Last Week's Biggest Sales

still millions of bucks sloshing around in some circles.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 11:20 AM

Where's this week's cheap-ass former crack house sales?

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 11:27 AM

Watch out when sales prices are much higher than asking -- that's often a sign of fraud. Not saying that's what happened here, but if you can find high comps -- which isn't hard to do in Cobble Hill -- then the loan can include a nice hunk of cash back for someone. Still happens, believe it or not.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 11:34 AM

250K over ask.

Yeah, this market is REALLY tanking....

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 11:36 AM

11:34, please explain to this non-grifter mind

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 11:46 AM

eh almost 500k under ask

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 11:49 AM

@11:36am 475k below asking.
yea this market is really soaring

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 11:51 AM

11:51 - This was just the ask. If other comp SALES were higher and this sold for less, then you can argue that the market is falling. Do you have sales figures to compare this to? If not, stop assuming the market is suffering because of unrealistic asking prices are not being met by buyers.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 12:06 PM

Daveinbedstuy,

one thing I've never understood about your ceaseless invocations of the sales of "2-bedroom condos in Manhattan" is: who is going to keep buying those condos? Do you just assume there's an infinite supply of money flowing into Manhattan real estate, even with job cuts on Wall Street, a slowing national economy, etc., etc.? All of your posts assume there's a kind of real-estate fairy creating billions that can be used to buy Manhattan condos, and then in turn to buy Brooklyn brownstones? In what economic model does this make sense?

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 12:08 PM

Holy crap. The Clinton Hill place still got almost $800 a square foot. Insanity.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 12:09 PM

12:06, the point isn't that the market is suffering. The point is that the market is significantly weaker than it was a year and a half ago, when sales prices were routinely above asking. Now, they're almost always well below asking. That's a major shift, and it's the first step in cooling down the speculative fervor that's been driving real-estate prices higher in Brooklyn. As people start to realize that they're not going to be able to sell their homes for significantly more three years down the road -- or, even more important, not going to be able to pull hundreds of thousands in equity out via home-equity loans (because their equity isn't going to be increasing meaningfully over time) -- the prices they'll be willing to pay will fall further. NY is never going to see the kind of crash we're witnessing in Miami and Las Vegas, but there's no doubt the end to the speculative bubble is going to keep home prices flat or down for years to come.

That's obviously not a problem if you bought your brownstone before 2006 -- your gains are already so big that a few down years won't matter. But if you bought in the last couple of years, particularly with lots of leverage, it means that you're going to be looking at losses (relative to other investments) for a long while yet.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 12:15 PM

The Garden Place listing said the house "needs some work" and it still got $4.5M...amazing

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 12:16 PM

"@11:36am 475k below asking.
yea this market is really soaring"

Honestly, this has to be one of the most ignorant posts on bstoner ever. And that's saying A LOT. 12:06 points out correctly that many times, homeowners price their homes too high and that prices are sometimes unrealistic. That has nothing to do with the selling price.

Now to OVERPAY by 250K. THAT is something.

Have you ever gone to Whole Foods and the bill came to $75.00 and you just decided to give them a $100 and told them to keep the change???

That's what this is like. So yes, a house selling for over asking price is TOTALLY different than a house selling for under an asking price.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 12:23 PM

What's totally different is that in 2005-2006, buyers routinely gave sellers a lot more than they were asking. Nowadays, it almost never happens. So in fact it is something to see sales at prices 10-15% below asking -- it's a clear sign that the market is much weaker than it was two years ago.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 12:27 PM

"it's a clear sign that the market is much weaker than it was two years ago."

DUH! But it's two years? Is that as far as your memory goes back??

Before 2000, almost EVERYONE paid less than the asking price. It was a very rare occurrence to ever pay more than asking, unless the property was severely underpriced.

So what you are basically saying is that the market has gone back to normal. I don't believe it's bad, I believe it is normal.

Now the economy might be bad, but the housing market in NYC is very normal right now. This could be any non recessionary year in the 80's or 90's where homes sold, homes were bought, some sold for over asking and most sold for under asking.

This really is not big news.

Some of you literally seem like you were born yesterday.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 12:35 PM

The Cobble Hill church conversion was for sale for far longer and at far higher prices than Mr B reports. If I remember correctly, it started close to $3m over a year ago.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 12:36 PM

"one thing I've never understood about your ceaseless invocations of the sales of "2-bedroom condos in Manhattan" is: who is going to keep buying those condos? Do you just assume there's an infinite supply of money flowing into Manhattan real estate..."

Yes. It's called Europe.

There's a massive number of reasonably wealthy people buying investment real estate at huge discounts. And (in many of their minds) the inevitable rise in the dollar is a hedge against a downturn in the RE market....

Go to a playground on the Upper East or Upper West Side. Count the accents....It's shocking...

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 12:45 PM

The market isn't close to "normal" yet. Pre-2000, people who were willing/able to put up a downpayment got a building that could be rented as an investment. From the 1950s on, brownstones consistently sold for something resembling their value as rental properties -- sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less. When rents on small apartments were disproportionately higher than rents on large ones, sometimes houses with large units sold at prices that resembled their value if they were chopped up. When renovation standards increased for owner-occupied houses, sometimes prices got so high that the seller rather than the buyer got the benefit of the owner-occupied mortgage tax subsidy.

But until the last 5 years owners NEVER paid more to own than they would to rent a comparable place -- even including a reasonable return on the downpayment. And without factoring in capital appreciation at all.

The mark of a bubble is that people are willing to pay prices that do not reflect costs or alternate uses, because they expect that someone else will pay even more when they want to sell.

By these standards, these prices have a long way to drop before the market is "normal". In a BAD market, expect prices to be 8-10 times annual rental value.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 12:48 PM

Just read today that NYC rents are going to go up this year by as much as 9.5% because of increased oil prices and other associated costs to landlords. They are really taking a beating on taxes and oil.

So 12:48, there is the theory that rents will go up to come more in line with housing prices than the other way around.

Rents going up nearly 10% in 2008 alone will certainly help to close your 8-10 times annual rent calculation.

I pay less than $1300 a month for my recently purchased studio in Prime Park Slope.

Tell me where I can rent that same studio for that price in this area?

With my tax deductions, I am paying about 1000 a month to live by myself, in a gorgeous brownstone in my neighborhood of choice.

I'll trade up when I can afford it. I don't expect my first home purchase to be a million dollar apt, like so many of the entitled people on this blog.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 12:57 PM

8-10 times annual rents is not a bad market. That's only a 10-12.5% return on gross rents -- hardly enough to cover expenses and vacancies in a recession, let alone leave something to compensate for the owner's management time and the risk that the market will go down further still. Warren Buffett won't be buying at those prices.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 12:57 PM

Easy for Europeans to buy Manhattan vacation homes while the market is going up -- they're free. How many people are going to buy them when (a) Ireland, Spain, London are in the middle of their own crashes; (b) dollar declines threaten to eat up any gains; (c) possible declines in US RE prices mean losses, not gains.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 12:59 PM

Dave: I paid 10 x rents for a prime Ft Greene 3 fam at the peak of the 1980s boom -- highest priee around for 5 years in either direction. That's not a market bottom.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 1:01 PM

How on earth can you have a 1300 mortgage on a studio in Park Slope. Is it a cardboard box studio?

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 1:06 PM

1:06:

1300 a month is a loan amount of about 220K at 6% interest.

The rest I put down in cash.

You do realize you can get a nice studio in the Slope for about 300-325K, right?

I paid less than that, but already two on my block have sold this year for 80K over what I paid for mine in 2006.

Start out small. This is great for a single guy like me. I love my place. And I have money left to go out whenever I want and take vacations and even SAVE.

I couldn't be happier.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 1:13 PM

1:13, don't you need to factor in the $15K a year or so you're foregoing in lost investment income (that you'd be getting if instead of putting the money into your studio, you put it into the market)?

So actually, you're paying about $2500 a month for a Park Slope studio. What a bargain! $2500 a month to live in a tiny little box.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 1:47 PM

Dave, you're being absurd. So the prospect of the dollar strengthening is what's luring all those European buyers into the market? So what happens when the dollar does strengthen, and the euro no longer goes as far? Where are the buyers for the $2 million condos going to come from then?

Oh, right, they're going to come from the US, or Wall Street, or somewhere. There's always going to be an endless supply of buyers. And the fact that the price-rent ratio is completely outside of all historical bounds is irrelevant.

Keep believin'.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 1:50 PM

1:47 = epitome of a bitter renter

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 1:54 PM

To 1:47...as I mentioned, I am quite happy, so not sure why you'd try to knock that. Many, many people pay $2500 a month in NYC to RENT a studio. I'm building equity for the future, because I'd like to live in NY for the long term and not be paying $15,000 a month in rent when I'm 65. How silly of me.

And as I mentioned also, I could put my studio on the market today and sell it for at least 80K over what I paid for it about a year and a half ago. Even in this market...the lower end of the market is going great right now, actually and I wouldn't be surprised to get even 100K over my purchase price if I were really lucky. I also plan to sell FSBO just like I bought the place so save on realtor fees.

Where in the world could someone with my income make 80K in investments in a year and a half?

Now, I'll be happy if it never rises again, because to be honest, I'll be fine with 100K even 3, 5 years down the road. Even half that will be great. As I said, I love my place. Wouldn't want to live anywhere else right now.

That will be a great 20% downpayment on a 500K 1 bedroom. At that age, I'll be 35, so I still have time to keep moving up the ladder.

You have to be an incredibly spiteful and jealous person to tell someone who is happy with their decision that they should be unhappy.

Projecting, much?

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 2:02 PM

"putting the money into your studio, you put it into the market)? "

Warren Buffet just said over the weekend that anyone hoping to see the same appreciation in the stock market in the future as in the past, is a fool. He said that for the foreseeable future, the stock market will not be the place to make huge sums of money anymore.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 2:04 PM

Dave, I'm asking you what Europeans are going to be buying when the dollar does go to 1.35? And if the Europeans -- who you say are the drivers of the Manhattan market -- aren't going to be buying, then who will?

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 2:07 PM

"then who will?"

I don't know...I'm guessing some of the million new arrivals in NYC over the next decade will buy a few homes.

And you know...the early 20 somethings that have all come here in the past 10 years who realize that this is where they want to stay. I see it happening now. Those who moved here out of college in 2000 are entering the buying pool now. Many of my friends are starting to think about buying now.

Dave is not suggesting, I don't believe that only Europeans are buying...us Americans also like to buy places to live and raise our families also, you know...

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 2:13 PM

To follow up on the...who will buy homes in the future question...

A large percentage of new immigrants to this city buy homes. YES I know...SHOCKING!!!

But it's true.

So while all you elistist assholes whine about not being able to afford anything on your 150K a year plus salaries (because you're too busy drowning your sorrows in $15 martinis and fistfuls of blow), there are very hardworking people who come here every day, make a relatively meager salary and manage to save up and buy a property for their family.

You'd be suprised what one can do with a little hard work and discipline.

It's sad that in many ways, the American dream has been lost on so many people actually born here and has become such a magnificent escape for those that came here looking for a better life...and found it...

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 2:19 PM

So Dave's theory is that "normal" means "unprecedentedly high priced" because all of history was a different world. Prices can continue to increase **relative to rents** because Europeans and immigrants and 20 year olds with the ability to save infinite amounts and who, presumably, don't know how to calculate the relative costs of renting/buying, will be willing to pay ever-increasing premia to own instead of renting. Or, like 2:02, they are happy to give their savings to their elders as downpayments.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 2:37 PM

2:37:

I save about $750 a month. Saving is an ongoing project. You don't save once and then stop. I have my studio, I have 20% invested in that downpayment plus whatever equity I make when I sell, I have about 15K in a "rainy day" fund and another 5K in stocks and about 50K in retirement.

Not bad for someone who makes less than 100K a year, is not yet 30 and doesn't "understand the realtive costs of renting/buying"

I'll be just fine, don't you worry about it.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 2:43 PM

It doesn't seem to me that 2:37 can grasp much of anything besides writing a check to his landlord once a month, to me.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 2:53 PM

At the **peak** of the last boom it cost, after-tax, essentially the same to buy as rent. Now -- it costs double.

So, rentals will convert to owner occupied and rehabs and new condos will go up, until supply meets demand meets costs meets alternative uses.

Rents have to go up or prices come down until they are equivalent and no higher than production costs. That's what equilibrium means in Econ 101. Right Dave?

Urbanization or safe streets can't rescue this market. Rents already reflect the attractiveness of NYC. For rents to go up more, either NYC needs to become more attractive, or incomes need to go up. But at a certain price point, the suburbs start looking like a better deal.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 2:57 PM

"But at a certain price point, the suburbs start looking like a better deal."

Not for the growing number of people who give two rats asses about the environment, it doesn't...

Gas has doubled in the past 7 years also.

Do you see people not buying that anymore either??

Where's the car price to gas ratio here? Seems a little out of whack also, but life keeps on truckin.

Pun intended.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 3:03 PM

2:43 is happy to give his savings away because he calls it "equity" and thinks it is going to grow. But chances are better that it will shrink.

When enough people actually read their Econ books instead of calling other people idiots, there will be fewer willing to make 2:43's decision.

And that will really be better for the country, because it means that real estate will be for living in instead of buying and selling; prices will come down to a level that reflects the actual costs of building; we will be able to have conversations about architecture instead of prices, and so on.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 3:04 PM

The problems with Social Security -- mainly that the tax supporting it is unfairly capped out so that the rich don't pay their share -- was caused by people like Dave and his heroes.

Save a little, gamble a little, luck into a bubble and think that your affluence is all because you deserve it and no one else does.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 3:07 PM

2:13 -- if you want to get hired by those Europeans for a clerical position, you'll need to learn the difference between subject and object. "Us Americans" are going to be subjects of the educated and treated like objects.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 3:09 PM

2:04 won't catch Warren Buffett buying condos that are priced at twice fundamental value. He sells at those prices.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 3:11 PM

I am well aware that 2:37 is an idiot. And I agree with you Dave...I wish people would be more fiscally responsible at a young age also. It has to do with upbringing, I think. My parents taught me well.

I do not expect that Social Security will last until the time that I retire, so I'd like to take that into consideration now by trying to create a financial base for myself as I get older.

I think it's terrifying to think about living here (or anywhere) in old age and still be renting and be subject to yearly rent increases on a fixed income. People who rent always give the excuse that they are socking all that extra money they'd be spending on a house into their savings instead.

And you know what I say to that...YOU'RE LYING! Most renters, if they had enough saved would buy a place, but the fact of the matter is that most people in this country do not save anything. Owners included.

So I don't buy the argument that renting means you have all this extra money saved. Where is it then? The only people I know who have money are ones who either own a house, are saving up to buy a house, or the remote case of someone who really does save and plans to be a lifelong renter (very rare).

Owning a home has allowed me the opportunity to become MORE fiscally responsble, not less. It put me on a budget where I know each and every month (for the next 30 years if I like, that I will never pay more than 1300 a month. Now, of course I will move to a bigger place one day, but you get the point...). Owning property has enhanced my life by feeling more a part of the neighborhood and city and it also makes me feel proud to have accomplished it.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 3:13 PM

Dave, you constantly chatter on on these boards about how much you know, and how only you understand the markets, and so on. Yet when it comes to the stock market, you seem to think that because the stock market has been down for a year and a half, that makes it a bad investment going forward, when of course it makes it a much better investment. You're recommending that people buy real estate at the top of the market. You're saying things like "NYC has become a magnet" for the rest of the US, when in fact population growth in the city has been minuscule -- well below half a percent a year -- since 2000.

You keep talking about the currency trade as if no one else understands your brilliance. I understand that if you buy property when the dollar is 1.5 to the euro, and the dollar strengthens, you're richer even if the property doesn't appreciate -- but you only reap the benefits of that when you convert the dollars back into euros -- by selling the property. And the question was, and is, where is the infinite supply of buyers for $2 million Manhattan condos coming from?

Dave, everything you say about Brooklyn real estate is exactly what people said in January of 2000 about technology stocks: things are different this time, history doesn't matter, only people who don't understand economics are afraid to invest, the bears are just bitter about having missed the boat. So again, keep believin'. You know and everyone else doesn't.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 3:14 PM

"2:43 is happy to give his savings away because he calls it "equity" and thinks it is going to grow."

He thinks that because over the long term this has proven true, 100%. In every market in the United States, in fact. In NYC, even moreso.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 3:15 PM

Dave: So taxes is something you understand as well as economics? The mortgage deduction subsidizes homeownership at the expense of everything else. In normal markets -- i.e., most of the US most of the time, including NYC until about 1998 -- the benefit of the subsidy goes to buyers. Under those circumstances, it doesn't affect prices much.

Today, sellers get the subsidy: it is fully incorporated into the selling price (and then some).

In any event, tax subsidies can only explain a gap in valuation, not a growing gap. Especially since it is capped and therefore worth proportionately less on more expensive homes.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 3:20 PM

"And the question was, and is, where is the infinite supply of buyers for $2 million Manhattan condos coming from?"

The current ownership rate in the United States is roughly 70%. In NYC, roughly 35%.

That leaves a LARGE portion of 8.25 million people who still might want to buy a home.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 3:20 PM

"2:04 won't catch Warren Buffett buying condos that are priced at twice fundamental value. He sells at those prices."

Ummmm....and you DEFINITELY won't catch Warren Buffet renting his primary residence for his entire life!

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 3:21 PM

Hey 3:03, did you miss the part in Ec where they talked about the price mechanism? When prices go up people buy less. Gas and houses.

Anyone who moves to NYC because of gas prices must be living in a really nasty apartment. If gas prices double twice more, they still won't be more than rounding error for a commuter with two kids and a decent place to live in BK or Westchester.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 3:26 PM

how can the "rich" not pay their share of social secuirty when paying more social security than anyone else? If you remove the cap, they will just move politically to opt out of social security period, like SERPS in the UK. Private accounts, no more paying for others. Its people eanring low amounts who don't pay a fair share - they end up paying virtually nothing yet drawing continually.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 3:26 PM

But Westchester sucks.

Bigtime. I know. I was raised there. Even going for a weekend makes me want to die.

Comparing suburbs to city life is apples and oranges.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 3:27 PM

Every family I know who moved to the burbs from Manhattan or Brooklyn wishes now that they didn't. Every single one. I could literally name off 15 people easy. And NJ...forget about it. I don't think any of them had any idea that in exchange for their cheaper house, they'd be paying 20K a year in taxes to fund a now bankrupt state. That combined with a 20% drop in housing prices, and let's just say, they aren't that thrilled with life right now.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 3:30 PM

3:15 -- I have some tech stocks to sell you. Also, some real estate in a really hot boom town in Nevada. And a nice house in a solid and beautiful area of Newark or Brooklyn c. 1967.

Long run, NY prices are basically flat with inflation, just as everywhere -- just look at Shiller's charts, the only actual evidence on this.

Of course, in the long run few people buy at prices that are double fundamental value. Those folks need to save a very long time to make up for their mistake.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 3:33 PM

Buffett paid a modest and sensible price for his Omaha house. He bought his California property at the bottom of the last crash and sold at the top of the bubble. He is not the poster boy for faith-based-investing.

You need to invest to make money in investments. But that doesn't mean -- except for Dave -- that by taking stupid uncompensated risks you will make money.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 3:38 PM

Lots of people want to buy. That doesn't mean lots of them are going to have enough income to convince bankers to lend them the money to buy over-priced property.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 3:39 PM

Westchester sucks. That's why NYC rents are triple rents there.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 3:41 PM

renters are so stupid.

really. if this thread didn't prove that, i don't know what does.

they are in such denial it's ridiculous. not to mention incredibly self righteous and bitter.

i know a couple who bought in 1996 for 400K and just sold in Jan. 2008 for 8 million. A townhouse on the upper west side. not even one of the super fancy ones.

please go back to playing with legos. this game is for the big boys.

if you think that from now on you are going to make big money on your 2% a year interest wamu account or the stock market, you are SADLY mistaken.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 3:43 PM

3:26 -- I'm not sure about the "rich". Perhaps they do pay more than others in social security.

However, people who actually have large incomes pay a lower percentage with each extra dollar they earn. And nothing at all on unearned income. That's called regressive taxation and it is not fair.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 3:45 PM

3:43, you're right. Because no one's ever gotten rich investing in the stock market.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 3:53 PM

"regressive" in a mathematical sense perhaps. But why should people pay social security above the limit for which they get no benefit from? Are you suggesting raising social security benefits available to those who paid in more also? Otherwise that wouldn't be fair either would it?

People with incomes of 35K a year pay income tax per dollar earned than people earning 80K. How is that fair? Why should the dollar one person earns be worth 80 cents why the dollar the next joe earns be only worth 70 cents?

The only sense of fairness with taxes that people have is "if you are earning more than me not only should you pay a greater amount of tax, you should also pay a greater percentage of your income as tax."

That has nothing to do with fairness.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 3:53 PM

I know a couple who bought in 2008. A townhouse in Clinton Hill. $3 million. Not even one of the nice ones. In 2020 they sold for 20 x as much. To a junior associate at a Wall Street law firm making double what he makes today, but with a really good mortgage broker. He's paying 15 x his monthly income in interest, but it doesn't matter because he'll just roll over the debt until he sells to a European.

The plural of fictional anecdote is -- data. Trees do grow to reach the sky, at least if they don't fall over. NYC is different, and it's all because of the liberals at the NY Times.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 3:54 PM

Let's follow 3:43's brilliant logic: because his friends got really rich buying near the bottom of the market in 1996 and selling at the top of the market in 2008, everyone should therefore buy at the top of the market.

Sensible advice. Of course, if 3:43 is right, and the period from 1996-2008 tells us what's going to happen in the future, his friends' townhouse is going to be worth $160 million in 2020.

Makes you wonder why they were stupid enough to sell it this year.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 3:57 PM

Actually, if you are earning lots of money you are getting more of the benefits the government provides, especially the conditions for making all that money. And if you are making lots of money in NYC, you are getting governmental money rather directly, though the regulation that makes the financial markets possible and the subsidies and bailouts that keep it afloat, and through the trickle-down from the genuine welfare queens who extract their percentage as the money flows through Wall Street. So of course you should pay more, in both absolute and percentage terms.

In any event, there is that little free market aspect of diminishing marginal utility. The billionth dollar of salary is never going to be worth as much as the first. That's why the overpaid guys whine so much about how much more they need to be subsidized to work a full day.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 4:00 PM

scrapping the social security cap would amount to the biggest payroll tax increase in memory. The amount of political donations it would generate to subsequently push through privatization or contracting out of the social security system would be millions because people earning over 100K would have so much to lose. Sure remove the cap, but before long say bye bye to ss as you know it now. I know a bevy of liberal professionals who are aghast that Obama even mentioned the idea, they're all voting for Hilary.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 4:02 PM

3:53 what are you talking about? I thought Warren Buffett became the second richest guy in the world by buying a house in Omaha.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 4:03 PM

Why are the posts that make the least sense the quickest to call others stupid/idiotic/liberal/bitter? Is this a general blog phenomenon or something special about Brownstoner?

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 4:06 PM

Oh, you're right, 4:03. That's how Buffett made all his money, by listening to Daveinbedstuy and the guy whose friends sold their $8 million townhouse. He wasn't foolish enough to think he could make money by investing in the stock market.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 4:07 PM

Oh, I didn't realize that fairness is the same as brute force.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 4:08 PM

"if you are earning lots of money you are getting more of the benefits the government provides"

If you earn 100K (35% tax bracket, hauge NYC and city taxes and health insurance costs) with a kid and rent in NYC, like many do, you are getting considerably less benefits from the government than someone earning 25k with a kid in NYC who basically pays no tax and gets EIC and medicare access.

Go ahead and explain your pulled-out-of-your-hat theory how the person on 100k gets more?

And why is it "of course its fair" that those people should pay a greater percentage? Its not fair, it plain flies in the face of the idea of fairness that different people should be treated differently.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 4:14 PM

I'm fine with removing the social secuity cap, as long as you make all other federal taxes flat taxes too. Thats fair right?

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 4:18 PM

The top 25% of earners in the country paid 86% of the federal taxes. The governmental benefits we all get are shouldered by them.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 4:25 PM

4.08 - who is your comment aimed at? You mean the Government just deciding to remove the cap?

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 4:27 PM

the top 25% is anyone earning over only $62K. Too many people getting a free ride on taxes. The top rate is 35% - and thats without city and state taxes.

See this article of 2 days ago:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/columnists/sburns/stories/DN-burns_04bus.ART.State.Edition1.4603045.html

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 4:34 PM

I think Dave is actually the What. Is it just a coincidence that just as the What dropped out of the picture, Daveinbedstuy shows up? He decides that since people started paying attention to all the doom and gloom with bank write downs and layoffs, that it would be fun to go to the pump and dump side. Don't you all realize that Dave is the smartest guy in the (chat) room? I should have talked to Dave back when I was trading EM currencies back in the mid-90s. I never knew it was so wasy to predict which way they were going to go. I guess that's why Dave was able to step up from that basement apartment in Weehawken to the palace in bedsty.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 4:35 PM

I wish I owned...I'm so sick of renting.

It's horrific.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 4:43 PM

renting is bascially hassle free - its not so bad.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 4:56 PM

Every landlord I've had is an ahole and doesn't keep up the building as well as it should be maintained.

And my rent goes up every year so that I have to move about every 3. I hate it.

I'm saving now to buy. I hope in 2 more years I'll have enough.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 5:09 PM

By 3 years prices should be down to half where they are now and you'll have no problem buying--Dave and his crowd won't want to anymore. Just hold on.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 6:01 PM

People earning $100k pay taxes, including SSI. It's the hedge fund managers taking home $100 million who get the reduced rates.

Just because you are suffering doesn't mean it's the fault of the people in worse shape than you.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 6:04 PM

NYC has never crashed 50%, 6:01. Not even in the absolute worst of economic times. Even in the crash in the 80's, prices went down about 35% on average. Your comment makes you sound so incredibly pathetic and desperate. I'm being dead serious. Did you...a grown adult really just write that?

Even at half, you still couldn't afford a studio, much less a brownstone so what do you care?

I've seen 300% appreciation over the last 10 years. I'll be ok if it drops a bit.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 6:07 PM

We're glad you'll be ok. That has nothing to do with whether it's a good idea to buy now. The fact that buying in 1998 made a lot of sense doesn't mean it always makes sense. If prices drop 20-30% from here -- as they did between 1988-1993 -- and then stay flat for another three years -- as they did in the mid-1990s, anyone who buys today is going to reget it. End of story.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 6:12 PM

Why would they regret it, 6:12?

Most people buy homes to live in. To raise families, etc.

The only people who would regret it are speculators (practically non existent in Brooklyn) or people who suddenly have to move because of a job transfer or birth or something of that sort.

So really...the people who might "regret" their decision to buy a home are what...like 5% of the population??

Your logic is unreasonable. No one times the market like you seem to suggest. Lots of the people who now are sitting on millions probably bought right before things crashed in the 80's and you know what....they continued to live their lives, raising their families and then woke up one day and realized their house was worth a lot more.

That's the way it's supposed to be. Not to BUY the house with the intention of it being a money making machine.

You are the kind of person who is partially responsible for this housing crisis to begin with...someone who looks at a home as an atm machine instead of as a roof over your head.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 7:59 PM

MY
MY
MY!!!!

What a contentious back-and-forth.

We *are* in rocky times if everyone flies off the handle like this. Very volatile...

Anyway, look.

Renting can be really lousy and sometimes okay. Can have lots of upsides and downsides.

Owning can be pretty sweet and/or a hideous burden. Can have lots of upsides and downsides.

Number 1: I would be careful what I wish for.

Number 2: I would not advise others to fling themselves in any particular direction.

* * * * *

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 10:19 PM

the last comment that actually referred to the original post was at 2:10... this blog sucks.

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 10:40 PM

and that holds true, even with the addition of yours, 10:40...

i think it might be you that sucks...not the blog.

seems others are having a great time.

you do take the award for most hypocritical post of the day though.

good job!

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 10:55 PM

As someone who recently sold our apt for over twice what we paid for it, and is going to rent for the next year, I feel fine renting for a year or two. Our sale was motivated by the need to move to a different school zone, and the knowledge that our place would soon get too small - so the question was not whether to sell, just when, and this seemed as good a time as any. It's a gamble, but we're sitting on tons of cash (not just from recent sale, but another place also sold high) that hopefully gives us big advantage in buying a bigger place. On bids we've put in recently, we've noticed that cash down is a *big* incentive for sellers - having to sell to buy is a major liability in this market. Everyone always trashes renters on this site, but many economists agree that there are moments when renting makes sense - and I think we are in one of those times. That said, I totally agree with the need to be frugal and save if you want the stability home ownership can eventually give you. The reason we now have cash is because we've been very careful with our expenses, precisely so as not to eat into that capital, and we work hard to bring in income with which to save additional funds. But for people renting/saving now, I think they are in a good position. I also agree you cannot really "time" the market - ultimately you have to buy (and sell) when it makes sense for your life. In the case of buying, that means you buy something that you can afford, that you really love, and if you plan to stay for a while you'll probably be fine in the long run. But if the prices are sky high, as they are now, and you are not seeing things you like, what's the rush now? Even the bulls on this list seem to concede that prices may dip or at least flatten for a while. Other than 37 Tompkins Place, these sales seem to confirm that - and I think there are still the "last throes" of irrational exuberance in the current market that could account for a bidding war here and there. But I will be surprised if they keep up - things still are NOT "normal" (prices are still VERY high by all historical standards) but I anticipate the market will continue to calm down as this year progresses. So I say, keep looking and saving and be patient and when you see the right thing, go for it, but take your time and don't feel frantic - for a change now, buyers can have the upper hand...

Posted by: guest at May 6, 2008 11:36 PM

7:59 - well, although I agree that many people in Bklyn buy homes to live in, not to make money off of, I would regret spending several 100K more for a house than it would cost 1-2 years from now. I mean, I have friends who bought a house in South Slope late last year and now very similar houses on the very same block are going for less - so yes, I would regret buying high instead of waiting a bit. In the long run, it might be OK, but for quite a while, knowing that I could have saved thousands in mortgage payments would irk me. Especially if I lost my job!

Posted by: guest at May 7, 2008 12:12 AM

10:55 - those grandma panties are making you angry.

Posted by: guest at May 7, 2008 9:22 AM