover rent, making it cash flow positive.
Not if the mortgage is for the entire 275k, and the rent is actually less than $1800/mo. $275k @ 5.15% is $1502/mo, if insurance is $1000/yr, and taxes 1%, I don’t know SC Co. tax rates, SM Co is 1.25%.
Then your cashflow out total is $1,814/mo not including maintenance and the rent less than $1800/mo in, even with 0% vacancy, you may not be losing money on the property since part of the cashflow is going to principal.
But certainly that is not positive cash flow. Perhaps you meant some sort of downpayment involved? (Not to mention less than 20% down requires PMI these days)
September 11th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
#10 makes zero sense to me unless one presumes the buyer would get an ARM, which doesn’t make much sense for a long-term investment property considering how low rates are today. Or I “misunderstood” one of BAI’s posts again.
Indeed you did.
My point is one cannot effectively use a mortgage to rent comparison at this point in time to dictate the “floor” value of this property because we are not dealing with average interest values.
Mortgage interest rates and home values are linked in the same way it works in bonds. As interest rates fluctuate, the value of the home moves up and down correspondingly. Just like bond prices.
The reason for that is the amount that a family can pay per month is generally a fixed amount or range. So for example, if a family can afford to pay $2500 a month in mortgage, the interest rate dictates the size of the loan they can get which will fit into that price. The size of the loan differs greatly if the interest rate moves from 5% to 9%. And consequently, the value of the home will adjust based on what individuals are capable of paying.
So my point was, using current interest rates to calculate the effective floor for a home price is misleading since we are currently at historic lows. To drive the point home, if interest rates went from 5% to 9% tomorrow, would home prices stay where they are? Doubtful. Hell, they are falling even at interest rates of 5%.
Does that clarify things?
September 11th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
“Of course this could still go lower. How does it compare to duplexes in other parts of the country?”
Or how about in the same area?
1447 Tami Lee Drive (quarter-mile south of this property)
4-Plex (all units 2 bed/1 bath)
3,264 sf living space
Built: 1970
Price: $399,900
September 11th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Not at all. You’re now talking about how resale value inversely correlates with interest rates.
The original post and your #10 answer was about whether the house you buy remains cash-flow positive.
Once you’ve purchased the house for cash-flow reasons, you could care less about the value or the interest rate, the only thing that matters is the rent you can ask. And national interest rates are a minor contributor to local rent flucturations.
nomadic, did #16 clarify #10 for you?
September 11th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
“can this house get any lower than $275,000?”
an earthquake can do wonders
September 11th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Not at all. You’re now talking about how resale value inversely correlates with interest rates.
The original post and your #10 answer was about whether the house you buy remains cash-flow positive.
Actually, I was referring to a “floor” in the price of the house. Sorry once again if my wording was bad.
So from a cash flow perspective, if you can rent the house for what your mortgage currently is and assuming that you take a fixed rate loan, then yes, it is cash flow positive. What I was alluding to with my post was that if interest rates rise while rents stay relatively flat, the house will lose its cash flow positive nature on an intrinsic level. Not to mention that you will lose equity as well. If you hold the rental to full term of the loan and you have good vacancy, then it is a wash. Although you would have been better off waiting for the home to drop in value thereby reducing your initial down payment.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
“the house will lose its cash flow positive nature on an intrinsic level”
Fair enough – you’re speculating on proper timing of acquisition. I have no beef with that statement (finally!;) ).
I’m not a landlord, but I had imagined that a landlord would generally forego timing the market if he’s faced with a property that is immediately cash-flow positive, provided the rents don’t look bubbly. Making that assumption is probably wrong as often as right, though, and I agree with you that some more complex ROI calculation can be at play since there’s a cost of acquisition.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Assuming the place is purchased with a fixed rate mortgage, I’d say this statement “When we return to more normal lending rates with mortgages hovering in the 7-9% range, that home will no longer be cash flow positive.” is still false.
Post #16 has valid points but they don’t appear to relate to BAI’s first statement.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
never mind. I didn’t refresh the page before answering.
Sounds a lot like the arguments Willow Glenner would make – except he was willing to take a small cash flow hit with the expectation of future appreciation.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
I think a lot of this discussion relates to whether or not something is valuable as a rental property versus a purchase as a primary residence. A first time home buyer who has to pay the mortgage will likely be kicking themselves more if they pay more for a property and watch its value decline, even if they scored a low interest rate versus a landlord that has a cash flow positive property where the mortgage is being paid for by the tenant.
September 11th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
It’s certainly easier to find a new tenant than a new job. So a looming distress sales would be harder on the non-landlord. Two counterpoints to the primary residence purchase, though: as long as the owner can continue to afford it and likes the neighborhood and the house enough for years to come, the value the market places on his house isn’t very relevant. On the other hand, the landlord is more dependent on rent market fluctuations.
The great majority of folks in my street bought 10 years ago or more. They didn’t sell when their property value doubled, even though they had years to do so, because greed isn’t the primary driver of homeownership. It’s the same mindset that would still leave a homeowner satisfied even if the market says his/her house value has depreciated.
September 11th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Consumer sentiment is up according to University of Michigan. Most economic indicators are showing the recession will end this quarter. With return to normalcy, stock market up big this year (one of my 401K accounts has increased over 40% since 1/1/09), interest rate low, and inflation contained, I expect the Bay Area housing market to be near peak levels again by 2012. I know there will be the typical “LOL” responses, but once again the jokers will be proven dead wrong.
September 11th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Real Estater,
I just closed on a house yesterday. I bought it at nowhere near peak levels. (34%ish off) I bet it’s worth less in 2012 than it is right now this very day. I doubt it will never be at the ‘peak price’ ever again in inflation adjusted dollars. I will be surprised it it reaches the peak valuation in nominal dollars before 2020.
Even somebody who was willing to buy in this market thinks you’re on crack.
September 11th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Congratulations, sfbb. I hope you have many happy years in your new home. (And being an owner myself, I hope you’re happily wrong with your prediction too. Not that I agree with RE’s crackolicious viewpoint.)
September 11th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Most economic indicators are showing the recession will end this quarter
Didn’t you say last year that there would be no recession? And that there is “no downturn here”?
Friday troll bait. I couldn’t resist!
September 11th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
I know there will be the typical “LOL” responses,
—–
RealEstater, LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!
However you will be disappointed to know that I am laughing not because of your another absurd prediction. But because of your realization that people here make fun of you and laugh at you. You came long way from the expectation of earning respect by virtue of your zipocode.
September 11th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Every statement in #26, except for the 2012 outlook, is a fact. If those statements were made 9 months ago, the same “LOL”, “troll bait”, “crackolicious” type of responses would be reverberating here. What this demonstrates is the short-sightedness of such people. This is why opportunities fly right by these people.
When I sold my stock portfolio in Jan 1998, they did not take note.
When I said “the theater is on fire” in August 1998, they did not take it seriously.
When I said buy the Dow at 8500, 7500, even 6500, they did not listen.
When I said Q1 2009 was the bottom of this recession, they said “LOL”.
How many times can a person embarrass themselves?
September 11th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Correction: 1998 should be 2008.
September 11th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
sfbubblebuyer,
If you truly believe what you are saying, why did you buy? Between you and BAI, one of you is truly an idiot.
September 11th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
RE, do you not get any affirmation at home, so you have to come here to pat yourself on the back?
Interest rates are down again, you said the bottom was seven months ago – why haven’t you bought your investment property yet?
September 11th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
When I sold my stock portfolio in Jan 1998, they did not take note.
When I said “the theater is on fire” in August 1998, they did not take it seriously.
When I said buy the Dow at 8500, 7500, even 6500, they did not listen.
When I said Q1 2009 was the bottom of this recession, they said “LOL”.
How many times can a person embarrass themselves?
——-
It’s a miracle. What RealEstater could not achieve in last one and half years (even after bragging about his Porsche, name-engraved brick, exotic plants and furniture, mega-project where signs NDS), he DID when he posted #31. RealEstater, we respect you. We are embarrassed that we did not respect you last one and half year.
September 11th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
RE, do you not get any affirmation at home, so you have to come here to pat yourself on the back?
——
I guess Real Estater has some real problem in real life.
September 11th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
“Correction: 1998 should be 2008.”
lol you sure are a sharp one…
September 11th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
a sharp tool?
September 11th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
I vote for “sharp tool” to be his next alias.
September 11th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
RealEstater,
I’ve lurked here for a long time and watched people rudely hurl epithets your way while you generally patiently ignore them and continue to contribute.
I’m curious why you bother to continue discussions with folks on the forum given how you are treated. What is your motivation for continuing to post?
Thanks.
September 11th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
BTW, the content of #40 wasn’t my own. I just copied from this one – another alias.
September 11th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Real Estater (#33)
1) Baby and Wife-Nesting
With the price I got, PITI on the FULL PRICE is only 35%ish higher than renting the place. Still way overpriced, but waaaay better than the 100-110% when I first started looking.
2) Enough of the downturn has happened that I won’t be totally wiped out if hyper-inflation doesn’t take hold.
3) Hyper-inflation COULD take hold.
4) Nowhere else to stick money that doesn’t suck right now.
5) Stuck a knife in the seller’s and twisted. (They turned down several offers higher than ours before they ran up against a hard-sell by date on the estate.)
6) Current rental area turning into crime infested hell-hole. (Thanks EPA!)
7) I had 25% down, with 25% reserves, plus retirement investments, the payment is less than 28% of my income.
9) Found a lot over 15k on the peninsula.
10) House was just big enough for a family, but just small enough to discourage douche-bag McMansion house-whores.
11) I’ve owned before, and know how much of a pain in the ass it is, and balanced it against the pain in the ass of tracking the market obsessively for me and my wife added to the pain in the ass of renting.
12) I liked the location, lot, and house enough to go ahead and suck up the loss. And it IS a loss.
13) You’re still an idiot.
I sold/moved retirement out of stocks at Dow 13700ish, got back in at 7000ish, and moved back out to buy the house at 9200ish.
Your advice is worthless to me. I’ve never seen you post anything worth reading.
Like I said, even people who know what they’re doing and are willing to buy a house now think you’re full of it.
September 11th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
tell us how you really feel, sfbb!
lolllllllll
September 11th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
yes, wasn’t that your longest post, sfbb? Congratulations, esp. for a 15k sqf purchase (Santa Clara’s largest lot is 14k sqf
). I can relate to many of the reasons you listed.
September 11th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
Thanks guys. Reading Burbed, Patrick, and HBB helped me make sense of the crazy 2006 early 2007 market. I might have shot myself in the foot by getting in early, but at least I didn’t shoot myself in the head by buying in 2007.
And sorry about the rant. I usually ignore Estater, but his “we’ll be back to the peaks by 2012″ was just so ridiculous I couldn’t resist. Those of you who own and not because it’s ‘an investment’ (Nomadic), enjoy the show! We have several more years of whining from the RBA to come. Those of you waiting to buy, keep the powder dry.
DreamT, lot matters more to me than house. You can always change a house. Not so much the lot.
I was stoked to get a mostly flat very usable lot on the peninsula in the hills.
September 12th, 2009 at 12:24 am
Stumped on this one!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HBB_(disambiguation)
September 12th, 2009 at 12:26 am
sfbubblebuyer,
Let me translate your statements here:
1)With inflation taken into account, you still come out ahead of renting.
2)Prices are near bottom even though it might not be absolute bottom.
3)Stocks are interim investments. Real estate is the destination investment.
4)Real estate is better than any other investment alternative right now.
5)You agree with Real Estater even though you hate to admit it!
May I ask what city did you find your crime-free dream peninsula property where sellers are desperate to deal on a 15K lot?
September 12th, 2009 at 1:29 am
lol #5 – the guy is so TLC-deprived!
September 12th, 2009 at 1:46 am
lol #5 – the guy is so TLC-deprived!
—–
Definitely. I doubt his own kids agree with him.
September 12th, 2009 at 1:46 am
nomadic,
Affirmation comes from results. The results speak for themselves.
Look at the trash talkers here. They have no result to stand on.
September 12th, 2009 at 1:49 am
Pralay,
Even the bubble talker / Patrick.net reader bought despite the kick’in and scream’in. What’s your excuse for not buying?
September 12th, 2009 at 1:50 am
Let me translate your statements here:
……
……
5)You agree with Real Estater even though you hate to admit it!
———
Let me translate your statements here:
5) You think I am idiot. But if you do anything, you agree with me. If you are eating breakfast, you are agree with me. If you are driving, you agree with me.
September 12th, 2009 at 1:53 am
Even the bubble talker / Patrick.net reader bought despite the kick’in and scream’in.
—–
Good for him. He is able to buy 15K lot home today because he did not listen to you one and half year back.
September 12th, 2009 at 1:56 am
Pralay,
Action speak louder than words. He was kick’in and scream’in like a kid, but he finished his homework!
September 12th, 2009 at 1:57 am
“What’s your excuse for not buying?”
The mantra of RealEstater running out of ideas to carry on whatever his point may be.
I wonder if the day Pralay buys a piece of property will be a day of mourning at RealEstater’s house.
September 12th, 2009 at 1:58 am
Action speak louder than words. He was kick’in and scream’in like a kid, but he finished his homework!
—–
And after homework he concluded you are an idiot and your comments are worthless.
September 12th, 2009 at 1:58 am
Pralay,
What you’ll find eventually is that all these guys with the means will cave and buy a house. By then, you’ll feel like a loser.
September 12th, 2009 at 2:00 am
The mantra of RealEstater running out of ideas to carry on whatever his point may be.
—–
Yes, normally this question comes, predictably, when he runs out of argument.
September 12th, 2009 at 2:02 am
“By then, you’ll feel like a loser.”
Loser: the guy who works all week to pay his mortgage and fails at sounding compassionate on burbed at 2am on a Friday night/Saturday morning.
September 12th, 2009 at 2:02 am
>>And after homework he concluded you are an idiot and your comments are worthless.
He’s just throwing a tantrum. He joins me as a homeowner and calls me an idiot?
September 12th, 2009 at 2:04 am
>>Yes, normally this question comes, predictably, when he runs out of argument.
How come every time this question is asked, you run out of answer?
September 12th, 2009 at 2:05 am
Talk about predictability!
September 12th, 2009 at 2:05 am
“He joins me as a homeowner”
RealEstater struggling to claim credit on sfbb’s purchase. Also available under: sfbb just validated my existence! Also available under: RealEstater, self-styled leader of all bay area homeowners.
September 12th, 2009 at 2:06 am
What you’ll find eventually is that all these guys with the means will cave and buy a house.
—–
You said that he did his “homework”. You are right (even a broken clock is right twice a day). He indeed did. He assessed his needs. He measured market condition and risk involved. Then he made decision based on his financial ability. That’s not “cave in”. That’s well-informed decision.
Caving in is buying home based on Realtards “don’t get price out” slogan or absurd prediction.
September 12th, 2009 at 2:07 am
How come every time this question is asked, you run out of answer?
—–
Translation: When I run out of argument, I am going to ask a very stupid used car salesman question. How come you don’t answer it?
September 12th, 2009 at 2:10 am
He joins me as a homeowner and calls me an idiot?
—–
FYI, there are idiot homeowners and there are well-informed homeowners. Surprised?
September 12th, 2009 at 2:15 am
Also available under: sfbb just validated my existence!
—–
Every home purchase in US proves RealEstater exists.
September 12th, 2009 at 2:21 am
if RealEstater didn’t exist, Roger would have to invent him
September 12th, 2009 at 2:22 am
the guy who works all week to pay his mortgage and fails at sounding compassionate on burbed at 2am on a Friday night/Saturday morning.
——
You are silly, DreamT. Whenever he is on burbed at 2AM, that means he is “managing a multi-million dolalr project with teams working from multiple timezones”.
September 12th, 2009 at 2:23 am
Please understand.
September 12th, 2009 at 3:26 am
Haha. Way to go excreteaire! Making friends as usual.
“kick’in”. Lol
September 12th, 2009 at 11:09 am
He joins me as a homeowner and calls me an idiot?
He isn’t alone.
September 12th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
a listing to watch in PA: http://www.redfin.com/CA/Palo-Alto/425-Ferne-Ave-94306/home/608098
425 FERNE Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Price: $1,598,000
Beds: 4
Baths: 3
Sq. Ft.: 2,235
$/Sq. Ft.: $715
Lot Size: 8,395 Sq. Ft.
Year Built: 1956
Community: South Palo Alto
On Redfin: 2 days
why is this interesting? well, there are very two good comps on the same street. one comes from the PA peak:
443 Ferne Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94306
LAST SALE: $1,795,000 (08/22/2008)
BEDS: 4
BATHS: 2
SQ.FT.: 1,884
YEAR BUILT: 1956
smaller, but very nicely updated. I’m going to call the extra space with 425 (a +) and the pool (a -) a wash.
the second sale came at RE’s absolute bottom:
207 Ferne Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94306
LAST SALE: $1,375,000 (02/19/2009)
BEDS: 4
BATHS: 2
SQ.FT.: 1,978
YEAR BUILT: 1961
now, it was original condition (so let’s be generous and say -$150K) but I think it had the best yard of the 3 and it sold the first weekend for $76K above list.
so, how far have we bounced from the winter lows? will this sell first weekend? palo alto apples are hard to come by, but same street eichlers come close.
September 12th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
As usual steve is overly dramatic. August 2008 sale for $1.8M was just the “peak”. But the nominal high of this street was $1.6M. The “real drop” (from $1.6M) at Feb 2009 was less than 20%. It’s just icing on the cake.
As you can see from current listing price, the price is back to nominal high again, from bottom. Losers who are not buying RIGHT NOW will be priced out forever again. Hurry up, join with RealEstater as homeowner.
September 12th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
What’s interesting is you keep comparing sales on a street near the Mountain View border to measure the market in Palo Alto.
September 12th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
What’s interesting is you keep comparing sales on a street near the Mountain View border to measure the market in Palo Alto.
—-
I agree with RealEstater. Palo Alto bordering MV does not count. That part of Palo Alto is no longer part of RBA. Actually the whole 94306 zipcode is no longer in RBA. On the top of that, this property is next to soccer field where unruly EPA kids come and play.
September 12th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
New rule for RBA qualification:
- An area bordering with neighbor city is not part of RBA.
- An area bordering with another area that borders with neighboring city is not part of RBA.
- An area bordering with another area that borders with another area that borders with neighboring city is not part of RBA.
- An area bordering with another area that borders with another area that borders with another area that borders with neighboring city is not part of RBA.
- An area bordering with another area that borders ……………. ……………. ………… ………… ………… ………… ……… ………. ………. ………. ……. ………. that borders with neighboring city is not part of RBA.
September 12th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
And purple houses can’t be in the RBA. If we’re being arbitrary, I’m tossing that one in.
September 12th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
> I expect the Bay Area housing market to be near peak levels again by 2012.
Might as well define “near” now so that we don’t argue about the meaning 3 years from now…
September 12th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
> What’s interesting is you keep comparing sales on a street near the Mountain View border to measure the market in Palo Alto.
One more definition needed!
September 12th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
> And purple houses can’t be in the RBA. If we’re being arbitrary, I’m tossing that one in.
These are the RBA-approved colors.
September 12th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Guys, listen:
If its not near the RBA, its not in the RBA. You’ll find this to be true time and time again.
September 12th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
hey, is this what realtards eat for breakfast?