Thanks to "Got Popcorn?" Neil (who also has a good Jan/Feb graphs post) for pointing out that housing affordability in the Washington DC Metropolitan Area has been swinging upward for the last four quarters. This is due to price drops more than increasing incomes, although the median income rose slightly. The NAHB/Wells Fargo Housing Opportunity Index (HOI) has data going back to 1991. I extrapolated the DC portion of the data from the National Association of Home Builders' data published on Feburary 19th.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Affordability Improving (Slightly)
Posted by Harriet at 11:45 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
38 comments:
Hey Neil, please add some info on how that is calculated.
For example do interest rates factor in? I ask that as the official Lance Sockpuppet(tm)
I'm getting more and more offers of credit cards, re-fi's, HELOC's, etc.
Since Alexandria's higher assessments came out, my mail box has been flooded.
It's either that or it's the interest rates.
Anyone else see the surge?
Harriet,
Thanks for the 'hattip.'
Looking through the data you provided, its very interesting to see how prices dropped during the 'peace dividend recession.' Funny how the NAR tends to cut that out of their charts.
Its ironic, as down payment requirements increase, quite a few J6P's will be locked out of an affordable housing market. Cest la vie.
Got Popcorn?
Neil
Good morning Harriet,
please take a look at this article at the Atlantic.com.
They mention some of the themes of your blog, the falling prices out there and strangely stubborn value holding going on in Lance's area.
As before, if this merits a front page listing, please feel free to delete this post.
KH,
http://www.nahb.org/generic.aspx?sectionID=135&genericContentID=533
You could have followed my previous link or Harriet's. Its well documented on the web site you were given.
30 year fixed rate mortgage, 28% of income, 10% down. They then determine what fraction of the population can afford the median home.
Its the same methodology they've used since IIRC 1955 and backtracked to before the great depression. So its not something new and re-invented by the used home sales people. Its a rather famous index; I'm surprised you didn't know about it.
The Realtors (tm) tried to come up with a new 'affordability index' when certain cities dropped to single digit affordablity. But their index is based on low teaser option-ARM loans. You know, the stupid loans everyone is getting foreclosed on? The Wells Fargo index is the real index that we've been quoted for decades.
As to credit:
Didn't you see the Post article on tightening credit on HELOC's?
Advertising is pre-paid up to a year in advance...
Got Popcorn?
Neil
Hey thanks for pointing me right at the explanation Neil. That is a big help.
I'd be interested (oh, I am punny today) in seeing the interest rate as another column.
As Lance has pointed out, that makes a big difference in affordabiliy. As the popcorn man has countered, that sword can and has cut the other way.
When teaser ARMs go bad
some HH get so sad ...KH
I've got a small HELOC, the rate has been dropping for the several months, it just went to 6.00%. I think it's less than my 1st.
mechanics
Instead of using tinyurl, how about doing direct links? Then it's a single click to open the page and readers can view the URL before opening.
You use the "a" tag. In this example change the [ to <.
[a href="http://www.nahb.org/generic.aspx?sectionID=135&gene"]Click here Please[/a]
Oh, I see that you used a direct link. I'll leave my example up for others.
[b]Lance is cool.[/b]
If you change the "[" to "<" and the "]" to ">", you get:
Lance is cool.
[i]Popcorn man, popcorn man
Give me a bag of Reddenbachers
if you can.
Signed, [b]your fan.[/b] [/i]
Note the slash-b and the slash-i. Tags are paired as open and close.
b-tags and i-tags can be used inside each other.
Popcorn man, popcorn man
Give me a bag of Reddenbachers
if you can,
Signed, your fan.
I see that you know html but others may not and might benefit from the lesson.
Good links will help Harriet's blog run smoother and a little highlighting can help make points.
Thanks (I am a housing bull, not as much a bull as Lance but up there.)
Neil, make sure the stats don't have "icky" places...that means everything outside of the beltway, the bad parts of DC, and don't even bother with Maryland. That's the only way some people will take the data here. :) Be sure to add extra weighting to northern Arlington, NW DC, and Alexandria.
Sh*t...am I turning into Leroy?
/unpleasant morning
"Neil, make sure the stats don't have "icky" places...that means everything outside of the beltway, the bad parts of DC, and don't even bother with Maryland. That's the only way some people will take the data here. :) Be sure to add extra weighting to northern Arlington, NW DC, and Alexandria."
Lets simplify things... just exclude anywhere that is showing a decline.
Obviously if prices are going down they aren't in the pan-global part of DC.
"Sh*t...am I turning into Leroy?"
and what is THAT supposed to mean?
I think there is a point where everyone gets tired of seeing the same stupid stuff posted over and over and over again.
Ignore all the data. Ignore all the statistics. Ignore all of history. Ignore common sense.
DC is the new Manhattan. Prices are heading for the moon! By now or be priced out forever!
and more recently... anywhere that is showing a decline isn't part of DC and won't affect MY house.
Want to see some numbers I found really interesting?
Go to: http://www.nvar.com/market/marketstats/jan08/index.html
http://tinyurl.com/36pxw5
Look at the growth of listings at the low end.
In Fairfax county (for attached SFHs)
Last year there was 1 single listing beneath $200k. This year there are 85. (an increase of 8400%)
Last year there were 39 houses less than $300k. This year there are 484. (an increase of 1141%)
As of last year finding an attached SFH below $300k was extremely difficult with only 40 in the entire county. Now there are 569 of them...
The same pattern shows up in the detached homes...
In 2007 there were 23 on the market for less than 400k. Now there are 554.
There can be no doubt that buyers today are getting far more for their money than buyers a year or more ago were. I suspect these statistics would be even more dramatic if we could go back two years to 2006 and make the same comparison...
I wonder what happens to the affordability when the income side of the equation heads south?
From WaPo:
Richard Clinch, a researcher at the University of Baltimore, said that from 2001 to 2005, as much as half of the job growth in metropolitan Washington was linked to the soaring real estate market.
Doh!
And I bet that half of the growth did not include workers that would be likely to buy houses near a Metro.
http://tinyurl.com/yp7qft
"In 2000, Croson bought a $155,000 home in a wooded enclave 30 miles southeast of the District. As interest rates fell, and the value of the house rose, she refinanced twice, exchanging some of the equity for cash."
This is one of the things that bothers me the most about how the media has covered housing...
"exchanging some of the equity for cash"
What the heck does that mean exactly?
Ah yes... she used her home as collateral for a loan.
Funny how putting it that way sounds so different isn't it?
The media should never have fallen into the habit of using the marketing speak invented by those in the home equity loan business.
This woman didn't "exchange" anything. She didn't "tap" the equity in her house. She didn't "withdraw" equity from her house.
All of these terms imply that there is some kind of reservoir of "equity" beneath the house somewhere and all you need to do is stick a straw into it to "extract" some.
This woman used her house as collateral for a loan. Then...
"She spent $4,000 fixing the backyard pool. She took her nephew, Toby, of whom she has legal custody, on week-long trips to the beach. She dropped $250 for his fourth birthday party, which featured a private reptile exhibitor regaling Toby and his friends with a small crocodile and an 18-foot boa constrictor.
...
No more dinners for Toby at Chuck E. Cheese's. She dropped her health insurance and her life insurance. She recently spent $400 after a heater in her home broke and another $100 at Wal-Mart for a vacuum cleaner after her old one broke, draining her savings to near zero.
...
Croson said that if she can't refinance to reduce her monthly mortgage payments, she will have to sell her house. Doing so might mean pulling Toby out of a prized public school, away from his friends, and would go against her overarching priority: making Toby feel secure."
She used her house as collateral and now the bank wants the money paid back.
This person is no different than someone that pawns a prized possession and then later tries to beg the pawnshop into returning it when they can't pay back the money.
She took out a big loan and spent the money. The money is gone, the loan remains. She didn't "exchange equity" for cash. She exchanged debt for cash.
Why is that so hard for people to understand? The media should at least try to call a spade a spade.
As for what this means for the region? There are LOTS of people like this woman. People who were living beyond their means by borrowing huge amounts of money.
Now that the "housing ATM" is being turned off, spending in general is going to drop by a significant amount. This is in addition to all those jobs related to the RE industry that this article mentions.
This woman happened to both work in RE and borrow against her house, but there are a lot of people that borrowed against their house who didn't work in RE. Their spending will be impacted as well.
Leroy: you forgot 'liberate', as in "She did not liberate the equity from her house, instead she took out a big loan using her house as collateral, hoping to never have to pay it back".
Leroy said:
Lets simplify things... just exclude anywhere that is showing a decline.
Lol That is what many want. Cut the information.
Novawatcher said:
I wonder what happens to the affordability when the income side of the equation heads south?
It won't decline any more, at this point. We've reached a critical volume of 'must sell' FB's (Banks).
Leroy Said:
This woman used her house as collateral for a loan. Then...
And now those loans are coming due.
Will there be instant slums? Yes. That's why its best to wait and see how things fall out. Most of the DC population is priced out forever from Alexandria. That doesn't mean Alexandria won't fall. Quite the opposite. The upgrade train is broken; for some reason the bulls cannot understand that implication...
Got Popcorn?
Neil
Neil, your last post showed that you have no actual familiarity with the DC housing market.
"The upgrade train is broken"
As someone who has lived here for 40 years, very, very few people upgrade from Manassas or the like to inner-suburb Arlington or Alexandria. The folks buying in those places are most typically first-time homeowners or homeowners who used to own an apartment in the district. The nature of the inner-suburb houses--small, typically no basement, good elementary schools but not necessarily beyond that--fit perfectly the early-to-mid 30's lawyer, consultant or foreign service couple who are usually "upgrading" from a rental in Courthouse or Ballston.
Try again.
Got a clue?
"Most of the DC population is priced out forever from Alexandria."
Here I think you are a little off base. It sounds like you have gotten a skewed perspective of what the DC market consists of.
(There are a couple big fans of the Alexandria area that post on here a lot... but they give a pretty slanted description of things...)
Alexandria is a very small part of the overall area, but it isn't at all the "top" of the market. There are a few really nice parts of Alexandria, but the majority consists of ordinary neighborhoods made up of small homes on small lots.
Alexandria City's median sales price in Jan was $405k.
Fairfax county, the biggest chunk of Northern VA by far, had a median price of $395k. (and Fairfax includes areas that some on this blog call "out there" that have already been hit hard)
If you go back to June 2006.(roughly the peak for this region...)
Alexandria City's median sales price was $460k while Fairfax Co's median was $500k.
So yeah, don't confuse Alexandria with high end. Outside of a few specific neighborhoods Alexandria isn't much more expensive than the rest of region.
If you want to talk about the high-end of the market you are looking at places like Mclean and Great Falls. Those are places that consisted of multi-million dollar mansions pre-bubble and will continue to after the bubble.
Leroy,
Thank you. As Alexandria isn't where I want to buy, I'll admit I haven't focused on it until the bulls kept pointing out how it cannot drop.
That said, Alexandria isn't your typical 1st time buyers market. I would bet 70%+ of the buyers are coming in with equity selling from somewhere else.
Narl,
Start thinking national. I have a friend moving into DC who cannot buy until his California home sells. But as you note:
The folks buying in those places are most typically first-time homeowners or homeowners who used to own an apartment in the district.
That upgrade train is broken too.
Most jumbo buyers come in from another area that was jumbo. Ok, I see Alexandria is dropping many areas/units in the conforming market. That's good and what we predicted. I see people getting hung up on small specifics and missing the big picture. Its the big picture that matters.
If you want to talk about the high-end of the market you are looking at places like Mclean and Great Falls. Those are places that consisted of multi-million dollar mansions pre-bubble and will continue to after the bubble.
Certainly. :) But traditionally the top 25% is the "high end." I think of what you describe as the 'status markets.' :)
Hey, if I'm wrong, we'll see a recovery in the February and March sales numbers. Since we have a decade of data provided by Harriet (except for February), I'll be curious to hear everyones predictions. Harriet provided the link to where I graphed the sales. Sales rates always proceed price changes. We're in the tenth month of 'broken sales.' Yes, more than one standard deviation below the decade mean for over nine months. Cest la vie.
Got Popcorn?
Neil
Slight OT, but I think its worthwhile that people read this article.
There are sometimes good reasons why some areas are much more expensive than others.
This article is a very good reason why families should avoid living in DC
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2008/02/a_bump_a_panic_two_babies_torn.html?hpid=news-col-blog
"Sh*t...am I turning into Leroy?"
and what is THAT supposed to mean?
----------------------------
Hahaha...relax, I agree with your view points. We all just happen to know you are very vocal about it, probably a bit on the abrasive side. But I understand your frustration, hence my unhelpful comments. :)
As for Alexandria - I'd say 75% of it is not very nice. There are probably more nice places in FF county, such as Great Falls, McLean, Vienna, Herndon, Falls Church, Tysons Corner, etc.
I'm becoming more and more disenchanted by our housing stock. I would like for more variety and more community. These days, I see rows upon rows of town homes or entire developments of large homes with no lawns that barely look any different from each other. And right next door to it all? Massive shopping centers with Walmarts, Giants, World Markets, Best Buys, Kohls, Pananera Breads, Staples, etc.
An example of somewhere that has been popular is Reston Town Center. People FLOCK to a place like this...you have to ask yourself "WHY IS THAT"? The pendulum is swinging back to urban living, and it's not just because the price of gas.
"The pendulum is swinging back to urban living, and it's not just because the price of gas."
That is basically the premise of the Atlantic article KH noted near the beginning of this thread. The idea that the exurban McMansions will turn into slums over the next 20-40 years is not so far fetched if you think about it.
@ Alexa
"I'm becoming more and more disenchanted by our housing stock. I would like for more variety and more community. These days, I see rows upon rows of town homes or entire developments of large homes with no lawns that barely look any different from each other. And right next door to it all? Massive shopping centers with Walmarts, Giants, World Markets, Best Buys, Kohls, Pananera Breads, Staples, etc."
Then move to Arlington or NW DC. The outer counties are planned for the development you don't like and they don't have the grid structure of a real town (Yes, I know Arlington's "grid" is a little wacky).
"That is basically the premise of the Atlantic article KH noted near the beginning of this thread. The idea that the exurban McMansions will turn into slums over the next 20-40 years is not so far fetched if you think about it."
It isn't far fetched at all. Neighborhoods are always changing and there is no rule that says areas that are currently "nice" will remain so.
Most of Alexandria is less than 20 years removed from being a pretty shady area. Huge portions of the District used to be nice areas and have since turned into slums...
It is too early to say exactly which areas will gain and which will lose over the next ten years. I suspect that it won't be anything so clear cut as close in areas doing well while outer areas will do poorly.
There have always been bad neighborhoods inside the beltway and that isn't going to change. The recent housing bubble did a lot to revitalize some fringe neighborhoods, but a lot of that will be undone by the bust.
Leroy said:
"Huge portions of the District used to be nice areas and have since turned into slums..."
Nothing could be further from the truth. The opposite is true. Leroy, when's the last time you were in the District? 1968?
Alexa "As for Alexandria - I'd say 75% of it is not very nice. There are probably more nice places in FF county, such as Great Falls, McLean, Vienna, Herndon, Falls Church, Tysons Corner, etc."
On several basis, I agree. It's not just REED AV in 22305. The entire section between Old Town and Del Ray is a mystery. Some of that looks like city-owned low cost housing.
I'm not sure what's happening on REED AV. They are doing knock-downs but not fast enough.
Then move to Arlington or NW DC. The outer counties are planned for the development you don't like and they don't have the grid structure of a real town (Yes, I know Arlington's "grid" is a little wacky).
I live in Old Town Alexandria. :) Lots of history and beautiful homes here plus a true variety of family owned shops. Walmart is far away.
I'm not sure what's happening on REED AV. They are doing knock-downs but not fast enough.
I finally had to look up this location, you've been talking about it for a while now. That area is way too close to the air port. :) I don't know if I've been there, but based on it's location and google sattelite, I'm not so certain it would be a nice area. Why you eying this street?
"Nothing could be further from the truth. The opposite is true. Leroy, when's the last time you were in the District? 1968?"
Lol... try last week.
There are whole neighborhoods of interesting old houses with boarded up houses on every street and with the remainder hiding behind burgler bars.
Let me guess though, that isn't part of the "real" DC...
Leroy,
Are you serious? You really don't know about the rejuvenation of entire neighborhoods over the last 10 - 15 years? Places such as Shaw, Logan Circle, Ledroit Park, H Street NE, the list goes on and on ...
B
There is quite a bit of gentrification going on in DC from what I have seen and heard in the last 5 years or so. According to news reports I heard just recently, DC still has major problems with "clustered" poverty. It still amazes me that the capital of probably the most powerful country in the world is not much better than it is.
Demographics if anyone is interested.
"Are you serious? You really don't know about the rejuvenation of entire neighborhoods over the last 10 - 15 years? Places such as Shaw, Logan Circle, Ledroit Park, H Street NE, the list goes on and on"
This looks like another case where you failed to read what I wrote.
I didn't say that there aren't any nice places in the District, or that some areas haven't improved.
What I said is that there are large parts of the District that used to be "nice" that are now very undesirable.
Leroy,
The problem with your posts, is that you intentionally imply things and then argue thats not explicitly what you said. Its a childish way to make it seem like everything you say is correct.
And no, its not that people are reading your posts wrong. When you say "Huge portions of the District used to be nice areas and have since turned into slums..." You are INDEED making a deliberate statement about DC as a whole, but then you deny it and say "This looks like another case where you failed to read what I wrote."
Its a silly little game you play and undermines any credibility you have in your posts.
The fact of the matter is, while a few neighborhoods have declined, the vast majority of change in DC has been in the positive direction. Probably for every neighborhood that has declined, you can find 5 that have been significantly improved.
"The problem with your posts, is that you intentionally imply things and then argue thats not explicitly what you said. Its a childish way to make it seem like everything you say is correct."
lol... the problem seems to be in your ability to read what I wrote without trying to imagine some "implied" meaning. I pretty much say what I mean.
"And no, its not that people are reading your posts wrong. When you say "Huge portions of the District used to be nice areas and have since turned into slums..." You are INDEED making a deliberate statement about DC as a whole, but then you deny it and say "This looks like another case where you failed to read what I wrote.""
What does the word "portions" mean to you?
How can you possibly say that that is a statement about "DC as a whole" when I specifically said "portions."
I really don't know whether you are just trying to pick a fight or really aren't reading very carefully.
Most of the District has been down at some point... some of it is currently nice. Some of the currently nice areas were shady not too long ago... other areas that are shady were quite nice within living memory.
Or am I implying something negative by saying that again?
Leroy - I occasionally get appointed by our local court to serve as special master in various disputes. Most of the time, a transcript is provided so I can review what the parties say and the context in which it was said.
Now, I am not going to say that it was inenttional or not, but lets put it this way, if your original statement was read into evidence in a case where I was presiding, there is no way I would read it the way you now want us to.
please excuse the temporary dislexia - that last post was supposed to read "intentional" not "inenttional"!
Well, that doesn't give me any additional faith in our legal system. I clearly said that Alexandria was largely a shady area not too long ago, and more recently much of it has improved. I said that portions(there it is again) of the District that used to be nice have since become shady.
Go drive around the less trendy parts of the district sometime. It isn't uncommon to see cool old row houses and similar structures boarded up and spray painted.
Who is disputing that the neighborhood went downhill sometime between when those buildings were built and when they were abandoned?
Obviously not all of the District is in that condition. I think a few people around here are way too jumpy trying to defend the District.
It is better than it once was...but that doesn't mean there aren't still huge portions that are nowhere you want to be.
IMHO, "huge portions" does not equal "all" so I essentially agree w/leroy.
I was thisclose to purchasing a condo in one of the "gentrified" areas of DC last year. This was due to temporary insanity brought on by the insistence of one friend to invest in urban centers, and another friend who reminded me that I was getting nothing for my rent. As I was debating the purchase, I remember two things: 1) reading a blog from a guy who had bought in a "gentrified" area (Columbia Heights, I think) years ago and regretted it for crime-related reasons...he had thought things would get better; 2) reading a blog from a guy in Petworth who was discussing how many gunshots he heard per month and how many drug deals he saw on the street corners. I'm no Pollyanna, but...um...no thanks. (Ironically, blogger #2 was actually trying to promote his area.) After checking out crime statistics, my sanity came back.
SE DC is one of the few places in the country I wouldn't walk through during the day, let alone at night. NE is no picnic, either.
So, SE is a complete ghetto, NE is fairly ghetto, and the north part of NW is sketchy. I think that qualifies as "huge portions".
BTW, I'm from Detroit, so I'm not easily scared off. However, I am quite familiar w/ghetto.
Are you serious? You really don't know about the rejuvenation of entire neighborhoods over the last 10 - 15 years? Places such as Shaw, Logan Circle, Ledroit Park, H Street NE, the list goes on and on ...
------------------------------
I am not going to let you get away with trying to slide LeDroit Park, and H Street in there. Shaw is very, very borderline...well no, it is ghetto. And no, the list doesn't go on and on. It is pretty dang short.
LeDroit Park has been "up and coming" since I was a kid.
I was born here and I live here. Those areas are holes.
Alexa: "Why you eying this street?"
Not to live there or to buy. More as a reference. E REED AV is "the Hole", the worst of Alexandria. I'm close to it and MANSION DR.
I track my neighborhood, North Ridge/Beverly Hills and those two extremes in my area. This reveals much more than the stats from shiller, MRIS, etc.
Just for laughs, get a print out from Zillow for E REED AV and MANSION DR, take a drive on both.
Let your wife drive so you can eyeball both streets. Maybe take some pictures.
Swing by MOMs, locate RTs, Chez Andree, Taqueria Poblano, Dairy Godmother, you'll spot someplace you'll like.
Note how close REED AV is to Chez Andree. Pawn shops, Check Cashing stores. Why does REED AV exist? Where is it going?
The airport isn't a problem. I can hear the planes too. We are not under the glide path so it's just a distant sound.
Check it out and we'll talk.
I am glad I am not the only one that can see this...
I have lived in big cities most of my life.
I know the difference between "urban" and "slum" and without a doubt much of DC qualifies as the latter.
There are some nice areas of DC, but lets be realistic... we aren't talking about isolated problem areas.
We are talking about major chunks of the District where you would justifiably not feel safe outside your home at night. (and only inside if you have bars on your windows)
"Most of Alexandria is less than 20 years removed from being a pretty shady area. Huge portions of the District used to be nice areas and have since turned into slums... "
Leroy - By piggybacking these two sentences together, a reasonable person might assume that you are speaking about the most recent trends for both Alexandria and DC. (i.e. D.C. areas are now becoming slums). Thus, these statements fail to distinguish between DC’s more recent gentrification period, and its more distant “white flight” period of the 1950s.
Lance picked up on this and asked if you have been to the district since 1968. Lance's viewpoint may be myopic, but it is not necessarily unreasonable. Given his comment about 1968, it looks like he thought you were denying the recent gentrification trend ever occurred. Your response did nothing to clarify this - all you said to him was "There are whole neighborhoods of interesting old houses with boarded up houses on every street and with the remainder hiding behind burgler bars." Again, a reasonable person could assume you were denying the more recent gentrification period.
Later on, Lance asks if you are aware of the “rejuvenation of entire neighborhoods of the last 10-15 years” and it is at this point that you note the improvement and state he “failed to read what I wrote”. To your credit, your original post did say “the recent housing bubble did a lot to revitalize some fringe neighborhoods” (i.e. the gentrification period), but it was lost in light of the original statement “Huge portions of the District used to be nice areas and have since turned into slums” and your follow up/chance to clarify “There are whole neighborhoods of interesting old houses with boarded up houses on every street and with the remainder hiding behind burgler bars”.
Later on, Doug attempts to take you to task on this whole exchange, focusing on your statement “Huge portions of the District used to be nice areas and have since turned into slums”. He states you “intentionally imply things and then argue that’s not explicitly what you said” and that “it’s a silly little game you play and undermines any credibility you have in your posts”.
Ironically, you respond to Doug in a way that bolsters his claim about “a silly little game you play”. Specifically, your response focuses on your use of the word “portions” instead of your use of words “HUGE portions” (emphasis added). For example, you say to him
“how can you possibly say that it is a statement about ‘DC as a whole’ when I specifically said ‘portions’.”
Let me rephrase this by noting you could have just as easily said
“how can you possibly say that it is a statement about ‘DC as a whole’ when I specifically said ‘HUGE portions’ (your words, my emphasis).
Couldn’t a reasonable person look at this statement (again, it is still your words) and deem that you are engaging in this bit of the silliness Doug claims?
Look, I respect your positions and I think you provide thoughtful and insightful commentary to this blog. You also do an excellent job (in my view) of reeling Lance back in when he gets a bit too boisterous about the virtues of D.C.. At the same time however, the points made by Lance and Doug are fair criticism. I will not go so far as Doug did to say to say this is intentional on your part, but I think this is something you should be cognizant of nonetheless.
We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
I never made any claims about all of the District nor did I imply any as Doug claimed.
I will admit that the timeline I was talking about was not as clear as it could have been but this silliness about what I did or didn't imply...
The point of my original statement is that neighborhoods do change, and it isn't always for the better.
Post a Comment