[quote=bearishgurl]It IS, for a fully “rehabbed” property in the prime areas of PL.[/quote]I guess that’s where we disagree. It’s a darn good deal at 2000-2001 price. At 2003 price, it’s OK.

[quote=bearishgurl]Yes, there IS a point in discussing the two areas (as it applies to how much to invest in them), AN, because YOU (in essence) stated these sellers overspent in PL. YOU stated that YOU were able to do the job(s) for less in MM but (1) they are not, in actuality, the SAME JOBS, and (2) comparing MM to PL is comparing apples to oranges.[/quote]
No, there isn’t a point in discussing the two area, since you just stated, they’re apples to oranges. It doesn’t matter whether the rehab was done in MM or PL, the labor cost is the same and the material cost is the same. So, again, there’s no point in bring up MM further. What I disagree with is this statement from you:
[quote=bearishgurl]
I wouldn’t be surprised if the 2003 owners sunk 100K+ into the property in materials alone in ADDITION to labor costs and sales costs.[/quote]
Do you still think the upgrades cost over $100k in just materials?

[quote=bearishgurl]You were RIGHT that these sellers overspent but it is NOT because it was in the “wrong area.” It was because they HAD to sell the property at the “WRONG TIME,” for whatever reason . . . a very unfortunate situation for them but very fortunate for the buyers :=][/quote]I never stated that the sellers overspent, since I don’t know how much they spent on upgrades. I was just disputting your $100k+ in materials statement.