Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Amy J who wrote (13015)	8/23/2003 12:27:56 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Respond to of 306849

amy j, >>Are you biased against entrepreneurs?<< do you think it is possible that a "quasi multi-home investor" can be considered a entrepreneur? if any of your "nazdaq workforce" employees decides to purchase real estate for investment purposes, putting them into the category of "quasi multi-home investor" is that ok ? the point here is you are complaining about "artificial" supply constraints on RE driving up prices beyond the capacity of the "nazdaq workforce" (new hires?) to purchase.. you may not wish to accept the effect (as you perceive it) that prop 13 has on the existing market, but the fact is that it is and has been part of the market forces in CA RE since 1978 i don't have time to research the statistics for you right now on the numbers, but i feel quite certain that the explosive rise in SV RE came not as an effect of prop 13 but rather the high demand and inflated naz market conditions that existed running up to the nazcrash of 2000. bottom line you have a situation whereby there was simply excessive demand put on a limited supply .. which brings me back to my original point... are you suggesting that it is unacceptable for a real estate entrepreneur to purchase housing as an investment?? those investors were simply looking at prevailing market conditions (supply demand dynamics) and making investment decisions, the ultimate outcome of which is to make a profit. i'm in the process right now of looking at a real estate acquisition in a high demand area with very limited expansion opportunity, existing building sites are disappearing and due the the geographical location and surrounding public land constraints i expect the property values to continue to rise significantly. so yes i will be becoming one of those out of state "quasi RE investors" who expects to make full use of the capital and existing market conditions at my disposal to profit. What's not acceptable is pricing pressures due to artificial supply problems contributed thru hoarding of homes by prop 13 quasi-investors. Anything like preferential treatment of quasi-RE-investors that negatively impacts the underpinnings of a Nasdaq workforce needs to be fixed i think this pretty well sums up your dilemma with housing your workers. you are engaging in a business endeavor that is located in an area where the housing market is out of reach for the people you are hiring. i see three options for the people that work in that situation... 1. employee can commute from a more affordable location 2. simply work elsewhere 3. the employer can relocate to areas more affordable commensurate to the salaries they are able to pay (actually 4...the employer can complain about current housing market condtions, not adapt, and hopefully muddle through, waiting for market conditions to become more favorable) "Are you biased against entrepreneurs?" hardly, amy j i am one