- This topic has 99 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 17 years ago by Raybyrnes.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 23, 2007 at 11:50 AM #91037October 23, 2007 at 11:50 AM #91057sandiegoParticipant
Stop with the “Terrorism” talk. The CIA’s definition of Terrorism is:
“A terrorist is an individual or group who uses acts of violence and intimidation to achieve a desired social, political, or religious outcome. In American society, a terrorist is also defined as any group or individual that uses violence to oppose US domestic or foreign policy. What this definition of terrorism fails to recognize is the revolutionary or guerilla force that is combating an unresponsive or oppressive government. To understand terrorist motivations, one should first determine the political, social, or religious goals of the terrorist group. There is a critical difference between a revolutionary group that is trying to overthrow a dictator, and a terrorist group that is using intimidation and force to enforce its view of the world on an unwilling society. It is only through understanding what the terrorist is trying to accomplish and why, that their actions and motivations can be understood.”
Arson is vandalism, not terrorism.
October 23, 2007 at 11:50 AM #91067sandiegoParticipantStop with the “Terrorism” talk. The CIA’s definition of Terrorism is:
“A terrorist is an individual or group who uses acts of violence and intimidation to achieve a desired social, political, or religious outcome. In American society, a terrorist is also defined as any group or individual that uses violence to oppose US domestic or foreign policy. What this definition of terrorism fails to recognize is the revolutionary or guerilla force that is combating an unresponsive or oppressive government. To understand terrorist motivations, one should first determine the political, social, or religious goals of the terrorist group. There is a critical difference between a revolutionary group that is trying to overthrow a dictator, and a terrorist group that is using intimidation and force to enforce its view of the world on an unwilling society. It is only through understanding what the terrorist is trying to accomplish and why, that their actions and motivations can be understood.”
Arson is vandalism, not terrorism.
October 23, 2007 at 11:50 AM #91035sandiegoParticipantStop with the “Terrorism” talk. The CIA’s definition of Terrorism is:
“A terrorist is an individual or group who uses acts of violence and intimidation to achieve a desired social, political, or religious outcome. In American society, a terrorist is also defined as any group or individual that uses violence to oppose US domestic or foreign policy. What this definition of terrorism fails to recognize is the revolutionary or guerilla force that is combating an unresponsive or oppressive government. To understand terrorist motivations, one should first determine the political, social, or religious goals of the terrorist group. There is a critical difference between a revolutionary group that is trying to overthrow a dictator, and a terrorist group that is using intimidation and force to enforce its view of the world on an unwilling society. It is only through understanding what the terrorist is trying to accomplish and why, that their actions and motivations can be understood.”
Arson is vandalism, not terrorism.
October 23, 2007 at 11:51 AM #91042kayceeParticipantI don’t follow you juice. Unless these homes were on the MLS before these fires, they would have nothing to do with pendings or closings. The title to these properties doesn’t change. The owner of a burned home could choose to sell the lot , but then it’s no longer a SFR.
October 23, 2007 at 11:51 AM #91063kayceeParticipantI don’t follow you juice. Unless these homes were on the MLS before these fires, they would have nothing to do with pendings or closings. The title to these properties doesn’t change. The owner of a burned home could choose to sell the lot , but then it’s no longer a SFR.
October 23, 2007 at 11:51 AM #91074kayceeParticipantI don’t follow you juice. Unless these homes were on the MLS before these fires, they would have nothing to do with pendings or closings. The title to these properties doesn’t change. The owner of a burned home could choose to sell the lot , but then it’s no longer a SFR.
October 23, 2007 at 12:08 PM #91073stansdParticipantQuestion for all:
I live smack dab in the middle of RB. While the number of homes burned isn’t very significant in the county overall, it is very significant where I am and where I would like to buy someday.
My assumption: Many won’t wait to rebuild-they will purchase another house now, rebuild, and then sell the rebuilt house. Or, they will pay off the mortgage and sell the lot. I think an empty lot in the middle of RB where you can custom build your house is more appealing than some think.
So, my assumption is that this provides support for prices in the near term, with a possibly depressing impact as the rebuilt houses come back online. My rental contract is up in March, and I am likely screwed on that front as well since competition just increased 5-fold.
Fire Away at the above.
Stan
October 23, 2007 at 12:08 PM #91087stansdParticipantQuestion for all:
I live smack dab in the middle of RB. While the number of homes burned isn’t very significant in the county overall, it is very significant where I am and where I would like to buy someday.
My assumption: Many won’t wait to rebuild-they will purchase another house now, rebuild, and then sell the rebuilt house. Or, they will pay off the mortgage and sell the lot. I think an empty lot in the middle of RB where you can custom build your house is more appealing than some think.
So, my assumption is that this provides support for prices in the near term, with a possibly depressing impact as the rebuilt houses come back online. My rental contract is up in March, and I am likely screwed on that front as well since competition just increased 5-fold.
Fire Away at the above.
Stan
October 23, 2007 at 12:08 PM #91052stansdParticipantQuestion for all:
I live smack dab in the middle of RB. While the number of homes burned isn’t very significant in the county overall, it is very significant where I am and where I would like to buy someday.
My assumption: Many won’t wait to rebuild-they will purchase another house now, rebuild, and then sell the rebuilt house. Or, they will pay off the mortgage and sell the lot. I think an empty lot in the middle of RB where you can custom build your house is more appealing than some think.
So, my assumption is that this provides support for prices in the near term, with a possibly depressing impact as the rebuilt houses come back online. My rental contract is up in March, and I am likely screwed on that front as well since competition just increased 5-fold.
Fire Away at the above.
Stan
October 23, 2007 at 12:29 PM #91061sdnativesonParticipantinteresting thread, I was fortunate enough(!) to catch some of a local channel last night. I believe the individual talking was a fire department official, the gist of his statement was (paraphrasing) “we will investigate every structure that burns down”, and listed the various fire/arson terms such as point of origin, how the fire spread, acclerants etc. His comments seemed Very pointed.
October 23, 2007 at 12:29 PM #91084sdnativesonParticipantinteresting thread, I was fortunate enough(!) to catch some of a local channel last night. I believe the individual talking was a fire department official, the gist of his statement was (paraphrasing) “we will investigate every structure that burns down”, and listed the various fire/arson terms such as point of origin, how the fire spread, acclerants etc. His comments seemed Very pointed.
October 23, 2007 at 12:29 PM #91096sdnativesonParticipantinteresting thread, I was fortunate enough(!) to catch some of a local channel last night. I believe the individual talking was a fire department official, the gist of his statement was (paraphrasing) “we will investigate every structure that burns down”, and listed the various fire/arson terms such as point of origin, how the fire spread, acclerants etc. His comments seemed Very pointed.
October 23, 2007 at 12:35 PM #91089BugsParticipant“Trend in prices?”
Based on what we saw after the Cedar fire, I think the answer to this question will be mixed. Last time we were in the midst of a housing boom and taking some of the existing inventory offline spurred additional local demand. Some additional construction jobs came up that wouldn’t have come up. Since there were very few commercial structures there weren’t many jobs lost.
I’ve been chewing on this question for the last couple days and I think this time it will be different. There will be some people who will choose to move into a rental and stay there, those who are underinsured or on edge anyway may move into the rental market for lack of any other options. I think that the rebuild number will be lower this time than last time.
But I still think a lot of people will rebuild and carry on, and a few people might have the means to buy another existing home instead of rebuilding.
The news reports are talking about the loss of some commercial structures, which we didn’t have much of last time. To me, that reads to be the equivalent of saying that several businesses will close down for good and those jobs will be lost. However, the rebuilds will also add some more opportunities for contractors and laborers that they wouldn’t have otherwise had. Retailers will benefit, too, as people replace what they lost.
Will a significant number of people decide that twice is more than enough for them and leave town? I dunno. I do know that this disaster will eventually end up costing us all. If there are losses then somebody is paying, and that somebody will always pass it back to their customers the first opportunity they get.
October 23, 2007 at 12:35 PM #91102BugsParticipant“Trend in prices?”
Based on what we saw after the Cedar fire, I think the answer to this question will be mixed. Last time we were in the midst of a housing boom and taking some of the existing inventory offline spurred additional local demand. Some additional construction jobs came up that wouldn’t have come up. Since there were very few commercial structures there weren’t many jobs lost.
I’ve been chewing on this question for the last couple days and I think this time it will be different. There will be some people who will choose to move into a rental and stay there, those who are underinsured or on edge anyway may move into the rental market for lack of any other options. I think that the rebuild number will be lower this time than last time.
But I still think a lot of people will rebuild and carry on, and a few people might have the means to buy another existing home instead of rebuilding.
The news reports are talking about the loss of some commercial structures, which we didn’t have much of last time. To me, that reads to be the equivalent of saying that several businesses will close down for good and those jobs will be lost. However, the rebuilds will also add some more opportunities for contractors and laborers that they wouldn’t have otherwise had. Retailers will benefit, too, as people replace what they lost.
Will a significant number of people decide that twice is more than enough for them and leave town? I dunno. I do know that this disaster will eventually end up costing us all. If there are losses then somebody is paying, and that somebody will always pass it back to their customers the first opportunity they get.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.