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: nextrade! who wrote (25282)	11/16/2004 9:05:11 PM
From: nextrade!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Dallas a buyers' market City one of 11 nationally where home prices dropped last quarter dallasnews.com 11:47 PM CST on Monday, November 15, 2004 By STEVE BROWN / The Dallas Morning News U.S. home prices continued to soar in the third quarter, rising almost 8 percent. But in the Dallas area, median home resale prices fell by 1.6 percent. Dallas was one of only 11 U.S. cities with declining home prices, according to a report released Monday by the National Association of Realtors. While other big cities are seeing runaway appreciation, many Texas markets have small or no price increases. Houston's median home price fell by 1.2 percent in the third quarter, and prices in Austin rose by less than a half-percent. "In the relatively small number of markets where prices were down slightly, there was some local economic weakness from a soft labor market, an unusually large supply of homes available for sale or both," Realtors' economist David Lereah reported. "However, none of these areas had experienced rapid price growth, and we see no evidence of price bubbles." The median home price in the Dallas area was $140,300, compared with $188,500 nationally. Almost four dozen U.S. cities had dramatic double-digit price increases during the period. The biggest price spike was in Las Vegas, with an almost 54 percent jump from a year ago, the largest such increase ever recorded for a U.S. city, according to the group. Corpus Christi had the greatest increase among Texas cities, at 7.8 percent. "Although home prices have risen faster than incomes over the last three years, for much of the '80s and '90s, the reverse was true," Al Mansel, president of the Realtors' association, said. "To a certain extent, we've been experiencing some catch-up." The Realtors predict that home prices around the country will go up only about 5 percent in 2005.

To: nextrade! who wrote (25282)	11/16/2004 10:01:42 PM
From: Elroy Jetson	Respond to of 306849

What about property rights? Contrary to popular belief, *our legal system does not* recognize property rights. Following English Common Law we only recognize the rights of individuals. These individual rights include any right they may have to the use of a particular real property by fee, life estate, lease, or easement. English Common Law flows from the concept that all land is owned by the Crown. Land may be granted to, or revoked from, an individual at the pleasure of the Crown. Annoy the King and lose your estates. Please the King and get some one else's estate as a gift. Our U.S. Constitution modified English Common Law by requiring the government to provide compensation for all takings. But no further rights beyond that were created. assembler.law.cornell.edu The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled repeatedly on this issue. If a governmental body restricts the use of land to the extent that "it removes all economic use of the land by it's owner**" the land owner can sue the governmental body for "inverse condemnation" forcing the governmental to purchase the land at it's prior market value. Any restriction which impairs the value of the land but does not "remove all economic use" is not actionable. The court recogized that no firm rule could be provided so each case must be decided on it's merits, but the threshold of proof by a land owner is pretty high. .

To: nextrade! who wrote (25282)	11/16/2004 11:31:54 PM
From: David Jones	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

I've plenty of stories/examples of properties screwed over by the politics of NIMBY's or short sighted government. Even my own story which took ten years to work out just to appease the desires of a tiny government agency with inordinate power. The costs or time constants for many properties run past reason. Leaving behind pockets of under or undeveloped lands for the sake of selfish and small minded factions. As the article mentions 'Environmentalists' I have to say, I've little regard for such particularly the Sierra Club. More than once have I witnessed this organization oppose development for what is advertised as stopping sprawl but in fact only causes said sprawl. Need will always find a way to be filled. These so called environmentalist just don't get it. Next time you drive past an open piece of land while on your morning commute ask yourself why isn't that property being utilized? Time and again the answer will have little or nothing to do with infrastructure constraints or such but fall into the category of special interest politics. As it has been discussed here on the thread the limit of available land is a factor of high prices. Indeed more times than not there's plenty of land close to employment areas that is over looked for reasons not related to good planing. But for what I can only guess boils down to individuals wants or needs for X amount of space or expectations of X amount of space real or not. Elbow room if you will or fewer people in the popcorn line. Although those effected don't understand there can be two lines they prefer others finding accommodations elsewhere. This need or want of X space is being reflected in the long commutes and high home prices which are rampant here today in many areas Northern California.