"DSK" wrote in message
...
I'm sure this makes you angry, since you are one of the outsiders who
bought high-priced land less than a stone's throw from Bugsquat.


Maxprop wrote:
Angry? Surely you jest. I bought when Bugsquat was cheap. It ain't any
more.


No, you bought land in a swamp that overpriced (or would be, in the
absence of aggressive marketing) five years before you bought it.

As long as there is a flood of rich retirees with loads of cash keep
believing the advertising, there will be a demand and prices will keep
going up.

I couldn't care less the reason for the appreciation. And you seem to be
overlooking a simple fact: my view of the Neuse (about 5 statute miles wide
at that point) and Pamlico Sound is spectacular. You call it swamp land, I
call it gorgeous. My neighbors apparently do as well, otherwise they'd
probably not be building half million dollar homes on their land.




.... No one is talking generalities here, so save the homespun
economics lesson for your neighborhood kids. Bore them, not us.


And what is the trend for local wages over the same period, hmm? What is
the overall cost of living relative to other areas?


Chicago--wages haven't come close to staying up with RE values. Income
has, for certain groups of people, however, mostly entrepreneurs.

In other words, a big shift of income distribution that hides the decline
in overall real income?


Cost of living
(exclusive of home ownership/renting) has remained relatively on par
with the rest of the country. The cost of living index is only a few
tenths of a point higher on average in Chicago than it is in South Bend,
IN, with shelter costs removed from the equation. Add shelter expense
and it's a whole different story.


Makes sense to me.



As long as it is a desirable place to live, real estate will do well.
When does that trend reverse?


I think I asked first, since you implied that RE did not always sustain
an upward trend over the long haul.


You yourself have pointed out the oil-rush towns that are dead. Add to
that the Dust Bowl towns, the gold rush towns, waterfront in Port Royal,
etc etc. Isolated examples, true, but it doesn't help the people who paid
for that land and had it turn worthless on them.

Nope. But I didn't bring their situation up--you did. Had you stuck with
the original topic we might have made some progress in this debate.

Human natu If it happens to someone else, it's a minor fluctuation in
the overal trend. If it happens to you, it's an economic crisis.

You seem to have a knack for the obvious. What's your point?




NC is doing relatively well--I'm well aware of that, being a land owner
there and keeping up with such matters. But there is a dichotomy of
substantial proportions between the highly prosperous urban areas, such
as Raleigh-Durham, Charlotte, etc. and the outlying rural areas where
poverty is and has been continuous for decades.

Don't know much about tobacco farming do you? Drive around out in the
country and see who has nice brick houses with fancy toys in the yard.

You can come up with isolated examples all day, but they still have nothing
to do with the original premise of this discussion.




... Subtract the urban factor and you have a typically impoverished deep
south state.

Really? You ignore the pharmeceutical & computer industries stake, the
financial development in Charlotte, etc etc.

Are you for real? Go back and read my last post--the parts you deleted.
You'll find mention of the cities, including *Charlotte.* Those pharm
companies aren't sitting out in the middle of cotton fields near Bugsquat,
NC. By the way, Duke got beat tonight by Florida State, dammit. I'm a huge
fan of Coach K.

The economy in NC is a good example of pretty smart development, most
ways.

That may be true, but the rural areas are *generally* impoverished. I'm now
putting asterisks around key words, because you seem to enjoy ignoring them.



... As for us tidewater (we prefer that to swamp land, thank you kindly)
types, we're crying all the way to the bank.


Good. We wouldn't you to become one of the impoverished rural types.

LOL. We're definitely not on the same page here.

Yep. Apparently you can't follow a chain of logic that far. Sorry.

LOL again. Logic is not your long suit, Doug. Stick with engineering or
whatever it is you do for a living.





Of course it's happening elsewhere, but not anywhere near the same rate
as in the places mentioned. My property in Oriental has tripled in value
since Jan. '04.

Uh huh.
And you expect it to keep rising at that rate for how long?

As long as waterfront property remains scarce and demand for it remains
high. That has been the immutable trend for as long as I can remember.


What local economic development supports that high price?

See above.

What are average incomes in the area?

Irrelevant. Not far outside Oriental one can see the poverty that pervades
much of the deep south. The contrast between the impoverished areas and the
leisure/boating/vacation/development areas is poignant. Even more poignant
is that the poverty (and the area income levels) is irrelevant to such
development. You can see this up and down all three coasts of the US.
Local income doesn't drive the price of waterfront property. Are you naive
enough to believe that only locals buy up waterfront property in a locale?
Or more to the point, can any significant number of them afford it?


.... And for the record, Oriental is hardly swamp land. The Neuse
River has deposited soil at its mouth for centuries.

Who told you that? Where they laughing?

Your jealousy is showing. But for the sake of argument, swamp land is high
on the list of popular waterfront development currently. Check out the
coast of Georgia. Prices along those estuaries are nearly double what
Oriental is bringing today. That's probably because the rivers around
Oriental have a very small proportion of swamp compared with those same
regions in Georgia. Both Florida coasts were lined with swamps before the
developers filled them all in to make canals and limitless "waterfront"
property. Read John D. McDonald's "A Flash of Green" to gain some
perspective on how the residents of coastal FL felt about losing their
much-loved natural wetlands to bulldozers.




..... Next you're going to tell me that someone is planning to backfill
the sound to create more development land all the way to the barrier
islands (Outer Banks, for those who are curious).

Can't do that, then they couldn't advertise Oriental as "the Sailing
Capital of NC."

You don't hide envy well, Doug.



I think you're envious of those of us who bought when the prices were
reasonable.

Get real. I've owned land in the New Bern area and down the county (not in
downtown Oriental but close) for almost 25 years. It's gone up, and I
expect to see it go down.

If it's not on water, you're probably right.


... Or perhaps your a xenophobe who hates any outsiders moving to his
precious state. Get over it.


Back to that again, eh?

Some things never change. Like your attitude toward outsiders coming into
your precious state. Here's a bulletin for you, Doug--unless you own all of
NC, you really don't have much to say about it. Get over it.



... But as long as you raised the point, can you show me that the Dow
Jones Industrials average is lower now than, say 20 years ago? Or 50
years.

Easy enough to look it up. There have been long periods when the stock
marcket indexes were flat or downward.


Doug--you really need to learn to comprehend what you read.

???

I guess this is the sort of Jaxxian statement you can fall back on when
you've contradicted yourself multiple times and been flat wrong the rest
of the time (except for the part about cycles).

And this statement is tantamount to an admission that you've lost this
debate.



...I'll ask again--show me any state where RE values are lower today than
20 or 50 years ago. Same with the Dow.


Ahem, you said yourself that there were places land was worth only 10%
what it used to be.

Okay, Doug, I'm going to take this nice and slowly, so even you can
comprehend. Read my statement (above) again, word for word. Okay, have you
done that? Gooood. Now, did you happen to notice the word "state" in that
first sentence? Good. Now, when I was referring to those areas where
values plummeted, was I referring to an entire state, or just an isolated
locale? Okay. Now, let's take Michigan, for example, because that was one
of the examples I gave. Are you staying with me? Good. Now even though a
few spots near copper country have lost value, Michigan has experienced a
net property value increase, and has done so continuously for decades. THAT
is what I was talking about. Not just a few towns or locales. I hope that
helped. Good.


As for the Dow, it's artificially manipulated to make it look like it is
going up when it really isn't. But you can look at a graph of the S&P and
find places where it is flat... or drops cyclically to point below... over
ten or fifteen years. 20 or 50 years? Probably that would fall pretty
close to the all-time historical average of 12% annual... which is one
reason why I invest in the stock market.

Thank you for corroborating my point.


You have missed the point. Is the value higher or lower *relative to
what*?


You've lost this argument, haven't you. You're grasping at straws.

Umm, no. I'm repeating a point you have repeatedly missed.

And you called me a Nazi, which means you've officially lost anyway. I'm
just carrying on with this discussion because I'm a good sport.

You are a sensitive guy, aren't ya? I *asked* if you were the Thread Nazi
(with apologies to Jerry Seinfeld). I didn't call you anything, rather I
gave you the opportunity to confirm or deny. And yes, you have been a good
sport, if a bit contentious. I guess we both have been. I think we're
destined to be contentious with each other. Not likely we'd ever be
anything resembling friends, which is probably why I've not been concerned
with looking you up when I'm in New Bern or Oriental. I'll leave that to
Katy.


Thanks, but I suspect we'll do fine without your titles. We all seem to
be able to identify the obvious.


???
Actually I would say that's one of your problems.

Whatever.

Max