Welcome!
VancouverPeak.com- admin replied to the forum topic Sandbox. in the group Housing Data
- admin posted an update:
- jesse and Makaya are now friends
- jesse replied to the forum topic Sandbox. in the group Housing Data
- jesse posted an update: CMHC starts, completions and under construction in Vancouver […]
- The Ant started the forum topic BC Population Growth in the group Housing Data
- jesse and The Ant are now friends
- jesse and wreckonomics are now friends
- wreckonomics posted an update: New Year, New HPI. ”Selection Broadens and Demand Eases to […]
- Best place on meth and admin are now friends
Wordpress theme by Abhishek Tripathi of Mediawick Digital Solutions
March 8th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
@Lone wolf:
There is no such thing as a real estate bull in Vancouver.
Only useless cheerleaders.
March 8th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
@Dave:
“Wow, that was hard:
http://cuer.sauder.ubc.ca/cma/…..couver.pdf”
Umm you don’t pay much attention do you? First off that’s house prices, not rentals. Secondly you’re using Vancouver as an example to prove something about Vancouver. It’s a tautology. It’s like me saying Dave’s an idiot. I know he’s an idiot because he’s so stupid.
You can’t reference the very trend you’re trying to classify as “not a bubble” and then use it as proof that it’s not a bubble. Don’t you see the problem with that.
Finally, the discussion was about depreciation. That graph shows housing as a whole and does not show how the value of one unit changes over time as it ages.
So, in such a short message you managed to get three major logical/factual errors in there. Congratulations, you may have a new record.
March 8th, 2010 at 5:14 pm
Well, I just got off the phone with 3 “mortgage specialists” from 3 different banks in an effort to end this debate.
My question to all 3 was “After April 19, if I want a mortgage what will be the rate you use to determine the maximum amount I can borrow?”
None of the 3 could tell me for sure and all said they would look into it and call me back.
I’ll post the results when these so called professionals get back to me.
March 8th, 2010 at 5:14 pm
Gee…the bears are getting stupid on this site, especially if one lone bull can outsmart and out argue the lot of them. Maybe its a sign of fatigue, from being wrong for six plus years….
March 8th, 2010 at 5:06 pm
@dave the retard:
See post 91. Rents have not dropped in nominal terms since the data started being collected. People take out mortgages in nominal dollars and rents keep going up in nominal dollars. It’s that simple.
March 8th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
All I know is this – Dave and Drachen has way way too much time on their hands. We know that Drachen is a grad student, so fair enough, he has time on his hands. I hope that Dave is retired for his sake, or at least self employed, because any employer would not put up with this level of posting.
March 8th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
Dave, please go away.
This chart shows that real rents have been decreasing for a long time in this crappy city.
http://cuer.sauder.ubc.ca/cma/.....couver.pdf
Now watch Dave try to blow some smoke about why real (i.e., corrected for inflation) measures should not apply. Go take your meds Dave, you’re losing it.
March 8th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
@Drachen:
Obviously any reference to the future is a prediction. Anything can happen. Prices could drop to zero, or prices could go into the millions. Everything between those extremes is opinion. Is that really a revelation for you? Is that your only criticism? Yawn…
March 8th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
@Drachen:
Wow, that was hard:
http://cuer.sauder.ubc.ca/cma/.....couver.pdf
See the trend? Here’s a hint… UP.
March 8th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
@davers:
Have a look at rental growth vs. the rate of inflation. This is a pretty high level of correlation.
http://cuer.sauder.ubc.ca/cma/.....an-nom.pdf
http://cuer.sauder.ubc.ca/cma/.....tional.pdf
As you say, rent is tied to income, but rent hasn’t kept up with nominal income growth over the last 20 years. That means there is a lot of room for rental rates to outgrow income for some time.
March 8th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
@Dave:
“And finally, the value of the investment will go up over time.”
“Values will never return to the levels when they claimed this market was in a bubble.”
“I have always stuck to the debate and I have always backed up my claims and assertions.”
“I never claimed I could back up the future.”
So. Let us see. You claim prices will go up. You claimed prices will not drop to what bears call the “pre-bubble level” and you claim to always back up your claims and assertions.
Now you’re claiming you can’t back up the future? Of course you can’t. Nobody can. But you make factual claims about the future. Don’t you see the problem with that?
So:
1) You lie, you do not always back up your claims and assertions as evidenced above.
2) You are disingenuous, making claims about the future as though they were facts while knowing they are not facts and cannot be verified.
This is all pure logic, you don’t even need to look further than your own words to see how wrong you are Dave.
Finally:
“The value of apartments and rentals has gone up over time. A muppet could figure that one out.”
Okay, again, when pressed for backup you fail to present anything and just drop to the level of insults. I thought you were above that sort of thing? Hmm?
Show me historic data proving that the value of rentals and apartments goes up over time. Other than in a bubble situation (obviously you cannot use Vancouver as an example because that would be a tautology). You can’t because you are wrong. Tell me how a condo in a 50 year old building is worth more than a brand new but otherwise equivalent one Dave. Think about what you’re saying man!
March 8th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
80
From Larry’s post:
“The proposed new policy will now add 50% of rental income to qualifying income. This will negatively affect anyone who is relying on “suite” income as a mortgage helper, or for anyone who owns or was planning to buy revenue property.”
Umm, only allowing 50% of rental income to be added to your qualifying income was the rule in 2002/2003. That was a change from the old lending requirements. I was not aware that banks had changed that policy between 2002/2010. If anyone can show where they changed that rule, I would be appreciative.
March 8th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
@superduperbulltime:
Please excuse my language, but anyone who thinks a young family should have to ‘start out’ in a 900sqft row house in the suburbs that cost $550,000 plus GST is fucked up in the head. This situation is unique in that it is both funny and tragic, and to think that there are actually people who think this is normal (like yourself) is even more bizarre!
You must be a REALTOR, because without exception Vancouver REALTORS are the sleaziest, most arrogant and stupidest salespeople in existence. I guess making $30,000/hr does that to you. In fact come to think of it I think you guys make more money than whores or drug dealers… Wow! there truly isn’t such thing as free lunch, is there?
March 8th, 2010 at 4:06 pm
@Dr. Know: I think all the critical thinking bears have already bought, and all that are left are the bears with a superficial level of knowledge that uncritically glom on to past bear arguments.
I rent a west side house for $2200 (same for the last three years). It was assessed this year at $1.2M. Maybe my knowledge is superficial but I don’t understand how it is in my best interest to buy, so feel free to enlighten me. Seriously. I don’t want a townhouse/condo because we like the yard, basement and garage, and I don’t want to move to the suburbs because I like walking to work. Sure, I’d like an updated bathroom and the motivation to re-do the garden, but it’s not worth another $4k a month or whatever it would be.
March 8th, 2010 at 4:02 pm
@Drachen:
You got more than a minor term wrong. LOL.
I never claimed I could back up the future. You have strange expectations. My opinions are always founded on facts and I am always happy to share them. For example, I have shot down claims by Patriotz regarding falling rents and a reduced industrial base. The facts speak for themselves.
The value of apartments and rentals has gone up over time. A muppet could figure that one out. For some reason, you seem to struggle with it.
March 8th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
@INX:
“come out swinging like a child again assuming your “knowledge” is superior.”
It has nothing to do with knowledge. So I got a minor term wrong? Is that relevant?
The issue in this case with Dave has to do with logic. He says he can back up any claim he makes. He’s making claims about the future as though they were facts.
Ergo he lies.
Unless he has a time machine I suppose.
It’s not name calling it’s merely factual representation (something bulls seem to have trouble with).
“Dave is a liar.” is a simple statement of fact. Deal with it.
Notice also that although I’ve called him twice today on his “claims” he hasn’t bothered to provide proof for either one. In spite of the fact that earlier today he said he always backs up his claims. Hmm seems disingenuous to me, maybe you define it differently.
March 8th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
@White Payer:
My god those bear sores sure run deep. Big deal when new households form and are just starting out it’s common to have poor furnishings. However, unlike bitter, forenting losers over the years this will improve.
March 8th, 2010 at 3:35 pm
@The Poor Man’s Friend – Ikea:
Ikea has quite the spread when it comes to prices (and quality). There are some very decent looking and well designed/executed pieces, but they will cost you a pretty penny, actually…. and then there are the paper-mache $10 dollar stools that end up being used as side tables and such… And the biggest crowds at any Ikea are found at the restaurant and the As-Is clearance.
March 8th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Investing in the stock market over the last 5 years should have paid off handsomely for anyone who followed advice to buy low and sell high. Lots of great cash flow stocks out there too. The examples are endless. The same rationale applies to Vancouver real estate. Investors with properties that have poor cash flow should be looking at dumping them. Waiting for further capital gains at this point is a major gamble.
If you bought an investment property in ’04 and had it 100% paid off now it may only be producing a yield of 2% to 5%, but you’re sitting on a massive capital gain. Give me the cash please. I’ve made a killing and I can get a better yield in almost any other real estate market in Canada.
The only people who would suggest you buy real estate in Vancouver at this point have some personal gain to get from selling it. Smart investors are quietly reducing their exposure to this game.
March 8th, 2010 at 3:26 pm
79
Its called “House Poor” – pretty common in many communities in the lower mainland. Most homes have IKEA at best, and there is nothing wrong with that. And the Asian community values ownership over high end furniture, despite the cultural need to project wealth at all costs. Quite the contradiction no?
March 8th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
One thing that no one here seems to be talking about is how the inclusion of rental income is getting the hammer. In Rob’s example, 1000/month rent qualifies you for an extra 150K-180K depending on the ammortization. The new rules will only allow you to qualify for an extra 33K-40K.
http://www.yattermatters.com/r.....more-11531
I can’t tell you how many single family homes I know of that are really just an apartment block in disguise with 3 families renting a coach house, basement and main living area. Have you ever tried to find parking in one of those neighborhoods?
As far as using the posted rate goes, we only have one source so far, a blog just like this one (a husband and wife team by the look of it). I will wait to see the interpretation of the new rules from more sources before I jump to any conclusions. One poster here (@reknab) has already contradicted canadian mortgage trends.
March 8th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
This is just slightly of topic, but still very relevant.
I live steps away from a brand new development in Burnaby and the second phase was just completed which resulted in a bunch of people moving into their brand new digs last weekend.
I was walking my dog right along the place e few times and made some very interesting observations.
First of all, when the place was sold (or pre-sold) the buying public was overwhelmingly Asian, each of the couple of open houses at the sales center I did attend feature mostly Asian buyers.
Now, people who were moving in are actually evenly split between your typical Mainland Chinese New Canadians and a young white families consisting of a pregnant wife and a dude wearing Ed Hardy attire.
My guess is that the units are 50/50 owner/renter occupied and so it looks like quite few of them were either re-sold before completion or rented out from the getgo.
What’s common however and quite revealing was that absolutely all the moves I’ve seen were done with U-Haul vans, family minivans and small trucks/SUVs packed to the brim with miscellaneous household items, mostly of very low apparent value and second-hand store appeal. None of the fancy, metro sexual decor we are fed at the staged sales centers. More like hand-me-downs from parents and friends with some isolated electric guitar or a decent speaker set for a good measure.
Now, these guys are moving in to $550K plus (yes, you read it right!) townhouses that they are going to enslave them until death and have no decent furniture or anything worth hiring a moving company for… no plasma TV’s, no modern danish design pieces, no artwork, nothing…
Just piles of old smelly crap.
Judging by their possessions all there new owners looked broke or nearly broke to me. Thank god for the credit cards. Oh wait, theses are maxed out to…
It was funny, as I walked down the street the next day I saw the same trucks and SUVs pulling up from emergency trips to IKEA hauling in some cardboard boxes containing cardboard DIY furniture, as certainly the new homeowners realized that they new digs were empty and there was nowhere to sit to enjoy the warm bowl of home-made Kraft dinner prepared on their new stainless steel gas ranges…
It all made me so sad, but on the upside I noticed some encouraging displays of “new owner” camaraderie, as they made friends, exchanged smalltalk and let their dogs sniff each other. I’m sure they will get to know each other really well soon, as the walls are paper thin and the units are only a few feet wide so you can see inside your neighbor’s place once you lean out of your own half a million dollar window.
Take this for what it’s worth, as it is purely subjective and anecdotal but judging by the initial impressions, if the rates go up by a SINGLE DIGIT, most if not all Lower Mainland’s first time homebuyers will STRUGGLE to make payments and are very likely to become homeless.
I’m sure the ones that are renting, have no such worry.
March 8th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
@#70 Purp
I agree that the change will not have a large affect if the banks can use the discounted rate. It only represents a 15% change in purchasing power for those absolutely maxed out on amortization and TDS, which does not represent the majority.
- Sure many are choosing 35yr mortgages, yet according to my broker they are not maxed out against the 44-46% TDS. These people will have room to make up for this new rule.
- It will lower the amount some can borrow, yet not drastically enough to price them out of the market. Instead they’ll just buy further out in the burbs.
- Lastly brokers will find ways to make the deals work by fudging a few numbers.
A bigger rule change is needed, or an emotional swing.
March 8th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
I think real estate prices are irrelevant in the larger picture of globalization and eroding living standards in the West. High real estate prices only benefit one generation and impoverish the next one. Who is going to buy a house in Vancouver in 20 years when the average wage is 50% less and taxes are 50% higher? People will line up to emigrate to China, where there are more jobs and lower taxes. By that time, China will be a full-fledged democracy. Buckle your seat belts, we are in the beginning stages of the great world-wide equalization of living standards.
March 8th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
Why devolve into personal insults all the time Drachen? You got schooled by Dave over the whole constant dollar issue (many bears pointed it out), then you hide for a few days and lick you wounds, and then come out swinging like a child again assuming your “knowledge” is superior.
I guess one of the poster’s assessment of you was right – you must be an inexperienced grad student or sessional that cannot handle the insights from those with experience in the real world.
March 8th, 2010 at 2:44 pm
@Dave:
“Values will never return to the levels when they claimed this market was in a bubble.”
Show me your proof. You claimed earlier today that you always back up your claims and assertions, time to put your money where your mouth is.
You don’t have any. Because it doesn’t exist.
And yet you have the temerity to use the word “disingenuous” while being the most disingenuous person here. It’s second nature to you, I imagine you can actually be disingenuous in your sleep you’re so practiced at it by now.
March 8th, 2010 at 2:44 pm
70
I have to agree with you.
I think all the critical thinking bears have already bought, and all that are left are the bears with a superficial level of knowledge that uncritically glom on to past bear arguments. It is almost as if the bears are desperate to cling to any reason why the market will turn this year.
First, the inevitable interest rate hikes would crush the market. Never materialized and it looks like they won’t for some time. Then the focus turned to the much anticipated mortgage requirement changes, which as you have pointed out, really won’t dent the market. Then the very much anticipated flood of post-Olympic listings. I don’t think that will materialize either because the event actually re-energized the market and reinforced the belief that this is the “best place on earth.”
Oh well, I guess everyone can wait for that flood of listings from the retirement of cash strapped baby boomers. Oh right, that one has been around for a while as well. Maybe in another 10 years there will be a correction….
March 8th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
dave 36:
You were making a decent argument untill you spewed this:
“3. Five year rates are highly unlikely to be at 8% in five years. If they are, then we will have experienced significant inflation. Significant inflation would carry over to rent, so the income on this property would be much higher. The relative level of debt would also be deflated.”
8% is historically pretty normal, it’s as good as a guess as any. Truth is no one has any idea what the rate could be. It could stay this low for 15 years or it could shoot to 21%. To say it is unlikely for the rate to go up 3-4% in 5 years is a stretch. I would say it is less likely that the rate will stay here for 5 years, but thats really just an opinion.
If the rate is 8% it doesnt really mean inflation has occured. Even if inflation does occur, there is no guarentee it will have a direct effect on rents. The past few years have shown that rents are relativly independant from the price of other assets, especially homes. Rents are more likely tied to incomes than inflation. If the price of things like food goes up and incomes are stagnent, people have less money for rent. Supply and demand…
And who really cares about “the relative level of debt?” This house cost 500K and an apple is a dollar. Next year an apple is $2. But the house is still worth 500K. You still have to pay the same mortgage. If the price of everything else doubles but the value of the house doesnt change, then the house is effectivly worth less. If you are buying it as an investment then the only thing you really care about is what you can rent it for, or the value of it. If rents stay the same or rise slower than inflation (likely during inflation, as rents can really only rise 4% as per RTA) then you are getting screwed.
March 8th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
@Dave:
“As long as there is inflation, my position is supported. The onus is on you to show that the phenomena of inflation is going to go away.”
So you’re saying that a 20 year old apartment building is worth exactly the same (or more) than a brand new one?
Simply not true (as you know damn well).
Buildings like that depreciate in value over time, inflation increases the value by about 30% over 20 years while depreciation drops the value 50% or more. Find me a 20 year old condo or apartment building that’s otherwise comparable to a brand new one. You’ll see very quickly that the value is less than half on the old ones.
This really is not rocket science Dave. It’s above your level apparently but it’s not that complicated.
March 8th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
Of course, these new rules are just a window dressing.
This is a good article to start with, if you are interested in what REALLY is happening:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/G.....9Dj02.html
March 8th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
I’m a bear and I know this is a bear blog, but the posts and analysis on here are getting worse. Sad considering this is supposed to be a bastion of critical thinking and analysis. This is the second article on the mortgage changes, and they both have problems with the math and interpretation.
If you actually read the link to canadian mortgage trends (which outlines the purported changes) it says that for terms less than 5 years, the posted rate will be used. But for terms of 5+ years, the discounted rates will be used. All this will do is push marginal buyers into 5 year terms since then they can qualify under the <4% discounted contract rates. All in all, not much of a change.
March 8th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
@BoB:
“How do you manage your stock portfolio? Missing out on huge gains over years means you are WRONG!”
That’s not the way Warren Buffett makes his money in the stock market. Since he’s the most successful investor in the world I’d have to say he probably knows better than you.
If I buy a lottery ticket and win have I made a good financial decision or was I just lucky?
March 8th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
@best_place_on_meth:
I think anybody who has been waiting for 5 years or more should care. Doomsayers like VHB were simply wrong. Values will never return to the levels when they claimed this market was in a bubble. The analogy of a helium ballon is disingenuous.
March 8th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
@BoB: “Are we seriously looking for a 50 – 60% reduction in prices?”
Yes, quite possible, why not?
Fundamental support comes in at 50-66% off.
And remember the overshoot that often happens once a bubble bursts. All the ‘investors’ dump, every boomer with retirement funds solely in RE bails, RE ownership loses its cult status, the few prospective buyers sit on their hands, seller urgency, irrational fear, etc.
http://tinyurl.com/prediction2010-2019
March 8th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
What angers me most about the CHMC is that they insure investment properties. What a load of crap.
March 8th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
Who cares about 5 years ago.
The bears have been stating the same arguments for years – is this really the time for some huge crash? Finally? I’m just much more skeptical now than back when I was reading VHB. Yaletown Park – everyone’s going to lose their shirts, Woodwards – everyone’s going to lose their shirts, etc. etc. etc. As I mentioned one day bears will get it right but they have missed out on insane appreciation while waiting.
March 8th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
Here is an excerpt from bulletin issued by the bank.
“There are three different changes. All are aimed at keeping the housing market stable and consumers’ debt loads manageable, even if interest rates rise. Discussions are still going on that could fine-tune changes, but here’s a brief summary of all three updates:
• First, in order to qualify for any kind of mortgage, borrowers will need to have the income to qualify at the five-year posted rate – even if the rate they’re being offered is less than the posted rate, whether for a fixed or variable-rate mortgage. For example, we currently have a
seven-year mortgage on special at 4.95%, but a borrower would need to meet the income test to qualify for the five-year posted rate of 5.39%.
• Second, investors who want to buy a home that they don’t plan to live in will have to make a minimum down payment of 20%, up from the 15% currently required.
• And third, homeowners who want to refinance will only be able to borrow 90% of the value of their home, down from 95%.
These changes will take effect for transactions started on or after April 19, 2010.”
Interpret this as you wish
March 8th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
@Drachen:
As long as there is inflation, my position is supported. The onus is on you to show that the phenomena of inflation is going to go away.
March 8th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
@BoB:
Who cares about 5 years ago.
Buying today is clearly the wrong choice.
March 8th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
@averagejoe:
That was just Dave bursting a blood vessel as I incontrovertibly demonstrated once again that he is either lying or completely lacking in the ability to think rationally.
March 8th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Drachen Says:
March 8th, 2010 at 10:42 am
How do you manage your stock portfolio? Missing out on huge gains over years means you are WRONG! The market sets a value and is always right. You would like to buy a home but haven’t been able to bring yourself to pull the trigger because of “over-valuation”. Can you not admit it was the wrong choice 5 or more years ago? It was!
March 8th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
i tink i heard a pop.
March 8th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
@superdupe:
Poor cheerleader is in denial.
Don’t worry little cheerleader, it’s not too late to change jobs.
You can go from real estate agent to foreclosure specialist quite seamlessly.
March 8th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
In addition there iwe will also be using the 5 year posted rates to qualify all deals including conventional as well.
March 8th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
@reknab:
Nope you’re dead wrong. If you want a 5 year fixed term mortgage you can qualify under the discount rate. It’s only if you want a term under 5 years or a variable product that you need to qualify under the 5 year posted.
March 8th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Sorry Superdub I work for a big 5 lender here at a western mtg approval center and I can confirm that we will be using 5 year POSTED for qualifying buyers with the new rule changes
March 8th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
@Bubble Lad:
No not me. I moved from the rarified atmosphere of Granville & 14th to the suburbs of Burnaby a couple of years ago. It is closer to work and i now rent a house.
As i walked to Kensington Plaza on Sunday i reflected on the strange world in which us lower mainlanders live. Here i am walking through an average burb 15km from the city centre and the shitty 1960′s houses i pass by sell for 800k. The new houses in North Burnaby are well over a million. I accept that i cannot live in Kits Point on my income – fair enough – i should have gone to medical school if i wanted that lifestyle – but Burnaby North? Come on!
The other strange dichotomy is that my neighbourhood (like so many others) is divided into ordinary joes living in houses they’ve owned for 20 or inherited from parents, and affluent professionals who were able to buy an 800k home. Then there’s just ole me, renter man!
March 8th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
Sorry little bears but these rule changes will have ZERO effect. You can still qualify for a 5 year fixed at discount rates even after April 19th even if you need CMHC insurance.
March 8th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Woodward’s rental:
http://vancouver.en.craigslist.....92695.html
Slightly off topic, but…
I checked out the new Woodward development last week, and while I have to admit it some ways they did a great job with things like integrating the NFB, SFU, and services into the complex, and that despite its looming presence in scale to everything else in the area, I found the building itself reminded me of Disneyland – in scale (bear with me).
Everything on the main building seemed about 3/4 scale – as if they’d intended to build in inches, but used centimeters by mistake. Like the place was built for midgets. The suites seem to be right on top of each other – like if your downstairs neighbor lit up a cigar to celebrate their thirtieth b-day, your entire place would stink like an old stogie for weeks.
I know Ulsterman (?) lives there. What’s your take.
But by and large I’d have to give the place a two thumbs up. I’m not a fan of gentrification, but at least they decided to tie in some MUCH needed services to the DTES – so people aren’t paying double or triple for a quart of milk or peanut butter for their kids when they’re already broke. They’ve put in a TD bank on Abbot, a London Drugs, a grocery store, coffee shop, all of which I think is great. But I still wouldn’t want to live in their bizzaro tiny-town condo. Maybe if I was 23 it wouldn’t phase me hearing and smelling my neighbors 24/7.
The other thing that blew my mind was the fact that the strip on the south side of the development (on Hastings), which for decades looked like a war was fought there, is all being redone and leased out. Again, I don’t care for gentrification, but I don’t think abandoned buildings really help anyone.
Long story short, I guess I’m saying I think they did a fantastic job on the project as a whole…but I still wouldn’t want to live there.
March 8th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
@BoB:
On being right: The prediction that prices will drop is not a point-in-time prediction.
Think of a boy holding onto a helium balloon that is taking him skyward. The prediction is that at some point he will fall. Now, I might think that this will happen at 1000m, or 1500m, but that is a secondary concern. The bigger picture is that–at some height–he will fall.
If balloon boy somehow makes it to 2000m, does that mean the prediction is wrong? No.
The fun thing is that the bulls have to be right forever and the bears only have to be right once. I know which bet I think is better.