"Len Over 21" wrote

BPL isn't a good thing. It is a bad thing for
everyone except a minority of would-be
profit makers wanting to soak the public
for BPL access to the Internet.

Since I am never reluctant to express my disagreement with Len, in the
interest of fairness I must take a moment to express my hearty agreement
with him on this matter.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Ryan, KC8PMX wrote:
Around here in this county I live in, home ownership is next to impossible,
except for spending at least $75,000 or better. The average small 3 bedroom
house, no basement or garage (slab built) on a half to full acre runs *at
least* 75 grand or better. Go immediately outside of the county lines of
this county, and the similar/equivalent structure is anywhere from 25-50%
less. I guess it is something about Midland county I guess.

The cost of a home always seems to be "next to impossible" relative to
the place it is located in, with the "next to" part being key. The other
constant since the end of World War II has been that the "next to impossible"
price very often looks cheap when viewed in retrospect, though I'm not sure
one should count on this being true everywhere forever.

As an example of how "next to impossible" can vary with location, the
house next door to me in Palo Alto, CA, which sold a few months ago after
a few years of unpleasant economy here, sounds a lot like yours. It's
a 1,300 square foot bungalow, no basement, 50 years old. It does have a
one-car detached garage, but the lot is only 8,000 square feet. It was
listed at $885,000, and it sold for that on the first day it was listed.
They didn't even put a sign up.

If there were $75,000 houses where I lived and intended to stay I think
I'd struggle to buy one. You have to live somewhere, and even if the
post-WW2 trend doesn't hold the prices other places have a lot further
to fall.

Dennis Ferguson

"Brian" wrote

They must be buying immodestly priced houses, then, because there are
more homeowners than ever before.


As a percentage of the population there are less homeowners than ever
before, and the percentage is trending downward even in this time of
unusually low mortgage interest rates.

de Hans, K0HB

Dave Heil wrote:
Dennis Ferguson wrote:
If you look at this one

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housi.../q303tab5.html

you'll see that the rate of home ownership in the US, which varied
between 63% and 66% for the 30 years prior to 1995, took a jump starting
in about 1997 and was at 68.4% in the quarter just ended. It seems
hard to argue that houses have gotten less affordable over the long
term when the fraction of people who demonstrate they can afford
to own a house by doing so remained fairly constant for so long and
actually took a significant upturn in the last few years.

I don't think it hard to argue at all, Dennis. Years back, people were
advised not to spend more than 25% of their income on housing. Later
this was revised to 33%. Today it is not uncommon for folks with two
incomes paying *half* of their combined income for housing.

That's very true, but my strong bias towards arguments which can be
supported by existence proofs requires me to argue that the fraction of
one's income spent on housing which is "affordable" isn't necessarily
a fixed number, but instead depends on the fraction of one's income that
doesn't need to be spent on everything else one requires to live. The
fact that those people ended up in houses despite the chunk of income
this took says to me the chunk was still affordable, though at that
level of investment it would be sad if the value of the house dropped.

In my area, houses are being given away and property taxes are very low.
Wait until you're near retirement before buying here though. You have
to bring your own money.

I noticed that. In fact at one point in my life I noticed that I
could swap a townhouse in Arlington, VA just about even for nearly
half a mountain, in a pricier end of your state at that, and came
very close to doing something about it. It was only the conclusion
that the commute to work in northern Virginia would kill me, even
if I didn't do it every day, which kept me in the townhouse.

Dennis Ferguson

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...
Around here in this county I live in, home ownership is next to
impossible,
except for spending at least $75,000 or better. The average small 3
bedroom
house, no basement or garage (slab built) on a half to full acre runs *at
least* 75 grand or better.

I live 70 miles northwest of New York City, downwind from the largest dairy
farm in the county and with a gravel mine 1/4 mile down the road. 1 acre
lots and the typical 3 bedroom home will set you back at least $250,000 with
matching property taxes.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 00:57:20 -0500, Ryan, KC8PMX wrote:

Around here in this county I live in, home ownership is next to impossible,
except for spending at least $75,000 or better. The average small 3 bedroom
house, no basement or garage (slab built) on a half to full acre runs *at
least* 75 grand or better. Go immediately outside of the county lines of
this county, and the similar/equivalent structure is anywhere from 25-50%
less. I guess it is something about Midland county I guess.

Be happy. What you describe would cost four times that here (less
if on a quarter acre), and easily ten times that in any developed
part of California and many other states.

As to Dennis' comment about the house in Palo Alto (CA) - earlier
this year my daughter sold her telephone-booth-sized condo apartment
in Hercules (CA - East Bay) the same day she put it up for sale - it
didn't even make the Multiple Listing register. She got well into
six figures.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 05:14:34 GMT, Dave Heil wrote:

I dunno Phil. I just took delivery of a piece of bound carpet and two
runners for our dining room. It took Lowe's eighty days after my order
and payment to deliver it. I could have had a Turk hand weave the thing
and personally deliver it in that period.

From what I understand, the furniture industry is somewhat like
that. If what you want is out of stock you may have to wait some
time until the next cutting cycle for that model. This is basically
independent of where it's made.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

Dennis Ferguson wrote:
Ryan, KC8PMX wrote:

Around here in this county I live in, home ownership is next to impossible,
except for spending at least $75,000 or better. The average small 3 bedroom
house, no basement or garage (slab built) on a half to full acre runs *at
least* 75 grand or better. Go immediately outside of the county lines of
this county, and the similar/equivalent structure is anywhere from 25-50%
less. I guess it is something about Midland county I guess.


The cost of a home always seems to be "next to impossible" relative to
the place it is located in, with the "next to" part being key. The other
constant since the end of World War II has been that the "next to impossible"
price very often looks cheap when viewed in retrospect, though I'm not sure
one should count on this being true everywhere forever.

In my little city, State College PA, there is 1 lower cost housing
development (actually about ten miles out of town, and of the locals,
all who are employed in the retail trade (save the owners) live outside
of town. It is not next to impossible, it truly is. It has caused a
strange anomaly. The only houses being built at this time are houses
from around 500K to the 2 million dollar range.

Note I use words like impossible and only. I don't doubt you might find
a 250 thousand dollar (low end) house being built around here, and there
is no doubt some people who work at the local Megalo-Mart and live near
town in a trailer, but that is certainly the trend around here


If there were $75,000 houses where I lived and intended to stay I think
I'd struggle to buy one. You have to live somewhere, and even if the
post-WW2 trend doesn't hold the prices other places have a lot further
to fall.

Hoowwee! Your not kidding! If you can get a house around these parts
for 75K, it is probably a major fixer-upper, or a mobile home.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dennis Ferguson wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

Dennis Ferguson wrote:

If you look at this one

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housi.../q303tab5.html

you'll see that the rate of home ownership in the US, which varied
between 63% and 66% for the 30 years prior to 1995, took a jump starting
in about 1997 and was at 68.4% in the quarter just ended. It seems
hard to argue that houses have gotten less affordable over the long
term when the fraction of people who demonstrate they can afford
to own a house by doing so remained fairly constant for so long and
actually took a significant upturn in the last few years.

I don't think it hard to argue at all, Dennis. Years back, people were
advised not to spend more than 25% of their income on housing. Later
this was revised to 33%. Today it is not uncommon for folks with two
incomes paying *half* of their combined income for housing.


That's very true, but my strong bias towards arguments which can be
supported by existence proofs requires me to argue that the fraction of
one's income spent on housing which is "affordable" isn't necessarily
a fixed number, but instead depends on the fraction of one's income that
doesn't need to be spent on everything else one requires to live.The
fact that those people ended up in houses despite the chunk of income
this took says to me the chunk was still affordable, though at that
level of investment it would be sad if the value of the house dropped.

Right! What these people consider "affordable" does indeed vary. I had
some neighbors some years ago who were so hell bent on having a
desirable hous in a desirable neighborhood that they financially
destroyed themselves. They spent way more than they could afford for the
house in the first place, then borrowed money for the down payment, then
ended up paying well over 50 percent of their take home for their
mortgage payments. It wrecked them, lock stock and barrel. I rmember
them right before they moved, chuckling how they put one over on the
bank. They were *so* fixated on thier goal, that they sacrificed
everything else for that house.

There is much more to life than having a house, come hell or high water.
The owners must have enough capital left over that they can participate
in being a consumer. If a person is "house poor", they get to stay home
and enjoy their house, but lots of the extras, which help drive the
econnomy, go wanting.

On the other hand, despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth of the
real estate agents, I spent about 50K less than what I was approved for
for a house, choosing to enjoy my hobbies, provide extras for the wife
and kid, and put money into retirement accounts.

So they ended up selling the house (I think they went bankrupt, but am
not sure). I'm still here, living a tad more modestly, but putting money
in the bank. Different ideas on what is affordable? You bet!

- Mike KB3EIA -

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
.com...

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...
Yeah..... that may be true but circumstances now have forced many to
suffer
with it as a "living" wage.


Yeah that's the same "victim" argument some of my friends made when I
went
to college and they didn't. But I sacrificed to go to college. My
parents
didn't pay for it.


Thats assuming a certain age too. I have sacraficed as well, but do the
math, at 5-7 bucks an hour, trying to support your self, in the minimal of
settings, (housing, transportation etc.) and also have funds to pay for
college does not always work as conviently as you prescribe. I have been
working on my degree since 1989, and am almost done. Unfortunately you
live
in some type of world where kids are allowed to live with the parents
above
the age of 18. Myself, as well as many others do not have that luxury.


Once I started college, I was only at home in the summers and paid all my
own expenses when not at home.

Due to various ups and downs in life, my daughter is going to college
entirely on her own nickel today and will graduate in May. She has not
lived at home at all since the age of 18.



I worked a minimum wage job, lived at home, did not buy a car, did not
buy
records and so on. I put the money aside and did without so I could go
to
college. So that "circumstances" argument is pretty shakey. And don't
try
the "pregnant and alone teenager" argument either. I knew some of them
in
college and they made it too.

Again, not all people have the luxury of living off the parents beyond
graduation of high school. To expect every person to have been in the
exact
same circumstances as you is also pretty shakey as well. As far as the
pregnant teenager issue, I wasn't gonna mention that one either.


There are still ways even if they can't live at home. My daughter is a case
in point.


People allow themselves to fail and become victims of circumstance.

Following that logic, then the people IN the WTC buildings are also as
well
then......


No it does not follow. The people in the WTC buildings were subject to a
circumstance that no one could ever have even guessed might happen or
foreseen might happen. That was not within their power to prevent or solve.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE