The real housing crisis is one of quantity

Re: The real housing crisis is one of quantity


"Mark M." <markm@techz,net > wrote in message
news:48210f48$0$4098$4c368faf@roadrunner,com ...
> george conklin wrote:
>
>>
>> Population concentration is a result of social policy, not any
>> "natural" law.
>
> Thanks. That's the funniest thing I've read in weeks.
>

Smart Growth wants urban growth boundaries. This is population
concentration. Smart Growth wants infill. This is population
concentration. Smart Growth wants "shared walls." This is population
concentration. The Sierra Club wants "efficient urbanization." This is
population concentration. Population concentration is social policy and it
does not good to hide the fact.

Re: The real housing crisis is one of quantity

george conklin wrote:
> "Mark M." <markm@techz,net > wrote in message
> news:48210f48$0$4098$4c368faf@roadrunner,com ...
>
>>george conklin wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Population concentration is a result of social policy, not any
>>>"natural" law.
>>
>>Thanks. That's the funniest thing I've read in weeks.
>>
>
>
> Smart Growth wants urban growth boundaries. This is population
> concentration. Smart Growth wants infill. This is population
> concentration. Smart Growth wants "shared walls." This is population
> concentration. The Sierra Club wants "efficient urbanization." This is
> population concentration. Population concentration is social policy and it
> does not good to hide the fact.


Sprawl happens because around every city land is hoarded in anticipation of
price appreciation. Land users must bypass this high priced land. This
means a settlement footprint greater than land users actually want.

There is nothing natural about millions of people spending two or more
hours a day in their cars just to get to and from work. It is a symptom of
something stupid.

If all land were up for lease bid, what kind of settlement pattern do you
suppose would result? Would people prefer to live farther from their jobs,
friends, shops, entertainment, and services?

Why is land much more expensive where population is dense rather than in
the sticks?

What makes a great retail location?

Mark M.

Re: The real housing crisis is one of quantity


"Mark M." <markm@techz,net > wrote in message
news:48219cf7$0$4099$4c368faf@roadrunner,com ...
> george conklin wrote:
> > "Mark M." <markm@techz,net > wrote in message
> > news:48210f48$0$4098$4c368faf@roadrunner,com ...
> >
> >>george conklin wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Population concentration is a result of social policy, not any
> >>>"natural" law.
> >>
> >>Thanks. That's the funniest thing I've read in weeks.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Smart Growth wants urban growth boundaries. This is population
> > concentration. Smart Growth wants infill. This is population
> > concentration. Smart Growth wants "shared walls." This is population
> > concentration. The Sierra Club wants "efficient urbanization." This is
> > population concentration. Population concentration is social policy and
it
> > does not good to hide the fact.
>
>
> Sprawl happens because around every city land is hoarded in anticipation
of
> price appreciation.

Paranoid emotions do not cause sprawl.



Land users must bypass this high priced land. This
> means a settlement footprint greater than land users actually want.
>
> There is nothing natural about millions of people spending two or more
> hours a day in their cars just to get to and from work. It is a symptom
of
> something stupid.

More paranoid rantings. The average commute is 21 minutes. Sorry about
the FActs. They make you look silly.

Re: The real housing crisis is one of quantity


"The Trucker" <mikcob@verizon,net > wrote in message
news:pan.2008.05.06.02.28.59.263672@verizon,net ...
> On Mon, 05 May 2008 14:18:17 -0700, Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>
>> "george conklin" <nospam@nospam,com > wrote in message
>> news:SZKdnSaTmuKkFIDVnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@earthlink,com ...
>>>
>>> "drydem" <walter_lee@my-deja,com > wrote in message
>>> news:03680f4d-ca08-4f91-97c0-db807715942e@k1g2000prb.googlegroups,com ...
>>> On Apr 21, 8:03 pm, "Matt W. Barrow" <mbar...@performancehomes,com >
>>> wrote:
>>>> Can you support your points below, or are you just throwing out you
>>>> opinion?
>>> ----
>>>
>>> Developers have prices artifically raised by governmental rules which
>>> limit "sprawl" and thus force housing prices up to many times replacment
>>> costs. This is what makes housing unaffordable to start with.
>>
>> It's called "supply and demand" - the supply of workable LAND is
>> restricted
>> and even diminishing, while the DEMAND increases. The rules may be to
>> alleviate "sprawl" or just to protect certain insects, rodents, etc. In
>> this
>> case the S&D curve is artificially contrived and the developers have
>> nothing
>> to do with it.
>
> These claims make no sense. Please attempt to advise us how "rules that
> limit sprawl" would drive up the price of housing.

Just read the book "The Last Harvest" to see how the cost of housing is
drive sky-high by smart growth limits and governmental foot-dragging.

Re: The real housing crisis is one of quantity

On Tue, 06 May 2008 09:10:47 -0400, george conklin wrote:

>
> "The Trucker" <mikcob@verizon,net > wrote in message
> news:pan.2008.05.06.02.28.59.263672@verizon,net ...
>> On Mon, 05 May 2008 14:18:17 -0700, Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>>
>>> "george conklin" <nospam@nospam,com > wrote in message
>>> news:SZKdnSaTmuKkFIDVnZ2dnUVZ uidnZ2d@earthlink,com ...
>>>>
>>>> "drydem" <walter lee@my-deja,com > wrote in message
>>>> news:03680f4d-ca08-4f91-97c0-db807715942e@k1g2000prb.googlegroups,com ...
>>>> On Apr 21, 8:03 pm, "Matt W. Barrow" <mbar...@performancehomes,com >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Can you support your points below, or are you just throwing out you
>>>>> opinion?
>>>> ----
>>>>
>>>> Developers have prices artifically raised by governmental rules which
>>>> limit "sprawl" and thus force housing prices up to many times replacment
>>>> costs. This is what makes housing unaffordable to start with.
>>>
>>> It's called "supply and demand" - the supply of workable LAND is
>>> restricted
>>> and even diminishing, while the DEMAND increases. The rules may be to
>>> alleviate "sprawl" or just to protect certain insects, rodents, etc. In
>>> this
>>> case the S&D curve is artificially contrived and the developers have
>>> nothing
>>> to do with it.
>>
>> These claims make no sense. Please attempt to advise us how "rules that
>> limit sprawl" would drive up the price of housing.
>
> Just read the book "The Last Harvest" to see how the cost of housing is
> drive sky-high by smart growth limits and governmental foot-dragging.

No thanks. My reading list is already quite full. I am very much aware
of why housing costs WERE ridiculously high, and why the are now going
way down. Perhaps you think that environmental policies have been eased
(and they haven't that I am aware of)causing the decrease in the price of
homes. YOU may well believe that frogs cause warts.

Unless you insist on connecting the limitations on drilling the ANWR to a
control on sprawl (what a leap) you are simply full of crap.

--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http :// GreaterVoice.org/extend

Re: The real housing crisis is one of quantity


"The Trucker" <mikcob@verizon,net > wrote in message
news:pan.2008.05.06.20.02.43.853031@verizon,net ...
> On Tue, 06 May 2008 09:10:47 -0400, george conklin wrote:
>
>>
>> "The Trucker" <mikcob@verizon,net > wrote in message
>> news:pan.2008.05.06.02.28.59.263672@verizon,net ...
>>> On Mon, 05 May 2008 14:18:17 -0700, Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>>>
>>>> "george conklin" <nospam@nospam,com > wrote in message
>>>> news:SZKdnSaTmuKkFIDVnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@earthlink,com ...
>>>>>
>>>>> "drydem" <walter_lee@my-deja,com > wrote in message
>>>>> news:03680f4d-ca08-4f91-97c0-db807715942e@k1g2000prb.googlegroups,com ...
>>>>> On Apr 21, 8:03 pm, "Matt W. Barrow" <mbar...@performancehomes,com >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Can you support your points below, or are you just throwing out you
>>>>>> opinion?
>>>>> ----
>>>>>
>>>>> Developers have prices artifically raised by governmental rules which
>>>>> limit "sprawl" and thus force housing prices up to many times
>>>>> replacment
>>>>> costs. This is what makes housing unaffordable to start with.
>>>>
>>>> It's called "supply and demand" - the supply of workable LAND is
>>>> restricted
>>>> and even diminishing, while the DEMAND increases. The rules may be to
>>>> alleviate "sprawl" or just to protect certain insects, rodents, etc. In
>>>> this
>>>> case the S&D curve is artificially contrived and the developers have
>>>> nothing
>>>> to do with it.
>>>
>>> These claims make no sense. Please attempt to advise us how "rules that
>>> limit sprawl" would drive up the price of housing.
>>
>> Just read the book "The Last Harvest" to see how the cost of housing
>> is
>> drive sky-high by smart growth limits and governmental foot-dragging.
>
> No thanks. My reading list is already quite full. I am very much aware
> of why housing costs WERE ridiculously high, and why the are now going
> way down. Perhaps you think that environmental policies have been eased
> (and they haven't that I am aware of)causing the decrease in the price of
> homes. YOU may well believe that frogs cause warts.
>
> Unless you insist on connecting the limitations on drilling the ANWR to a
> control on sprawl (what a leap) you are simply full of crap.
>

The American population has been concentrating in fewer and fewer places
since 1900. What we have today are the side effects of population
concentration, with half of our counties actually losing population. Half.
And it would be more like 65% if you include failure to grow at the average
rate, thus failing to keep up. But do read "The Last Harvest" to see how a
smart growth-oriented architect shows how governmental foot dragging kills
the quality of life.

Re: The real housing crisis is one of quantity

On Tue, 06 May 2008 16:24:31 -0400, george conklin wrote:

>
> "The Trucker" <mikcob@verizon,net > wrote in message
> news:pan.2008.05.06.20.02.43.853031@verizon,net ...
>> On Tue, 06 May 2008 09:10:47 -0400, george conklin wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "The Trucker" <mikcob@verizon,net > wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2008.05.06.02.28.59.263672@verizon,net ...
>>>> On Mon, 05 May 2008 14:18:17 -0700, Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "george conklin" <nospam@nospam,com > wrote in message
>>>>> news:SZKdnSaTmuKkFIDVnZ2dnUVZ uidnZ2d@earthlink,com ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "drydem" <walter lee@my-deja,com > wrote in message
>>>>>> news:03680f4d-ca08-4f91-97c0-db807715942e@k1g2000prb.googlegroups,com ...
>>>>>> On Apr 21, 8:03 pm, "Matt W. Barrow" <mbar...@performancehomes,com >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Can you support your points below, or are you just throwing out you
>>>>>>> opinion?
>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Developers have prices artifically raised by governmental rules which
>>>>>> limit "sprawl" and thus force housing prices up to many times
>>>>>> replacment
>>>>>> costs. This is what makes housing unaffordable to start with.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's called "supply and demand" - the supply of workable LAND is
>>>>> restricted
>>>>> and even diminishing, while the DEMAND increases. The rules may be to
>>>>> alleviate "sprawl" or just to protect certain insects, rodents, etc. In
>>>>> this
>>>>> case the S&D curve is artificially contrived and the developers have
>>>>> nothing
>>>>> to do with it.
>>>>
>>>> These claims make no sense. Please attempt to advise us how "rules that
>>>> limit sprawl" would drive up the price of housing.
>>>
>>> Just read the book "The Last Harvest" to see how the cost of housing
>>> is
>>> drive sky-high by smart growth limits and governmental foot-dragging.
>>
>> No thanks. My reading list is already quite full. I am very much aware
>> of why housing costs WERE ridiculously high, and why the are now going
>> way down. Perhaps you think that environmental policies have been eased
>> (and they haven't that I am aware of)causing the decrease in the price of
>> homes. YOU may well believe that frogs cause warts.
>>
>> Unless you insist on connecting the limitations on drilling the ANWR to a
>> control on sprawl (what a leap) you are simply full of crap.
>>
>
> The American population has been concentrating in fewer and fewer places
> since 1900. What we have today are the side effects of population
> concentration, with half of our counties actually losing population. Half.
> And it would be more like 65% if you include failure to grow at the average
> rate, thus failing to keep up. But do read "The Last Harvest" to see how a
> smart growth-oriented architect shows how governmental foot dragging kills
> the quality of life.

NO time. But you are right to look at the community as opposed to the
whole damned financial and federal taxation system.

--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http :// GreaterVoice.org/extend

Re: The real housing crisis is one of quantity

Since your posts don't indent properly, I'll just summarize by saying:

Your country has a housing situation that would do North Korea proud and you
find noting amiss? Worse yet, you equate this to the entire US?

Just what perspective do your bring when you "testify"? A lot of Hollyweird
celebrities testify in front of government boards - ever wonder WHY?

Let me guess - you're one of these?
http :// www .cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8831


"drydem" <walter_lee@my-deja,com > wrote in message
news:03680f4d-ca08-4f91-97c0-db807715942e@k1g2000prb.googlegroups,com ...
On Apr 21, 8:03 pm, "Matt W. Barrow" <mbar...@performancehomes,com >
wrote:
> Can you support your points below, or are you just throwing out you
> opinion?
>

Oh no!
I hope you don't think I'm ranting... (9_9)

My points are an empircal observation. I'm involved in
urban planning and local governing affairs

I occassionally testify at government hearings as well....


Locally builders have been able to opt out of building
affordable housing units ( until recently) by paying into
Affordable housing Fund. Developers could make much
more money by just opting out of building affording
housing units. However, the fund generated by this opt out
fee has never been enough for the local government to build
any new affordable housing projects/complexes ( especially with
rising land prices and higher construction cost). Since new
affordable housing units are now even more costlier to make
than in the past -- builders when they do make them also
can only make a few of them. Thus there hasn't been much
in additional affordable housing construction in my county
for about 20 years. Only recently the law was revised such that
builder/developers are now required to build Moderatedly Priced
Dwelling Units (MPDUs) and may NOT opt out -- but since
new construction permits has gone bust - this might
be a case of closing the barn door after the cows
have left.


At the local level, I've also witnessed
residents from local communities resist the inclusion
of MPDUs near their communities because they fear it would
decrease the value of their homes.


The lack of new affordable housing construction would not be
such a severe problem if it weren't for the lost of current
affordable
housing. The currently the bulk of affordable housing consist
of local apartment complexes but the current housing/real estate trend
has been of the conversion of these apartments ( which have
affordable rents) to luxury condos (which require a large amount of
capital but have high monthy fees) . So you not only have the
failure to create an adequate supply of new affordable housing
units but you have the lost of existing affordable housing units.
Luxury condos provide a higher profit margin than affordable
co-ops - So Co-ops are not very popular here. One of the
initiatives being advocated recently here is to stop the loss
of older affordable housing units by using the affordable housing
fund to buying apartments that provide affordable housing units
that would otherwise be converted into condoniums.


While housing cost have dropped - they are still very high
especially when considering the interest being charge
on the mortgage. It seems to me that the people
who have (re)financed their homes in my region in
the last 3 years who are mainly at risk with respect
to this currently troubling financial climate. I've heard
that atleast some of the current troubles have to do
with loans generated by mortgage brokers and
the lack of verification( of financial data by) financial
institutions. The main reason for this financial subterfuge
is to make a mortgage/home affordable (or appear to
be more affordable ).


I've notice in my community that most of the
housing assistance has gone to single parent families,
e.g. a mom with atleast one child. I've also notice that
many households in my locale ( the Washington DC
Metro Areas ) often solve the demand for higher
housing cost by having multiple earners.





> "drydem" <walter_...@my-deja,com > wrote in message
>
> news:00774819-a011-4312-92c8-8e564e14e876@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups,com ...
> On Apr 19, 3:29 pm, Enough Already <enough_alre...@lycos,com > wrote:
>
> > The REAL housing crisis is that TOO MANY of them are being built every
> > day, bad mortgages or not.
>
> I disagree.
>
> It's not how many
> but what type of housing.
> It's part of a built in market inefficiency
> There are plenty of houses for the very rich.
> However, there are very few options for the working poor.
> Because there is a higher profit to be made making housing for the
> very rich
> all the builders made houses for the very rich.
> Because there is a very low propfit for making housing for the working
> poor
> all the builders avoid making housing for the average working stiff.
> Unfortunately this led to a glut of overpriced homes
> because the world doesn't have enough rich people
> and a lack of affordable homes
> for the average working family....
> this environment encourages/forces average family into a
> housing market where they must +buy up+ to afford housing
> often forcing them to extend their credit to buy a
> place to live...this inturn creates a financial market
> full of risky instruments. All it takes is inflationary pressures
> or a a recession to cause these risky instruments to fail
> en mass. -

Re: The real housing crisis is one of quantity

On May 5, 5:23 pm, "Matt W. Barrow" <mbar...@performancehomes,com >
wrote:
> Since your posts don't indent properly, I'll just summarize by saying:
>
> Your country has a housing situation that would do North Korea proud and you
> find noting amiss? Worse yet, you equate this to the entire US?

Indentations are not necessary style element nor are they required.

Also your summary of my posting is incorrect.
There was no comparison or judgement involved. - my posting focused on
the
economic mechanism that drive the development of housing in the
Washington DC Metro Area.


> Just what perspective do your bring when you "testify"?

For the most part,
It depends on what my local community (+700 homes) wants to focus on.
My focus has normally been with the crafting local laws, zoning
ordinances and variances..
most of the time its rather tedious - and almost always obscure,
e.g. the
environmental impact of methane generators.

The last time I testified it was to argued for my community to get
some type of relief from noisy low flying helicopter operations.




> A lot of Hollyweird
> celebrities testify in front of government boards - ever wonder WHY?


That's our federal government for you!
It's to be expected - Why our country even elected a hollywood
celebrities (Ronald Reagan) for President!


Unfortunately, Hollywood celebrities just
aren't attracted to any of my local civic meetings ...
but just in case I'll have my camera ready for them :-)
yeah that would be sooo cool to have Jessica Alba or Orlando
Bloom as guest.... :-)

Re: The real housing crisis is one of quantity

On May 4, 4:37 am, drydem <walter ...@my-deja,com > wrote:
> On Apr 21, 8:03 pm, "Matt W. Barrow" <mbar...@performancehomes,com >
> wrote:
>
> > Can you support your points below, or are you just throwing out you opinion?
>
> Oh no!
> I hope you don't think I'm ranting... (9 9)
>
> My points are an empircal observation. I'm involved in
> urban planning and local governing affairs
>
>  I occassionally testify at government hearings as well....
>
> Locally builders have been able to opt out of building
> affordable housing units ( until recently) by paying into
> Affordable housing Fund.  Developers could  make much
> more money by just opting out of building affording
> housing units.  However, the fund  generated by this opt out
> fee has never been enough for the local government to build
> any new affordable housing  projects/complexes ( especially with
> rising land prices and higher construction cost).  Since new
> affordable housing units are now even more costlier to make
> than in the past -- builders when they do make them also
> can only make a few of them.  Thus there hasn't been much
> in additional affordable housing construction in my county
> for about 20 years. Only recently the  law was revised such that
> builder/developers are now required to build Moderatedly Priced
> Dwelling Units (MPDUs)  and may NOT opt out -- but since
> new construction permits has gone bust - this might
> be a case of closing the barn door after the cows
> have left.
>
> At the local level, I've also witnessed
> residents from local communities resist the inclusion
> of MPDUs near their communities because they fear it would
> decrease the value of their homes.

There are a bunch of studies out there about the impact of affordable
housing on the values of nearby homes. Most studies found no impact
whatsoever. One study found that there was a slight reduction in the
INCREASE in housing value for housing within 300' of an affordable
complex -- but the impact was negligible.

>
> The lack of new affordable housing construction would not be
> such a severe problem if it weren't for the lost of current
> affordable
> housing.  The currently the bulk of affordable housing consist
> of local apartment complexes but the current housing/real estate trend
> has been of the conversion of these apartments ( which have
> affordable rents) to luxury condos (which require a large amount of
> capital but have high monthy fees) . So you not only have the
> failure to create an adequate supply of new affordable housing
> units but you have the lost of existing affordable housing units.
> Luxury condos provide a higher profit margin than affordable
> co-ops  - So Co-ops are not very popular here. One of the
> initiatives being advocated recently here is to stop the loss
> of older affordable housing units by using the affordable housing
> fund to buying apartments that provide affordable housing units
> that would  otherwise be converted into condoniums.

One of the biggest problems is that the LIHC program is not-that much
more than 15 years old and the initial projects were on 15 year
regulatory periods. In appreciating markets, a lot of these complexes
are going to market. There is a similar problem with the Section 8
project-based complexes including a lot of USDA RD complexes.

Another issue overlooked almost completely are the Section 142 bond
projects where they use a huge amount of cap to produce relatively few
affordable units and end up subsidizing the non-affordable units --
the so-called 80/20 projects.

>
> While housing cost have dropped - they are still very high
> especially when considering the interest being charge
> on the mortgage.   It seems to me that the people
> who have (re)financed their homes in my region in
> the last 3 years who are mainly at risk with respect
> to this currently troubling financial climate.  I've heard
> that atleast some of the current troubles have to do
> with loans generated by mortgage brokers and
> the lack of verification( of financial data by)  financial
> institutions.   The main reason for this financial subterfuge
> is to make a mortgage/home affordable (or appear to
> be more affordable ).

No, they weren't trying to make homes affordable. They were trying to
allow people to speculate and to buy a home in the homes of "growing
into the mortgage". Affordability wasn't a concern.

However, this has had an impact of affordable multi-family development
because it has taken financial instituations out of the market for
LIHCs and has driven it down to companies looking for a highe yield.
That has brought the pricing down significantly and therefore has make
many project infeasible.

>
> I've notice in my community that most of the
> housing assistance has gone to single parent families,
> e.g. a mom with atleast one child.  I've also notice that
> many households in my locale ( the Washington DC
> Metro Areas ) often solve the demand for higher
> housing cost by having multiple earners.

the number one thing someone could do to get affordable housing is to
increase the amount of land where one can build multifamily. You have
a construction boom and it will include affordable units after the
initial boom of high-end stuff. Open up othe markets and let the
markets get into balance.

>
>
>
> > "drydem" <walter ...@my-deja,com > wrote in message
>
> >news:00774819-a011-4312-92c8-8e564e14e876@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups,com ...
> > On Apr 19, 3:29 pm, Enough Already <enough alre...@lycos,com > wrote:
>
> > > The REAL housing crisis is that TOO MANY of them are being built every
> > > day, bad mortgages or not.
>
> > I disagree.
>
> > It's not how many
> > but what type of housing.
> > It's part of a built in  market inefficiency
> > There are plenty of houses for the very rich.
> > However, there are very few options for the working poor.
> > Because there is a higher profit to be made making housing for the
> > very rich
> >   all the builders made houses for the very rich.
> > Because there is a very low propfit for making housing for the working
> > poor
> >   all the builders avoid making housing for the average working stiff.
> > Unfortunately this led to a glut of overpriced homes
> >     because the world doesn't have  enough rich people
> >  and a lack of affordable homes
> >      for the average working family....
> > this environment encourages/forces average family  into a
> >    housing market where they must +buy up+ to afford housing
> >   often forcing them to extend their credit to buy a
> >     place to live...this inturn creates a financial market
> > full of risky instruments. All it takes is inflationary pressures
> > or a a recession to cause these risky instruments to fail
> > en mass. -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Re: The real housing crisis is one of quantity

On Apr 19, 3:29 pm, Enough Already <enough alre...@lycos,com > wrote:
> The REAL housing crisis is that TOO MANY of them are being built every
> day, bad mortgages or not. Mindless overpopulation (75 million
> annually, worldwide) is treated as natural. Nature is treated as
> expendable.
>
> People go about their business, talking about money and investments,
> as if the land itself is infinite. They always claim there's "plenty
> of land" but won't say relative to what. Unaffected acreage decreases
> literally each second.
>
> http :// images.google,com /images?hl=en&q=human+footprint+map
>
> "Economic growth" means more people and less nature each day, with
> money creating a false measure of value in the process. A true housing
> "bubble" is an entire round hill covered with them.
>
> Real estate developers use money made from cannibalized land to
> cannibalize even more land. The word FINITE is missing from too many
> vocabularies.
>
> E.A.
>
> http :// enough already.tripod,com /
>
> Housing starts are a leading indicator of mindless growth.

The real housing crisis doesn't exist. 96% of home owners do the
right thing by paying their mortgages. 4% are too stupid to figure
out simple math and understand that an adjustable rate mortgage
actually goes up after a certain amount of time. To you numbskulls
that went to govt schools, that means the monthly payment goes up.
So, what do we have? A freaking bailout that you and I have to pay
for. All because people are too stupid to be responsible.

Re: The real housing crisis is one of quantity

"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail,com > wrote in message
news:f7486876-8385-4a97-8109-20d6be82693e@m36g2000hse.googlegroups,com ...
> On Apr 19, 3:29 pm, Enough Already <enough_alre...@lycos,com > wrote:
>> The REAL housing crisis is that TOO MANY of them are being built every
>> day, bad mortgages or not. Mindless overpopulation (75 million
>> annually, worldwide) is treated as natural. Nature is treated as
>> expendable.
>>
>> People go about their business, talking about money and investments,
>> as if the land itself is infinite. They always claim there's "plenty
>> of land" but won't say relative to what. Unaffected acreage decreases
>> literally each second.
>>
>> http :// images.google,com /images?hl=en&q=human+footprint+map
>>
>> "Economic growth" means more people and less nature each day, with
>> money creating a false measure of value in the process. A true housing
>> "bubble" is an entire round hill covered with them.
>>
>> Real estate developers use money made from cannibalized land to
>> cannibalize even more land. The word FINITE is missing from too many
>> vocabularies.
>>
>> E.A.
>>
>> http :// enough_already.tripod,com /
>>
>> Housing starts are a leading indicator of mindless growth.
>
> The real housing crisis doesn't exist. 96% of home owners do the
> right thing by paying their mortgages. 4% are too stupid to figure
> out simple math and understand that an adjustable rate mortgage
> actually goes up after a certain amount of time. To you numbskulls
> that went to govt schools, that means the monthly payment goes up.
> So, what do we have? A freaking bailout that you and I have to pay
> for. All because people are too stupid to be responsible.

Forgive my unfamiliarity. As I understand it, the bank or maker of a loan
for a home/house is REQUIRED to provide a list of payments for the entire
length of the mortgage loan.

The housing crisis exists uniquely for the working poor. This is because
they have to pay for all their housing costs, and because there seldom
exists adequate affordable housing for these people.
--
Dave

Hypocrisy. Big SUV, filament lights on all night. You think your neighbor
should be changiing to compact fluorescent light bulbs and driving the
hybrid.

Re: The real housing crisis is one of quantity

"Dioclese" <NONE> wrote in message
news:FeKdnTHjmff-L5PVnZ2dnUVZ_tOtnZ2d@earthlink,com ...
> "Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail,com > wrote in message
> news:f7486876-8385-4a97-8109-20d6be82693e@m36g2000hse.googlegroups,com ...
>>
>> The real housing crisis doesn't exist. 96% of home owners do the
>> right thing by paying their mortgages. 4% are too stupid to figure
>> out simple math and understand that an adjustable rate mortgage
>> actually goes up after a certain amount of time. To you numbskulls
>> that went to govt schools, that means the monthly payment goes up.
>> So, what do we have? A freaking bailout that you and I have to pay
>> for. All because people are too stupid to be responsible.
>
> Forgive my unfamiliarity. As I understand it, the bank or maker of a loan
> for a home/house is REQUIRED to provide a list of payments for the entire
> length of the mortgage loan.
>
> The housing crisis exists uniquely for the working poor.

Actually, no, it doesn't. Many middle-class folks got in too deep by
borrowing against equity (paper gains) to buy all sorts of nice toys. Now
they're stuck with diminishing market value and two or even three mortgages
on their property.


> This is because they have to pay for all their housing costs,

And who doesn't?

> and because there seldom exists adequate affordable housing for these
> people.

Absolute BS. There's not enough "rich" people to sustain the market you seem
to think you see.

Just 100 yers ago, most goods beyond the very basics were the domain of the
"rich" (and those were mostly rich by heredity, not productivity, at least
outside the US).

Today, the "poor" have goods the rich didn't have in the late 19th century.

As little as 30 years ago, the term "Jet Setter" had a significant
connotation: only the wealthy could afford to fly around for their travels;
today, most anyone can.

Here's a few clues: Henry Ford, Sears, Wal-Mart, the consumer electronics
industry...

There's very few markets that can sustain themselves catering only to the
wealthy.


> --
> Dave
>
> Hypocrisy. Big SUV, filament lights on all night. You think your
> neighbor should be changiing to compact fluorescent light bulbs and
> driving the hybrid.

Hey, hypocrite: shut off your computer and TV and use your abacus and read
books.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to prepare for a trip in the morning in my
private aircraft that gets 15 miles per gallon.

--

Re: The real housing crisis is one of quantity

On Apr 19, 3:29 pm, Enough Already <enough alre...@lycos,com > wrote:
> The REAL housing crisis is that TOO MANY of them are being built every
> day, bad mortgages or not. Mindless overpopulation (75 million
> annually, worldwide) is treated as natural. Nature is treated as
> expendable.
>
> People go about their business, talking about money and investments,
> as if the land itself is infinite. They always claim there's "plenty
> of land" but won't say relative to what. Unaffected acreage decreases
> literally each second.

That's only a tenth of the problem. They also build their neo-
palaces
with three car garges, but buy five cars, two SUVs, and a
powerboat.
Impossible to afford maintainence fees, built-in theaters,
dial-a-pizza, and fly-in drive-ways.
So you put all them togther, and it's not a housing problem.
It's a geniune Miami Beach idiot problem.



> http :// images.google,com /images?hl=en&q=human+footprint+map
>
> "Economic growth" means more people and less nature each day, with
> money creating a false measure of value in the process. A true housing
> "bubble" is an entire round hill covered with them.
>
> Real estate developers use money made from cannibalized land to
> cannibalize even more land. The word FINITE is missing from too many
> vocabularies.
>
> E.A.
>
> http :// enough already.tripod,com /
>
> Housing starts are a leading indicator of mindless growth.