Please post your local house search updates, MLS finds, on-topic ideas, and links here.
They wanted $419K, but after well over a year, they settled for $250K. And the county still has it assessed for $497K. I think the exurban county assessors are in for another rude awakening. This has not been a great summer for prices in the farmland counties.
The property is between a highway and a railroad track, so that high assessment in the first place is a little astounding, but unsurprising.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Northern Virginia Bits Bucket 8/3/2011
Posted by Harriet at 9:58 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments:
"Kev said...What Anonymous didn't realize is that there is actually a statistic to measure a household's combined income of its inhabitants. He thought I was talking about per capita."
I thought no such thing. I was simply pointing out that there is a "logical explanation" for why hh income has not grown as much as home prices. Let me see if you have the cognitive capacity to understand.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kevin said...Median income is 1.5 times what it was a decade ago. Median home price is 2.38 times what it was a decade ago. Prices correlate with income and rents. There's no logical explanation other than prices being widely bubbled in Arlington. Reversion there as well as more posh areas like Mclean and Oakton are nowhere near historical trends."
No logical explanation Kev? Heres one.
Say in the pre bubble days, 5 households want to buy in to an area, with incomes as follows:
60K....60K....90K....150K....150K
Median income = 90K.
Now, if everyone buys at 3X income prices for those 5 homes, prices are as follows
180K...180K...270K...450K...450K
Median home price = 270K.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now, fast forward and assume that now 9 households who want to live there with incomes as follows
60k..60k..60k..60k..90k..150k..150k..150k..150k..
Median income still = 90k.
Now, lets say that they only could build 2 more houses. With those 9 households competing for 7 houses, the top 7 earners will beat out the bottom 2 who are forced to remain renters. Thus, even with the buyers still paying only 3X income, prices for those 7 homes are as follows:
180k...180k...270k...450k...450k...450k...450k
Median home price = 450k.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So again, pre bubble days:
Median income = 90k
Median home = 270k
everyone bought at 3X income - therefore sustainable.
Post bubble days
Median income =90k
Median home =450K
everyone bought at 3X income - therefore still sustainable.
This is a natural and logical consequence in desirable yet land constrained areas. Over time, the metrics look worse and worse as the lowest income people are forced to rent...yet its still sustainable. How did you think that in the year 2000, before there was any hint of a bubble, home prices in manhattan were at 20X income? And this isnt just a NYC phenomenon either. In the year 2000...again pre-bubble...some areas of DC were already at 9X income.
Bottom line, you really need to think more about this. We've been over this tutorial 1,000 times on this blog. Yet here we are in mid 2011 trying to explain this relatively simple concept to you.
You pasted this portion of our debate into a new thread, but never responded to my last posts. Amusing.
Why do you think I'm talking about per capita GDP? How many times did I emphasize that it's HOUSEHOLD income which is has parity with prices and rents, NOT per capita (translation for the economically-challenged: per capita = per person). Let's count:
1) median household income has only risen a fraction of the proportion that the median housing prices have grown
2) Anonymous, that's why I look at median household income.
3) More people and incomes per household are reflected in that figure, hence a consistent parity with housing values up until the bubble.
5) One fewer poster who doesn't know the difference between GDP per capita and GDP per household...
6) you don't understand some pretty fundamental economic measures such as "household income"
7) Household income is not to be confused with family or personal income.
8) Household income is often the combination of two income earners pooling the resources and should therefore not be confused with an individual's earnings.
9) That information is reflected in household income statistics, which has traditionally been in line with housing prices.
10) What Anonymous didn't realize is that there is actually a statistic to measure a household's combined income of its inhabitants.
That is ten times. I've already pointed out that your scenario above is ignoring the median household income, so I have to assume you're either being antagonistic, or you're simply too ignorant to grasp it.
Your scenario is based on an influx of demand without a corresponding increase in the supply. That's not a novel concept. Myself and others have thought about it plenty, which is why we talk about household income, and why household income has had parity to home prices and rents. What you're excluding and what should be painfully obvious to anybody is that the increased demand manifests itself in more people per household; hence a higher per-household income; hence higher home prices; hence home prices and household incomes ought to be in parity as they always were until the housing bubble; hence you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
i think Anon leaves out the difference between Rent/Price ratio in his analysis.
hey all remmeber Myerton, the ill fated condo conversion in my hood?
http://www.arlnow.com/2011/07/29/myerton-again-changes-course-on-housing-project/
"Just five months after announcing its units at The Myerton would be sold as condominiums instead of rented as apartments, JBG has reversed course on the project.
Realtor Laura Rubinchuk Schwartz tells us that slow sales and a hot rental market prompted JBG to stop selling the units at 108 S. Courthouse Road. The developer had made the decision in February to begin sales instead of renting the units."
now i had done a somewhat tedious analysis showing how it was $800/month more to own then rent there.
So, the property has been screwed up for years by wanna be developers.
I wonder how much money the developers made here?
Glug, Glug, Glug...
http://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/jbg_to_convert_myerton_apartments_to_condos/2957
But hey, Arlington real estate always does well.
i think Anon leaves out the difference between Rent/Price ratio in his analysis.
He makes up for it with his razor-sharp bookmarking abilities. Who needs to understand the simplest economic factors, fundamentals, statistics, and indicators of the housing market if they have a catalog of quotes on hand that they can throw out to diffuse current and future debates?
"Kev said...Myself and others have thought about it plenty, which is why we talk about household income"
Kev -- let me try this again. Ready:
I TOO AM TALKING ABOUT HOUSEHOLD INCOME
We agree on this. 100%. End of story.
As such, do you want to re-read the "logical explanation" to your question and reply, or do you want me to repost it and walk you through it?
Kev -- in all seriousness here, I dont know how this confusion got started, but in any event, what I am pointing out, what we all have been pointing out for years here on this site is that household income does not, I repeat, does not have to have parity with median home prices.
I know you want to think that it has to have parity, but it does not. This I assure you.
In any event, lets start over. Take a deep breath and again look at this situation:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Say in the pre bubble days, 5 households want to buy in to an area, with household incomes as follows:
60K....60K....90K....150K....150K
Median household income = 90K.
Now, if everyone buys at 3X household income prices for those 5 homes, will be as follows
180K...180K...270K...450K...450K
Median home price = 270K.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now, fast forward and assume that now 9 households who want to live there with household incomes as follows
60k..60k..60k..60k..90k..150k..150k..150k..150k..
Median household income still = 90k.
Now, lets say that they only could build 2 more houses. With those 9 households competing for 7 houses, the top 7 houses with the highest household incomes will beat out the bottom 2 households who are forced to remain renters. Thus, even with the buyers still paying only 3X household income, prices for those 7 homes are as follows:
180k...180k...270k...450k...450k...450k...450k
Median home price = 450k.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So again, pre bubble days:
Median household income = 90k
Median home price = 270k
everyone bought at 3X household income - therefore sustainable.
Post bubble days
Median household income =90k
Median home price =450K
everyone bought at 3X household income - therefore still sustainable.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Do you understand now?
household income does not, I repeat, does not have to have parity with median home prices
I didn't say it had to, I said that there is no good or logical explanation for why it isn't for our market. As in a reason based on empirical evidence, or one that has been documented before. Not your idiotic bullshit. I've been on this site for years, so don't misrepresent others' opinions or insinuate that they agree with your theory. I give them all the benefit of doubt by assuming they know what income per household means.
So why do you keep pasting the same bullshit scenario? I read it correctly the first time, and though I might not have articulately ridiculed it, I correctly pointed out how stupid it was. People do not simply disappear into a vacuum. In that scenario, the people making 60k..60k get bumped out of the ownership market and they fall into the renters market. You know what household GDP includes? Renters. If a finite number of houses are occupied by people making a combined higher income than before, you know what goes up? Household GDP.
That is why household income has paired perfectly with home prices until the bubble. That's why rents have paired with incomes regardless of the bubble.
"Kev said...That is why household income has paired perfectly with home prices until the bubble."
Oh really? They have huh? OK so tell me, back in 1999, before there was a whiff of any bubble New York had a median home value in excess of 1,000,000 while median household income was $47,030.
Thats over 21X income Kevin. Got that? In 1999 median home price got to be over 21X median household income.
You say they "paired perfectly" yet, in some land constrained, high demand areas, we know that they could be as distorted as 21X income even in pre bubble days.
If they "paired perfectly" how did 21X income happen?
Oh -- I will note too, that they have indeed paired perfectly with the USA as a whole. National average shows median home price was indeed 3X median household income.
Yet, we come to find out that in undesirable areas where supply far exceeds demand (i.e. Detroit) that metric is 2X income. On the other end of that spectrum where land is in short supply and demand is high (i.e. New York) the metric is 21X income.
So yes, 3X income pairs perfectly for the US as a whole. Yet within that national average there are areas that are at 2X income and others that are 21X income. Not so exactly paired perfectly in those areas huh?
Current assessment on this property is $338,000
$242,400 of it is land valuation
More evidence of how median home price "paired perfectly" with median household income. All stats are from the year 1999 and expressed as a ratio (i.e. median home price is 3X median income)
Median home price/median income in 1999
Flint, Mich......1.77X
Gary, Ind........1.96X
PW County........2.26X
Lo County........2.48X
Fx County........2.87X
Arl County.......4.16X
Alex City........4.50X
Manhtn bch, CA...6.67X
Santa Monica CA.12.34X
Yep, seems its "paired perfectly" alright. Glug, glug, glug...
If I recall correctly, a couple of years ago FX CTY median income could afford median price (using the 3X salary metric).
This does not mean that median can afford McLean or Great Falls.
I saw a 3/2 house in Reston yesterday for 220K - clearly affordable to those making well under median.
The disconnect is that Kevin thinks median income should be able to afford MORE than a median house. You aren't in Kansas, Dorothy.
If they "paired perfectly" how did 21X income happen?
Do you understand the concept of parity? That figure could be 5x, 21x, or 1000x. I never said what the ratio ought to be, but per usual you're leaping on a red herring when you are too clueless to form an educated or inquisitive response.
If it's been consistent for decades, save for the housing bubble, that would constitute a price parity between the two metrics. That's all it means.
Example: Say in a small town in Texas a dozen eggs and a gallon of milk are (historically) within a statistically-significant price parity. Today the eggs cost $4 and the milk is $3. Back in 1950, they were $0.80 and 0.60, respectively. If something like a chicken pandemic were to occur and 90% of egg production is killed, it's reasonable to assume that this historical parity does not apply to the new retail prices of eggs ($20) and milk ($5, increased as well because they can be substitute products). The fundamentals have changed and they're explainable, documented, tangible, and quantified.
After several years when the chicken population is restored and egg production is back to normal, it's expected that their price parity will be restored (absent say a dramatic change in the dairy/poultry industry and FDA regulations as a result of the pandemic). If Milk is back down to $3, eggs are only down to $8, then it begs the question as to why this parity hasn't returned to historical norms.
That is what I am talking about. I'm asking why the eggs and milk have not reverted to their historic parity levels, not whether the particular ratio is justifiable in a totally different part of the country. This is why statisticians and economists try to establish correlations. If there is a dependence between two things such as a household's collective income and how expensive of a house they can buy, it's worth noting when this is out of sync - not in parity - with historic figures.
My mistake for assuming that parity was part of The Anonymous' vocabulary, or that you could look it up.
Does DOW down 500 mean anything for us? It has been falling for 2 weeks now, culminating with yesterdays issues. Is it anything significant? Could this be the second leg down in the recession heading to a depression?
VA_,
How does one determine median home? Is it just a home sold at median prices?
Anonymous:
Yep, seems its "paired perfectly" alright. Glug, glug, glug...
You're really embarrassing yourself.
VA_I:
The disconnect is that Kevin thinks median income should be able to afford MORE than a median house.
No I don't. I never said anything like that.
Kevin, I hesitate to dip my toe in these turbulent waters, but here is my understanding of the rationale behind one of The Anon.'s point, with which I agree.
If there is a fixed supply of housing in a neighborhood in close proximity to a desirable area (e.g., where high paying jobs are), but there is increasing demand from people wanting to live there (e.g., to keep their commutes manageable, or because there are many people moving to the area and therefore higher absolute #s of people who might want the same fixed # of houses in that neighborhood) then that fixed supply/increasing demand imbalance will set a new, higher equilibrium price. For the reason TA's example points out, it is possible that there will be much less change in the median HH income than in the median price in that neighborhood. This will be a stable, new, higher home price (rather than a bubble price), as long as there are enough people well above the median income, willing to pay those higher prices, although probably over time, the median neighborhood income will probably rise too, though not necessarily as much. One reason is that the people already living there who don't move will have much higher home values, but their incomes haven't increased as much. There is evidence that real income stabilizes by mid-life for most of us.
The people priced out will not necessarily rent in the neighborhood. Those who want to buy may buy farther out.
Ace, I don't disagree with your point or that notion and didn't say this isn't possible, but it's just a theory and there should be some demographic/economic indicators which can support such a theory. That is why household income has always been a reliable and consistently-paired indicator, as have rental prices. Rental price increases over the past decade in the region are wholly consistent with household income growth. Home prices were in line up until the bubble, but now are not. Demand for housing has been met with a surge in supply. Almost all of the pieces in this puzzle make sense. I can't accept the one that doesn't add up based on a theory that's devoid of empirical evidence. So I am glad we can continue these discussions and share thoughts and observations (even if someone needs to be reminded of what household GDP and price parity mean:).
I have explored a number of factors which could cause this and have tried to find changes in other areas during non-bubble times which reflect this distortion. When it comes down to it, everything that could have driven these prices to this point over the past decade would be reflected in household income. And we're certainly not the only city in the U.S. to have a significant demographic change. But the income level increases aren't as drastic as people make them out to be. The explanation that "high-price jobs are in Fairfax County" serves as a sort of platitude, or unsophisticated dismissal of something that folks probably just don't want to admit what's really happening or really think about what will inevitably happen: reversion and a return to historical parity.
"Kev said...That is what I am talking about. I'm asking why the eggs and milk have not reverted to their historic parity levels, not whether the particular ratio is justifiable in a totally different part of the country."
Understood. And I was too. My point was simple. Somewhere in its history, a place like Santa Monica CA went from an everyday, affordable to everyone 3X metric area, to an unaffordable, 12X metric area where many people are forced to rent.
As to when this was, I couldnt tell you. I can tell you however, that the guy who knew it as a 3X area and said it will "revert to the mean" was pretty pissed when it reverted only to a 6X area.
Likewise, years later, the trust me, it will revert to the 6X historical mean was pissed when it reverted only to 9X...
And so on and so forth. In any event, there is entirely a "logical explanation" for why Arl will not revert to the mean.
"Ace said...For the reason TA's example points out, it is possible that there will be much less change in the median HH income than in the median price in that neighborhood."
Exactly -- thanks Ace.
"Kev said...Ace, I don't disagree with your point or that notion and didn't say this isn't possible"
No, you just said there was "no logical explanation".
"Kev said...but it's just a theory and there should be some demographic/economic indicators which can support such a theory."
Werent you here when CRT/Cara blew the doors off the "reversion to the mean" by showing the massive influx of new above 200K households into the area?
They had data showing that in the last 10 years the number of new 200K households in Arl exceeded the total number of housing units built in that timeperiod? And that says nothing for the additional 150K households, and 100K households, both of which were substantial too.
Seriously, werent you here for this?
Understood. And I was too. My point was simple. Somewhere in its history, a place like Santa Monica CA went from an everyday, affordable to everyone 3X metric area, to an unaffordable, 12X metric area where many people are forced to rent.
As to when this was, I couldn't tell you. I can tell you however, that the guy who knew it as a 3X area and said it will "revert to the mean" was pretty pissed when it reverted only to a 6X area.
Rent Controls
Santa Monica has had rent controls since 1978-79. We'd need to find all the household income data going back past that point as well as the demographics and number of people living with effectively subsidized rent there to know exactly how that impacted the ratio, but I'm guessing that around that point in time it started to diverge. Likewise, NYC has had rent controls going back almost a century. Hence their high housing-to-income ratios both pre-bubble as well as today.
We do not have rent controls here in Fairfax County (they are generally banned in VA). DC has had them since 1985. Perhaps a DC versus Fairfax comparison of home prices and income going back prior to '85 would be informative since they both comprise our regional market, but that's neither here nor there.
I'm not challenging whether the ratio is right or wrong. Apples to Oranges, etc. I wouldn't mind comparing very similar areas to understand how these statistical and economic aberrations can be explained, but I wouldn't be any more inclined to believe that the price of land here is worth 0$ per sq foot just because that's the price in Sub-Saharan Africa as I would be to assume it's worth $10,000 per sq ft because that is the price in Japan. Different cities can have variations due to policy-driven manipulations and logistical differences. Different countries have different leverage/loan systems. Certainly a subsidized rent program will allow for home prices to increase at a rate beyond the parity they had with rent and household income. So too can an uncontrollable lending industry like we saw during the bubble.
I know you think I'm always trying to convince myself and others that housing prices ought to fall through the floor, but it's the complete opposite. I've thought about and crudely modeled a number of notions and scenarios (which I won't bore anybody with until they're more substantiated, revealing, or interesting), but let's just roll with one:
Fairfax household income to home price ratio is now out of line with its historical trends and is justified because we have a lot more illegal immigrants living in the area than we did before.
Unreported income is similar to artificially-low rent, isn't it? But there's a lack of empirical evidence to ride on that theory alone. For all I know, 95% of illegals' income is reported to the govt/census. Or perhaps there are actually very few illegals living in Fairfax County or not enough to make a difference in that ratio. Maybe they'll be granted amnesty and our household income level will jump significantly in the next few years, thus bringing it in line with prices. Or maybe they'll be deported tomorrow and that would cause a significant number of vacancies leading to demand/price drops without changing the region's household income. I can speculate and ponder, but I wouldn't argue any of these to be a valid theory while having only my imagination as evidence.
So going back to my original point before our (typical) sparring, I cannot find any significant, rational, and substantiated reason for the median household income and median home prices in Fairfax County to remain this divergent.
Anon
You state Santa Monica has house prices 21X median prices.
I think that's a really bad observation. What is relevant is comparing Santa Monica house prices to santa monica incomes.
Same with pacific palisades,..
I fully expect georgetown incomes for 20007 to be wildly different from Anacostia 20020.
and i expect north arlignton to have different stats then south arlington, but, within a zip code the ratios should be solid.
as stats are available at the zip code level, it's easily analyzed.
it's one of my concerns about 22204 columbia pike where I reside. Life is wonderful, but house prices are way above the median income. now maybe all the broke ass MoFo's are in apartments like my building, and maybe all the rich people are in the SFH's, but, it should be a concern.
Certainly my much abused Myerton condo project could be the canary in the coal mine for falling interest in debt servitude.
For those who are interested patrick kalilea, of patrick.net does similiar analysis in Silicon Valley.
his take is "Banks will lend to put you in debt for a house, but they won't lend to help you pay rent". I guess they figure they can sell the bad paper to suckers, but they can't sell unsecured paper.
And so on and so forth. In any event, there is entirely a "logical explanation" for why Arl will not revert to the mean.
Great, I'd like to hear what that is.
No, you just said there was "no logical explanation".
There isn't. The example you used to counter that quote was predicated on the people being priced out of the home-buying market not driving up household income prices when they displace others from the rental market, and so on. If your example were a closed system, those people would be sleeping on the street or disappear into a black hole after the people on the upper end bought their houses. They don't fit into your equation after they serve their purpose: to make household income lower for the sake of argument alone.
Werent you here when CRT/Cara blew the doors off the "reversion to the mean" by showing the massive influx of new above 200K households into the area?
I don't recall it which means either a) I was not here for that or b) I didn't find it to be a significant game-changer since their "massive" influx added per household in AR would more-or-less be accounted for and in line with the price/income ratios of past. Do you have that thread in your extensive catalog of bookmarks?
I've considered such a scenario before and while it could certainly explain housing prices shooting through the roof and never reverting back anywhere near pre-bubble areas, that should be reflected in the household income metrics of the area.
Seriously, werent you here for this?
I have no idea. Maybe. Probably not. If it's as you're describing it, it doesn't sound important or interesting enough such that I'd definitely remember it.
"kevin said...
Great, I'd like to hear what that is."
Lets backtrack for a second here. When this thing started, you gave a blanket statement that there was "no logical explanation" for Arlington's resilience.
I provided you with not THE but A "logical explanation" in that, given a strong demand and limited supply, median HH incomes can skew drastically from median home prices.
After figting me over and over and over about this, Ace interjects and puts it very succinctly, agreeing with my "logical explanation".
You then responded to Ace saying:
Ace, I don't disagree with your point or that notion and didn't say this isn't possible
It sounds to me like you are now saying, my hypo IS a logical explanation. If so, why are you now saying "great, i'd like to hear what that (logical explanation) is."???
Incidentally, your example of rent control is in my mind yet ANOTHER logical explanation for why some areas may diverge from their long time trends.
In fact, I may go one further and say there are many "logical explanations" for any given areas divergence from long time trends.
As to the case for Arlington, I dont have the thread bookmarked but im sure I can find it. Still, before I do that, lets put first things first here.
Specifically, would you now agree that your prior statement that there is "no logical explanation" for Arlington's performance is false, and that (if there is evidence to support it) mine is indeed A logical explanation of what could be happening in Arlington?
Lets backtrack for a second here. When this thing started, you gave a blanket statement that there was "no logical explanation" for Arlington's resilience.
Correct, given that the two correlating metrics (household income and rental rates) are still in line with each other and out of parity with home prices, there is no rational reason. Ace's theory isn't bad, but it's a theory. Hence I don't disagree with it in the sense that I believe it can happen. However, there is no evidence that it is happening, and rents/income aren't even close to being in line with prices.
After figting me over and over and over about this, Ace interjects and puts it very succinctly, agreeing with my "logical explanation".
No, he agreed with one of your points. He believes that it's what's happening, or part of why this is happening, but I don't blindly believe a theory like that with zero empirical evidence to support it. For example, you could find another town or county similar to AR that has been through this before. Why can't you find it? Why do you just pick out places with rent control? Why did you not consider my salient point about how rent controls cause a divergence between rent/prices before you used an area which has rent controls?
It sounds to me like you are now saying, my hypo IS a logical explanation. If so, why are you now saying "great, i'd like to hear what that (logical explanation) is."???
Like I said, I'm not discounting the possibility that the one point he was mentioning could happen. In the absence of any sort of any corroborating evidence beyond absurdly expensive RE, it isn't logical to assume the other metrics won't reflect this shift. There is a huge difference between having a rational, abstract theory (which is what Ace was talking about) versus applying it to a situation where it is unsupported by empirical evidence.
Incidentally, your example of rent control is in my mind yet ANOTHER logical explanation for why some areas may diverge from their long time trends.
You're welcome. I do all the thinking and research so you don't have to.
Specifically, would you now agree that your prior statement that there is "no logical explanation" for Arlington's performance is false, and that (if there is evidence to support it) mine is indeed A logical explanation of what could be happening in Arlington?
It's a logical theory in the abstract, not logical when applied to AR, not based on any numbers I've seen. To prove my point and to illustrate how I can agree with the premise in a theory like that while not finding it a logical explanation for this disparity, consider for a second how utterly wrong it would be if you applied it to the housing market here or any other bubble city five or six years ago. In other words, you're essentially saying the same thing that many of those dipshit realtors were saying to justify absurdly high bubble prices.
Incomes have to support home prices. Variance can happen, of course, but absent any numerical evidence, that's a big myth you're expecting me to swallow, a 138% increase in prices with only a 50% increase in household income. That is just absurd.
BTW, I have no idea why the fuck we're talking about Arlington. My original point was about Fairfax County.
"Kev said...Hence I don't disagree with it in the sense that I believe it can happen."
OK - good you are on board then. Baby steps, but were getting there. As soon as I get a free minute, I will find the exchange on the empiracal evidence. Still, its nice to see that after 3+ days of obstinance, you come around to the obvious point that median home prices do not have to always remain in line with median household incomes.
"Kev said...BTW, I have no idea why the fuck we're talking about Arlington. My original point was about Fairfax County."
I sometimes wonder if you have a retention problem. After all here is what you wrote, verbatim that started the whole thing:
"Kevin said...Median income is 1.5 times what it was a decade ago. Median home price is 2.38 times what it was a decade ago. Prices correlate with income and rents. There's no logical explanation other than prices being widely bubbled in Arlington. Reversion there as well as more posh areas like Mclean and Oakton are nowhere near historical trends.
8/3/11 9:12 AM"
Its kinda like your "I dont make a habit of bookmarking things" quote, til I showed your your original statement about how you were gonna bookmark and mock me for everything that was wrong. Now you say, WTF are we talking about Arlington, when the original subject matter was Arlington. Do you just not pay attention to what you write?
Still, its nice to see that after 3+ days of obstinance, you come around to the obvious point that median home prices do not have to always remain in line with median household incomes.
I didn't say they did, just that historically they do. There is a huge difference between accepting the possibility of something occurring and believing absent ALL demographic and economic data that it has happened.
Have you found any other city or county where this has occurred? All your unsophisticated bloviating on this matter, yet you still cannot address the fact that rental prices have remained in tandem with income. Probably the most embarrassing thing is the timing of these rifts. They happened in sync with the housing bubble. Don't you find that to be a pretty strong indictment against a theory which lacks empirical data? Your argument was made by many people back in 05-06 without their benefit of knowing for sure that there was a monumental bubble occurring. For you to whitewash that and attribute the price increases which aren't corresponding in rents and incomes to the old cliche of "rich people want to live here now" is just plain embarrassing.
"Kev said...BTW, I have no idea why the fuck we're talking about Arlington. My original point was about Fairfax County."
I sometimes wonder if you have a retention problem. After all here is what you wrote, verbatim that started the whole thing
YOU brought up Arlington in that thread. If I ignore your red herring, you accuse me of dodging a point. If address it, you accuse me of bringing it up. There's simply no winning with an antagonist of your nature.
Its kinda like your "I dont make a habit of bookmarking things" quote, til I showed your your original statement about how you were gonna bookmark and mock me for everything that was wrong.
I didn't bookmark the thread, I was making a threat to treat you with the same level of petulance that you treat others with.
Post a Comment