North park flips… relatistic prices?

[pemeliza]

CAR, I agree with some of what you say here although I certainly would not classify a house within 10 miles of the Pacific ocean as a basic need.

The need of shelter can be satisfied in many ways and if given a preference 99% of families would choose a california beach house preferably with an ocean view, no road noise, and a top school district.

[sdrealtor]

Aye carumba! Suddenly someone doesnt want free markets without gov’t intervention any more. That is unless it is the gov’t intervention and market manipulation that favors your viewpoint. Yikes!

BTW, Shelter is a need but home ownership is not. Just ask all the happy renters out there. I would venture to guess that a retired renter with $700,000 of cash in the bank would be just fine relative to a retired homeowner with a paid off $700,000 home. Perhaps even better off. Of course they would not have the stability or joy of home ownership but that is a privilege in this country not a right.

[sdrealtor]

Aye carumba! Suddenly someone doesnt want free markets without gov’t intervention any more. That is unless it is the gov’t intervention and market manipulation that favors your viewpoint. Yikes!

BTW, Shelter is a need but home ownership is not. Just ask all the happy renters out there. I would venture to guess that a retired renter with $700,000 of cash in the bank would be just fine relative to a retired homeowner with a paid off $700,000 home. Perhaps even better off. Of course they would not have the stability or joy of home ownership but that is a privilege in this country not a right.

[sdrealtor]

Aye carumba! Suddenly someone doesnt want free markets without gov’t intervention any more. That is unless it is the gov’t intervention and market manipulation that favors your viewpoint. Yikes!

BTW, Shelter is a need but home ownership is not. Just ask all the happy renters out there. I would venture to guess that a retired renter with $700,000 of cash in the bank would be just fine relative to a retired homeowner with a paid off $700,000 home. Perhaps even better off. Of course they would not have the stability or joy of home ownership but that is a privilege in this country not a right.

[sdrealtor]

Aye carumba! Suddenly someone doesnt want free markets without gov’t intervention any more. That is unless it is the gov’t intervention and market manipulation that favors your viewpoint. Yikes!

BTW, Shelter is a need but home ownership is not. Just ask all the happy renters out there. I would venture to guess that a retired renter with $700,000 of cash in the bank would be just fine relative to a retired homeowner with a paid off $700,000 home. Perhaps even better off. Of course they would not have the stability or joy of home ownership but that is a privilege in this country not a right.

[sdrealtor]

Aye carumba! Suddenly someone doesnt want free markets without gov’t intervention any more. That is unless it is the gov’t intervention and market manipulation that favors your viewpoint. Yikes!

BTW, Shelter is a need but home ownership is not. Just ask all the happy renters out there. I would venture to guess that a retired renter with $700,000 of cash in the bank would be just fine relative to a retired homeowner with a paid off $700,000 home. Perhaps even better off. Of course they would not have the stability or joy of home ownership but that is a privilege in this country not a right.

[CA renter]

Yes, we’re in agreement there, and I would have no problem competing with every single one of those families who are looking for a *family home* and are using their own money (or are highly-qualified for a mortgage) to buy it.

[CA renter]

Yes, we’re in agreement there, and I would have no problem competing with every single one of those families who are looking for a *family home* and are using their own money (or are highly-qualified for a mortgage) to buy it.

[CA renter]

Yes, we’re in agreement there, and I would have no problem competing with every single one of those families who are looking for a *family home* and are using their own money (or are highly-qualified for a mortgage) to buy it.

[CA renter]

Yes, we’re in agreement there, and I would have no problem competing with every single one of those families who are looking for a *family home* and are using their own money (or are highly-qualified for a mortgage) to buy it.

[CA renter]

Yes, we’re in agreement there, and I would have no problem competing with every single one of those families who are looking for a *family home* and are using their own money (or are highly-qualified for a mortgage) to buy it.

[CA renter]

[quote=sdrealtor]Aye carumba! Suddenly someone doesnt want free markets without gov’t intervention any more. That is unless it is the gov’t intervention and market manipulation that favors your viewpoint. Yikes!

BTW, Shelter is a need but home ownership is not. Just ask all the happy renters out there. I would venture to guess that a retired renter with $700,000 of cash in the bank would be just fine relative to a retired homeowner with a paid off $700,000 home. Perhaps even better off. Of course they would not have the stability or joy of home ownership but that is a privilege in this country not a right.[/quote]

If the govt were to be forced to encourage one or the other (flipping/investing vs. home ownership), I believe they should encourage home ownership.

While it’s not a right to own, there is no question that owning a home is generally better than renting…over the long term.

I think that we, as a society, have to choose between doing what’s right for the people vs. doing what’s right for the wealthy. While “capitalists” would say that it’s the same thing, history has shown that giving control of all the land and wealth of a nation to a small group of elite, wealthy individuals usually does not turn out so well.

[CA renter]

[quote=sdrealtor]Aye carumba! Suddenly someone doesnt want free markets without gov’t intervention any more. That is unless it is the gov’t intervention and market manipulation that favors your viewpoint. Yikes!

BTW, Shelter is a need but home ownership is not. Just ask all the happy renters out there. I would venture to guess that a retired renter with $700,000 of cash in the bank would be just fine relative to a retired homeowner with a paid off $700,000 home. Perhaps even better off. Of course they would not have the stability or joy of home ownership but that is a privilege in this country not a right.[/quote]

If the govt were to be forced to encourage one or the other (flipping/investing vs. home ownership), I believe they should encourage home ownership.

While it’s not a right to own, there is no question that owning a home is generally better than renting…over the long term.

I think that we, as a society, have to choose between doing what’s right for the people vs. doing what’s right for the wealthy. While “capitalists” would say that it’s the same thing, history has shown that giving control of all the land and wealth of a nation to a small group of elite, wealthy individuals usually does not turn out so well.

[CA renter]

[quote=sdrealtor]Aye carumba! Suddenly someone doesnt want free markets without gov’t intervention any more. That is unless it is the gov’t intervention and market manipulation that favors your viewpoint. Yikes!

BTW, Shelter is a need but home ownership is not. Just ask all the happy renters out there. I would venture to guess that a retired renter with $700,000 of cash in the bank would be just fine relative to a retired homeowner with a paid off $700,000 home. Perhaps even better off. Of course they would not have the stability or joy of home ownership but that is a privilege in this country not a right.[/quote]

If the govt were to be forced to encourage one or the other (flipping/investing vs. home ownership), I believe they should encourage home ownership.

While it’s not a right to own, there is no question that owning a home is generally better than renting…over the long term.

I think that we, as a society, have to choose between doing what’s right for the people vs. doing what’s right for the wealthy. While “capitalists” would say that it’s the same thing, history has shown that giving control of all the land and wealth of a nation to a small group of elite, wealthy individuals usually does not turn out so well.

[CA renter]

[quote=sdrealtor]Aye carumba! Suddenly someone doesnt want free markets without gov’t intervention any more. That is unless it is the gov’t intervention and market manipulation that favors your viewpoint. Yikes!

BTW, Shelter is a need but home ownership is not. Just ask all the happy renters out there. I would venture to guess that a retired renter with $700,000 of cash in the bank would be just fine relative to a retired homeowner with a paid off $700,000 home. Perhaps even better off. Of course they would not have the stability or joy of home ownership but that is a privilege in this country not a right.[/quote]

If the govt were to be forced to encourage one or the other (flipping/investing vs. home ownership), I believe they should encourage home ownership.

While it’s not a right to own, there is no question that owning a home is generally better than renting…over the long term.

I think that we, as a society, have to choose between doing what’s right for the people vs. doing what’s right for the wealthy. While “capitalists” would say that it’s the same thing, history has shown that giving control of all the land and wealth of a nation to a small group of elite, wealthy individuals usually does not turn out so well.

[Author]

Posts