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.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zeuspaul who wrote (4532)	9/22/1998 1:22:00 AM
From: dougjn	Respond to of 67261

Actually, in the Northeast, at least, and with the possible exception of a few communities most closely tied to the highest plutocrats that Wall St. produces (such as Greenwich, CT, where prices have been going up sharply for at least three years), I think that the immediate post war generation, i.e. the boomer's parents, and those just later than that, enjoyed the greatest percentage house appreciation increases. The 50's were OK. the 60's through the mid 80's were incredible. Since hasn't been much good, until the last year. Doug

To: Zeuspaul who wrote (4532)	9/22/1998 11:19:00 AM
From: j_b	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 67261

OT *******<<I cannot believe that Northern California has had more than 10X appreciation in twenty years >> Let me be the first to offer a glimpse into the joys of price appreciation in N. California. In the early 60's, tract homes sold for around $16k. In the early 70's, they sold for around $40k. They now sell for $450k for a small (1,200 sq.ft.) home in an okay neighborhood, and $650k (and up) for a 2,000 sq.ft. home in a good neighborhood. Condition of the home does not seem to be an issue, as fixer-uppers go for as much as new homes in similar areas.

To: Zeuspaul who wrote (4532)	9/22/1998 1:10:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

<OT> Zeuspaul, fyi plenty of houses in Silicon Valley that were $100K 20 years ago are $1MM now. Its commonplace. Some houses that were $50K 20 years ago are $1MM today too (these are the houses that have a lot of once worthless land). It should tell you something that someone like me doesnt even own a house. Im 34 years old and a former director at Oracle. Think about that. But you are correct, I didnt really mean it that a 50 yr old would pay $100/yr and I would pay $10,000/yr. I would pay more, for sure, but not that much more. But heres the issue: You are asking me, and the people that work for me, to pay more for something simply because we are younger than you. And the fact that this item is a basic necessity like housing is really unacceptable. And were talking about exponentially more, too. I dont know if people that support prop 13 think my generation is stupid, or what. How can conservatives support this unfair wealth redistribution law while at the same time trying to abolish other entitlements? Because its a sweet deal for you thats why! You are showing your true colors with your support of this age discrimination law. When you are retired, my guess is you will be just as unreasonable and greedy as the AARP crowd is now. True, the correct answer to this problem is to solve taxation issues in California. Which will no doubt mean people over 45 will experience a rise in taxes.