Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
zk
Participant[quote=zk]
Well, let’s say you’ve got 6 kids. You want to live in a low-crime area. Let’s say you’re an indoor-type family. You want to live near your work, because traffic is bad. The only house that you can afford near work with enough room for you and your family has a small yard and is near a freeway. The back yard is pretty noisy, but you’ve got double-paned windows, and inside it’s not too bad. I think that many reasonable people in that situation would wisely choose that house because it was the best fit for their priorities.The pros are enough room for your family and a short commute (more time for your family). The cons are freeway noise and a small back yard.
The house in the quiet neighborhood is similar and priced the same, but could be lacking either square footage or proximity to work. A buyer such as this might wisely and gladly give up quietness and a big back yard for enough room for their family or more time with their family. For them, if time for family and room for family are more important than quietness and yard size, it could very well be the best decision.[/quote]
I tried to make that a more realistic scenario, and in the process I made it too complicated and put in too many factors.
To illustrate my argument (it’s not really my argument, it’s more of a basic real estate concept), probably the simplest example is the best. You have kids and want to live near work so that you have more time to spend with them. All the quiet neighborhoods near your work are too expensive for you. There are a couple streets in one neighborhood that back up to the freeway. It’s noisy, and hence cheaper. You decide to live there because you’re an indoor-type family and the noise doesn’t bother you too much, and it allows you to have a shorter commute and therefore spend more time with your family. The noise bothers you a little, despite your double-paned windows and the fact that you don’t spend much time in your back yard. But you’re willing to make a trade-off. You’ll take that extra noise so that you can spend more time with your family.
Just one of countless scenarios that involve people making trade-offs when selecting a home. Some of them involve freeway noise, and some of them don’t.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]zk, you’re making the same tired, circular argument.
[/quote]If my argument seems tired, it’s probably only because I keep having to explain it to you. It’s really not that complicated. As far as circular, you’ll have to explain why you think that. I’m fairly certain you think that because you (still) don’t understand my argument.
[quote=bearishgurl]Are you trying to say that that ONLY houses WITH freeway noise which possess all the “requirements” (including price range) of the OP are available? We don’t even know what the his/her “requirements” or price range is!
[/quote]
No, of course not. I used a hypothetical example of a house that has everything a buyer (not necessarily the OP – we’re discussing the broader issue of “tradeoffs,” not necessarily exactly what the OP wants) might want, but is affordable to the buyer because it’s discounted due to freeway noise. A more likely example would be a house near the freeway with one extra feature – say, a big yard – being similarly priced to (an otherwise identical) one with a small yard farther from a freeway.
[quote=bearishgurl]What school attendance area are you referring to and what is so special about these three public schools (elem/middle/HS) that would cause buyers to choose to make offers on single family homes to raise their families in which had fatal flaws over listed homes which didn’t? Do these schools have gold-plated steps to the front door? Do the teachers there all have doctorates??
[/quote]
I’m not referring to any particular school attendance area. I made that clear in a previous post. I’m referring to any school attendance area that a buyer might want for whatever reason they want it for.[quote=bearishgurl]
Given the congestion and overcrowding up there, a better question might be, do each of those 3 schools guarantee a slot for each student who resides within their attendance boundaries?And how do you know that a particular school district is what the OP is seeking or even if he/she has any kids?
[/quote]
Again, we’re discussing the broader issue of tradeoffs. That transition was made early in the thread. I don’t know what school district the OP is seeking nor whether he has any kids. There are other issues besides schools involved in the tradeoff discussion, such as house size, yard size, freeway noise, climate, etc.
[quote=bearishgurl]Its seems here that you may be trying to put yourself in the OP’s shoes and so stated here what YOU would do in order to live in a particular school attendance area.
[/quote]
That’s just a flailing rant with no basis in fact.[quote=bearishgurl]
Maybe the OP just wants to live closer to work. Until they come back with some feedback, you’re just spinning your wheels.[/quote]
Or I’m discussing a broader issue. Did you bring Chula Vista schools into the discussion because you thought they had something to do with what the OP wanted? Or were you just spinning your wheels? Or were you discussing a broader issue?[quote=bearishgurl]zk, I’d like to know what you think is a “higher priority” than quiet enjoyment of one’s real property.
Leave the school attendance area out of the equation for a moment, since CA public school districts can basically place your student anywhere they have room for them so school placement is essentially out of a parents’ control.
What would be the reasons you would choose to make offers on a house with incessant freeway noise (or under a busy military or commercial flight path) over a house which didn’t have these flaws?
Name the pros and cons (and guesstimate price differences) of each property. Thanks.
[/quote]
Well, let’s say you’ve got 6 kids. You want to live in a low-crime area. Let’s say you’re an indoor-type family. You want to live near your work, because traffic is bad. The only house that you can afford near work with enough room for you and your family has a small yard and is near a freeway. The back yard is pretty noisy, but you’ve got double-paned windows, and inside it’s not too bad. I think that many reasonable people in that situation would wisely choose that house because it was the best fit for their priorities.The pros are enough room for your family and a short commute (more time for your family). The cons are freeway noise and a small back yard.
The house in the quiet neighborhood is similar and priced the same, but could be lacking either square footage or proximity to work. A buyer such as this might wisely and gladly give up quietness and a big back yard for enough room for their family or more time with their family. For them, if time for family and room for family are more important than quietness and yard size, it could very well be the best decision.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]zk, all I was trying to point out here is that living along the SR-56 (whether close enough to be affected by its noise and pollution … or not) is not the only game in town to raise a family in.
[/quote]
That’s not at all what it sounded like, but ok. Not sure of the relevance there. Nobody in this thread said, implied, or even hinted that it was.[quote=bearishgurl]
I stand by my assertion that no buyer is ever forced to purchase a house with freeway noise.
[/quote]
Not a very bold assertion. I don’t think anyone disagrees with it.[quote=bearishgurl]
There is no reason for the OP to do it when he/she has choices.
[/quote]
What if the only way they can afford the yard size they want in the school district they want with the house size they want in the climate they want (etc.) is to buy a house that has all that and is only affordable to them because it’s near a freeway? And they place a greater importance on those other things than quietness?
[quote=bearishgurl]So my recommendation to him/her is to choose a property without it for his/her family’s long-term satisfaction.
[/quote]
Same question as above.
[quote=bearishgurl]The OP asked here about disadvantages and that’s my opinion.
[/quote]
Your opinion is that they should never buy a house near a freeway, regardless of whether they can trade living with noise for some higher priority (for them) item?
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
zk, almost every single one of your sentences (above) has the words “school district” in it. You must know that individual school performance varies widely in a single school district.
[/quote]
You follow that with a lot of defensive ranting about how great the schools are in your area (and shrill harping about the PUSD – which, by the way, isn’t the school district along the west half of the 56). I’m sure your schools are lovely. Never said they weren’t. What I was talking about applies to any good school district. Or any school district that is “better” than another school district that a homebuyer might be comparing it to or deciding between.[quote=bearishgurl]
And uh, zk, the “rich” don’t typically buy tract homes located in CA subdivisions for their personal residences. They buy custom homes (or heavily remodeled former “tract” homes) far, far away from any possible freeway noise.
[/quote]
Well, uh, bg, try to keep up. Let me go slow, here. Flyer said “Why would anyone want to live close to any freeway–regardless of convenience?” I said, “because they’re not rich.” I went on to explain how “not rich” people have to make tradeoffs, and rich people don’t. If flyer can’t understand why anyone would want to live close to a freeway, it’s because Flyer can’t see from a “not rich” person’s perspective and understand that they chose to live near a freeway as part of a tradeoff. So, by saying…“And uh, zk, the “rich” don’t typically buy tract homes located in CA subdivisions for their personal residences. They buy custom homes (or heavily remodeled former “tract” homes) far, far away from any possible freeway noise.”
…in your typically shrewish fashion, you’re making my point for me.
[quote=bearishgurl]
I’m with flyer in that I would never purchase a property near a freeway, especially one which was subject to unrelenting freeway noise 24/7. If a property owner can’t have any peace living in his own property (or his/her tenants can’t have it and thus keep turning over), then what is the point of owning or renting the property? The size of the house doesn’t matter because the price to live there will always be too high. That price is the act of giving up daily peace and tranquility. Yes, it’s a personal preference but it is also a fact that properties with freeway noise have a built-in “economic obsolescence” that cannot be cured and this is a salability issue.
[/quote]
I wouldn’t buy a house near a busy freeway either. That’s not the point. The point is that some people would. Some wise buyers would. They would buy a house near a freeway with the full knowledge that they’ll have to put up with noise and that their house will never be worth as much as the hypothetical “same house” would be if it wasn’t near a freeway. But then, they’re not paying as much for it as they would for that hypothetical house. To say, “I wouldn’t buy a house near a freeway” is completely different from saying “I don’t understand why anyone would” or “no wise buyer should ever.” It’s really not that complicated.[quote=bearishgurl]
The affected property may have not had this issue when it was built but over the years/decades acquired it due to later nearby freeway, underpass, overpass or ramp construction. At one point when the freeway construction was nearly underway, an owner may have gotten compensated by the govm’t for that economic obsolescence but that does nothing for subsequent owners. Therefore, in my mind, there is no reason to purchase a property for residential purposes which has this problem (even for an investment).[/quote]
With all your “economic obsolescence” talk, you seem to be saying that the “subsequent owner” in this situation, or a buyer of any house near an existing freeway, will pay a price for the house that doesn’t take the freeway noise into account, and then sell if for one that does. That’s not how it works. Houses with freeway noise are discounted when you sell them and when you buy them. “Economic obsolescence,”according to the link you provided, means, “loss of value from all causes outside the property itself.” Such as a freeway. So, while not doing your homework and paying full price for a home where a freeway will be built in the future would be unwise, buying near an existing one, for people willing to knowledgeably make the tradeoff, would not be.[quote=bearishgurl]
My posts had nothing to do with my “feelings”
[/quote]That gave me a chuckle.
[quote=bearishgurl]Understand, FlyerInHi. But would you offer “market price” for such a house or condo … or would you discount your offer based upon the doctrine of “economic obsolescence?”
[/quote]
bg, here you indicate that you don’t think “market price” takes into account freeway noise. It does. That’s what economic obsolescence means, right? If “market price” were the same, regardless of the freeway noise, then you’d be able to sell it at “market price” and economic obsolescence wouldn’t be a factor.Participant650 hp. Love it. Not sure I like the styling, either. But 650hp is fantastic.
Love the Challenger Hellcat, too. Looks great, sounds great, runs the quarter mile in 11.2 bone stock. Throw drag radials on it, and it runs 10.8.
10.8! It’s outrageous, egregious, preposterous.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
flyer is right. Wise buyers who make “tradeoffs” because they can’t and won’t tolerate living near a freeway downgrade in size of home they will accept in order to be able to get accepted offers on homes which will never be affected by freeway noise and the additional traffic and air pollution it generates to the surrounding area (especially near its entrances and exits). These homes, more often than not, will NOT be new construction but will be in long-established areas. It has nothing to do with being “rich” as freeway construction occurs in areas of all socioeconomic levels. It has to do with being a smart buyer and buying right … at the right time (if possible) and certainly in as good of an area as the buyer can afford.[/quote]Wise buyers? Really? You guys say you understand the tradeoff thing, and then proceed to demonstrate that you don’t. Some people may only be able to afford that school district near a freeway, regardless of home size. Some people may have 6 kids and need the bigger house and can’t afford one not near a freeway. Some people might care more about a yard for their kids than noise and pollution, and can’t afford a big yard not near a freeway in that schoold district. Etcetera. Everybody has their own priorities, and for many, living near a freeway gets them something they otherwise wouldn’t have gotten. You not agreeing with their priorities does not make them unwise buyers. And, of course it has to do with “rich.” If you’re rich, you don’t have to make any of these tradeoffs.
Participant[quote=flyer] “Why would anyone want to live close to any freeway–regardless of convenience?” [/quote]
They’re not rich like you, big guy. When most people shop for a home, they have to make tradeoffs. They can’t afford a big house with a big yard and a view in a quiet neighborhood in the best school district. Each of those things comes at a price. They can’t afford all of them, so they have to give something or some things up. For some of them, the tradeoff is noise. They give up quiet and get something else that they otherwise couldn’t afford.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]by “merit” I meant “deserve”.
I don’t think a comparison to a case in England makes sense for us in USA.
You seem to imply that Ms. Rowe deserves 6 years in prison because that was the English woman’s punishment.
All I’m saying that is that you can’t just compare similar crimes and punishments. The life, identity, resources of the perpetrator make a huge difference in the punishment, or outcome of justice.[/quote]
I didn’t imply that Rowe deserves 6 years because that’s what the English woman got. Rowe deserves 6 years and more because she committed a crime that deserves a 6-year term and more. As does the English woman.
Are you saying that the perpetrator’s resources etc. should result in a different punishment or that they generally do result in a different punishment?
Participant[quote=CA renter]
From the limited info I got, both of these women seemed to be “decent” people without any major prior arrests or convictions. They are both equally guilty.[/quote]
Just because a person has no major prior convictions doesn’t mean they’re decent. I’d say both these women are abominable.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=zk]This is more like it.
This woman did basically the same thing as Kathy Rowe, and was sentenced to six years in prison.
From the article: “The judge said [the defendant] was in denial throughout proceedings, and that it was only by chance that the victim had not actually been raped.”
Sounds familiar.[/quote]
yes, but who said that the same crime merits the same punishment anywhere in the world.
If it were so, a public servant who dedicated his whole life to service but got caught with illegal drugs would get the same punishment as the “loser” who committed the same crime.
justice is not blind.[/quote]
You’re not making sense, Brian. You imply that someone (incorrectly, in you opinion) said or implied that the same crime merits the same punishment anywhere in the world. You appear to attempt to counter that with your statement that justice isn’t blind. Of course justice isn’t blind. Unfortunately it never has been, and most likely never will be. What does that have to do with what a crime “merits”?
Perhaps you didn’t mean “merits”? Perhaps you meant “will be punished with.” And nobody said or implied that K Rowe will be punished with what her crime merits.
Your arguments are generally very flaky, poorly stated and irrational, which makes them really slippery. I’m curious whether you do that on purpose, or that’s really how you think.
ParticipantThis is more like it.
This woman did basically the same thing as Kathy Rowe, and was sentenced to six years in prison.
From the article: “The judge said [the defendant] was in denial throughout proceedings, and that it was only by chance that the victim had not actually been raped.”
Sounds familiar.
Participant.
Participant[quote=paramount]Fear Factor?
CDC Raises Response to Highest Alert Amid Ebola Outbreak
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Wednesday ramped up its response to the expanding Ebola outbreak, a move that frees up hundreds of employees and signals the agency sees the health emergency as a potentially long and serious one.
The CDC’s “level 1 activation” is reserved for the most serious public health emergencies, and the agency said the move was appropriate considering the outbreak’s “potential to affect many lives.” The CDC took a similar move in 2005 in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and again in 2009 during the bird-flu threat.
“Many lives” doesn’t necessarily mean “many lives in the U.S.” The CDC is sending staff to the four affected African countries. In Africa, where this disease is actually a problem, they frequently perform rituals after people die. Rituals that involve exposing themselves to the bodily fluids of the dead. That’s the main reason it spreads so much there. And that’s the reason there isn’t a realistic chance that it’ll be widespread anywhere else (at least anywhere else where they don’t regularly subject themselves to sick/dead people’s bodily fluids).
If you’re the type who always sees storm clouds gathering or an apocalypse coming, this is a perfect opportunity for you to panic. But nothing is going to happen to you. There will be no pandemic.
Participant[quote=moneymaker]I think I might have a cure, anybody want to be a test subject? Amazing how quickly the doctor died in Africa, sounds like it is a lot more deadly than AIDS. The WIKI is very detailed on the subject. I was in Africa in 1987 and was vomiting and throwing up simultaneously, good thing I was unaware of Ebola at the time or I probably would have been freaking out.[/quote]
You’re right, it’s more deadly than AIDS. And transmission methods are about the same. But people have and spread HIV for years without even realizing they have it. If you get Ebola, you know about it in a few days. That’s a very small window for spreading it, considering the methods by which it is transmitted. Therefore, unless the method of transmission changes very significantly (or the time between acquiring the virus and the beginning of symptoms increases drastically), it will never be as widespread as AIDS.
-
AuthorPosts
