Yesterday, we took a look at a CNBC piece on the difficulty of finding a million dollar home in the Real Bay Area, and how badly they missed the real story. Two days later they tried again, and ran this piece (below) on Friday. Not even close but no cigar, CNBC. More like in Lodi with little to smoke.
Take a gander at this piece, clearly written to complement their first article, and discuss whether your like their housing examples or Burbed’s examples. (Hint: the correct answer is CNBC. That is if by “correct” we really mean “completely wrong.”) They had the right idea, but they just couldn’t find the listings that show how awesome the RBA is.
By Robert Frank and Paul O’ Donnell | CNBC – Fri, Aug 31, 2012 11:21 AM EDT
Silicon Valley’s dynamic, tech-based economy has inflated home prices in the area for more than two decades. But lately, thanks to a rash of IPO’s and the mobility of global wealth, relatively modest properties in the suburban towns south of San Francisco have been going for mansion-like prices.
Sales of homes for $1 million or more doubled in the towns south of San Francisco in the past year, passing Beverly Hills and Miami, where the sumptuous palaces snapped up by the rich look more the part.
The current boom is not the result of an avalanche of tech start-ups. Instead, the Valley has been flooded by employees of established companies like Facebook and Google, who enjoyed a personal “liquidity event” when their companies went public in the past few years.
This article is basically the other article, sentences scrambled around, and a few pictures of presentable homes to go with. There is one and only reason we alert you to this article, and that’s the wretched hive of scum and villainy called the comments. It’s the usual “Silicon Valley has fine dining, beach, mountains, biking all close by, and the weather is fantastic” versus “Are you kidding, I can buy a house like that for $105K here in East Fumbuck, Nebraska!”
Yes, but then you have to live in a house in East Fumbuck, Nebraska.