"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Clue: it happens *everywhere* from time to time. Supply and demand are in
a constant state of seeking equilibrium.


Maxprop wrote:
Viewed pedantically, yes--that's true. From a more temporal viewpoint,
the hot real estate markets are where the term is being bandied about
most frequently. I doubt seriously if the supply and demand of land in
Bugsquat, NC, is of much concern to anyone beyond the locals.


OTOH if land less than 20 miles from Bugsquat NC is being aggressively
marketed to outsiders at huge prices, then all three parties (Bugsquat
natives, outside buyers, and sellers) all have an interest in the
situation.

Awfully big *if.*

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.

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


Especially those banks who've lent money on interest-only, nothing down
loans. But ultimately they tend to make out okay. They just hold the
repo'd property until the next RE boom takes the prices higher.

It's that long-term thing again. And banks do fold from time to time....
or get bailed out by the taxpayer.

Do a little research and see how many banks in the areas I mentioned (SF,
Chicago, Miami) have folded in the past 25 years. Lots of mergers,
acquisitions, takeovers, but damn few failures.

Before sticking your thumbs behind your suspenders and looking smug, you
might wish to check out the history of RE values in San Francisco, for
example. The net price trend there has outstripped inflation manifold
for the past quarter century and shows no signs of slowing. Same in the
other two markets I mentioned. 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. 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.


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 mean like land values in the impoverished regions of NC, which
encompass about 80% of the state?


??

You don't know much about current economic trends, do you. NC is actually
doing pretty well, relatively. And we appreciate the influx of money for
swamp land, thank you.

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. Subtract the urban factor and you
have a typically impoverished deep south state. As for us tidewater (we
prefer that to swamp land, thank you kindly) types, we're crying all the way
to the bank.

If you think that long term trends are *always* up, immutably &
indubitably, then I have a great investment for you in Acme Buggy Whip Co
stock.


Get with the program, Doug. Who's talking about stock?

I am. Aren't you paying attention?

The value of a stock is tied to the productivity & profitability of the
company, which in turn is tied to the wages & benefits it can offer it's
employees, which is tied to what those employees can pay for local real
estate.

LOL. We're definitely not on the same page here. Miami and San Francisco
RE, for example, is hardly tied to local employee wages. For an eye-opener,
see who owns slightly less than half the high-priced RE is the Bay Area
these days. Let me help you--Chinese money (have you been in on the trade
imbalance thread elsewhere?) is buying up property and driving the values up
at a greater rate than ever before. Yes, there are a lot of workers in the
Bay Area, and many of them own property, but they aren't the driving force
behind the RE boom there. It's investors, both Chinese and American, but
predominantly Chinese, Japanese, and other Southeast Asians.

...And I'm not talking about RE in Buggy Whip, NC, either. I'm talking
about San Francisco, Miami, and Chicago, like I stated in the first place
when you rudely had to open mouth-insert foot and proclaim, while beating
your chest as you are wont to do regularly, that the phenomenon I was
describing happened in ****kick, NC, too.

It's also happening in a number of other places. Maybe you'd rather
pretend that only city slickers like yourself (who somehow can't seem to
follow a topic, and pay money for swampland) can understand?

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. Waterfront property in Miami has quadrupled in that same period.
Same along Chesapeake Bay. And for the record, Oriental is hardly swamp
land. The Neuse River has deposited soil at its mouth for centuries. No
one filled swamps to create my land. 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).
I think you're envious of those of us who bought when the prices were
reasonable. Or perhaps your a xenophobe who hates any outsiders moving to
his precious state. 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. Go back and
read my original post. You'll note that I never implied there weren't
cyclical trends. In fact I stated such trends were the case in SF RE. I
said "ultimately" the market in RE is always up--that would be *over the
long haul.* I'll ask again--show me any state where RE values are lower
today than 20 or 50 years ago. Same with the Dow.



How about real estate in general--can you show me any state in the
country where RE values are lower than they were 20 or 50 years ago?

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. Are you
one of those guys who needs a definition for the word "is?" Higher means
higher, realtive to the previous numbers. Even adjusted for inflation, the
numbers are substantially higher.


... You really should give your statements some thought before citing
something your Econ 101 professor told you years ago.


Maybe I see what's irritating you. Did you flunk Econ 101? Or maybe a cute
girl in that class turned you down for date?

Sorry to bring up painful memories.

I aced it, and she went out with me. She was the grad student TA. g

Gee this thread has come a long way. Started out at the ports & worked
it's way inland, I guess.


That surprises you? Are you The Thread Nazi, the one who demands that
threads remain on track in Usenet?


No, I just give them a title which actually reflects what is being talked
about.

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

Max

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.



.... 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.

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.



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.



... 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.

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


... 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.




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?

What local economic development supports that high price?
What are average incomes in the area?


.... 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?



..... 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."


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.




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


Back to that again, eh?


... 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).



...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.

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.



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.




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.

DSK

"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

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.


Maxprop wrote:
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.

Sounds like you're in Janeiro, not Oriental. Dawson's Landing?

Ah yes, come and join the flood of Yankees complaining that
that local workers are lazy & unreliable & charge too much.




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.


Is this a debate? So far you seem intent on ignoring reality
& contradicting yourself.


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?


That you lightly dismiss everything that disproves your
assertions, because it happened to somebody else.





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.


Aw shucks, you're just saying that.

No, really.

The "original premise" seems to be your advertising-driven
conviction that *your* land will go up astronomically in
value forever, and that anybody who says different is a
corn-pone munchin' hillbilly.






... 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?

Yes

... Go back and read my last post--the parts you deleted.
You'll find mention of the cities, including *Charlotte.*

Yep, sure did.

I never said you didn't *mention* the cities, including
*Charlotte* but I thought it was worth mentioning the reason
why they are prosperous... the economic underpinnings, if
you like the term. It's not just hi-rises & Wal-Mart.


...Those pharm
companies aren't sitting out in the middle of cotton fields near Bugsquat,
NC.

Heh heh, actually they sort of are. The "Research Triangle"
was considered a big joke by most people for decades.




the rural areas are *generally* impoverished.

Now who's making useless generalities?

And I think that I've probably spent a lot more time in
rural NC than you. I saw the tobacco auction/warehouses
close one by one, and now I'm watching hi-tech cotton
handling facilities sprout.

It's true that eastern NC is generally poorer, but it also
costs a lot less to live there (except in Oriental where you
have to drive 20 miles to a grocery store). And you have
priceless benefits... I happen to like a lot of elbow room.
Must be my pioneer genes.



... I'm now
putting asterisks around key words, because you seem to enjoy ignoring them.


Not at all.


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


Are your assertions & "proofs" more logical? You're the one
contradicting yourself at almost every turn.


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.


Really? That same waterfront land has been there for how
long now? And the upward trend just started when?

BTW you should explain how the Neuse River deposited that
land there, without any current and no silt load.

Actually, there is a lot of silt in the Neuse nowadays
because of upstream development... what I like to call the
bulldozer races... but for all of history up 'till now, that
hasn't been the case.




What local economic development supports that high price?


See above.


What are average incomes in the area?


Irrelevant.

Now there's some logic for you.

... 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.

"Poignant" is it?!??

Just a couple of years ago, my wife and I were driving out
that way, and saw a genuine tarpaper shack. A bad reminder
of the old days, it's gone now. When I was a kid, a number
of my friends lived in tarpaper shacks and houses with dirt
floors. Now they are all gone & good riddance... to you I
suppose a mobile home is a sign of distressful poverty. To
others it's a big step up in the world.

Poverty? Let's talk about the South being kept as a 3rd
World country up thru the 1970s, by outside financial &
industrial interests, for the sake of cheap labor & lack of
environmental laws.

The South was then what the Pacific Rim is now.




... Even more poignant
is that the poverty (and the area income levels) is irrelevant to such
development.

Wrong again.

Developers seek out cheap land because that's where they can
make the most profit.



... 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?

No, did I say that?

Or more to the point, can any significant number of them afford it?


That's right, us ignorant hillbillies cain't 'ford no
waterfront home nor nuthin' like a fancy sailboat.

Next time you're in Oriental, take a pleasant stroll down
Front Street, and notice the architecture of the waterfront
homes. Stop at the Manning house, and ask one of the quaint
locals about the history of some of them.



.... 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.

Yeah right.



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.


Get back to me when you've owned land in the area half as
long. There have been cycles of booms & busts (as you
pointed out) but no booms as big... and that leads me to
believe that the bust will also be big.




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.


Kinda like you'll have to get used to banjo music, huh?




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


Keep saying that over & over & over. Maybe somebody will
believe you.


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?

Did you *buy* the entire state, or just a small part of 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.


I don't disagree, although I think with some research you
could find large areas with net declines.

My point is that you are a bright shining example of
thinking that if it happens to somebody else, it's an
isolated incident in an otherwise positive trend... and that
you also seem to think it can't possibly happen to you.

Actually I hope it doesn't.


.... And yes, you have been a good
sport, if a bit contentious.

Really? It seems to me like I have agreed with a lot of what
you said, after being accused of being a xenophobic
hillbilly and a Nazi. I am merely pointing out the places
where your "logic" takes a flying leap and your facts are
(shall we say) less veritable.



.... 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.

Just as well. Actually I have enjoyed discussing issues with
you, but you seem to get very upset when people disagree
with you.

Regards
Doug King

"DSK" wrote in message
...
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.


Maxprop wrote:
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.

Sounds like you're in Janeiro, not Oriental. Dawson's Landing?

Nope. I'm within the city limits of Oriental.

Ah yes, come and join the flood of Yankees complaining that that local
workers are lazy & unreliable & charge too much.

Do you hear that in New Bern? Haven't heard anything of the sort in
Oriental. The locals there are an eclectic bunch of my sort of people. No
snobs or yuppies--just bright, creative folk.


The "original premise" seems to be your advertising-driven conviction that
*your* land will go up astronomically in value forever, and that anybody
who says different is a corn-pone munchin' hillbilly.

For the record, my original premise was that in San Francisco, Miami, and
Chicago (examples, all) the property has risen in value with only momentary
burbles. The long-term trend is always up. My land was simply an example
to contradict something you brought up, which, for the life of me I can't
recall at this late post.


Really? That same waterfront land has been there for how long now? And the
upward trend just started when?

Recently. Coastal NC is roughly half way between NYC and Miami. It is the
last of the Atlantic coastal waterfront to experience the
investment/vacation/leisure boom. And Oriental is on the Neuse, not the
Atlantic. Those areas up river have always been slow to catch on, but they
do eventually. You could buy an acre of land on the Tred Avon River in MD
for about $10K just ten years ago. Today that same acre will cost you
several million dollars. The fact remains that there is a limited amount of
waterfront land. The prime places have been popular for years. The
out-of-the-way places, such as Oriental, have remained below the radar until
recently. That's why I bought there--because it was still relatively
inexpensive, and I have the foresight to see that, like those rivers and
streams off the Chesapeake, the rivers along Pamlico sound will one day be
priced above my ability to pay. You denigrate my purchase, and ridicule
those of us who are perceptive enough to see good RE investments. Beyond
being unkind, you're myopic as well. My investment money has tripled since
January '04. Has your stock portfolio done as well during the same period?
Let's check back in about a decade and see who's ahead then, too.

BTW you should explain how the Neuse River deposited that land there,
without any current and no silt load.

Fly over it sometime, Doug. It's obvious. Despite your belief to the
contrary, the vast majority of land being sold there is NOT filled swamp
land.


Actually, there is a lot of silt in the Neuse nowadays because of upstream
development... what I like to call the bulldozer races... but for all of
history up 'till now, that hasn't been the case.

Then the Neuse and all its tributaries must have just cut through the land
there.

Just a couple of years ago, my wife and I were driving out that way, and
saw a genuine tarpaper shack. A bad reminder of the old days, it's gone
now. When I was a kid, a number of my friends lived in tarpaper shacks and
houses with dirt floors. Now they are all gone & good riddance... to you I
suppose a mobile home is a sign of distressful poverty. To others it's a
big step up in the world.

It's a mistake to make such suppositions. The poverty I was referring to
are homes that have never seen paint or repairs, and undoubtedly belonged to
sharecroppers in the past, if not currently.

Poverty? Let's talk about the South being kept as a 3rd World country up
thru the 1970s, by outside financial & industrial interests, for the sake
of cheap labor & lack of environmental laws.

It's always someone else's fault, isn't it?

... Even more poignant is that the poverty (and the area income levels)
is irrelevant to such development.

Wrong again.

Developers seek out cheap land because that's where they can make the most
profit.

That's interesting logic, if flawed. The developments I've seen in NC, or
anyplace else for that matter, are typically in the more desirable places to
live. It's difficult to make much of a profit selling lots in undesirable
areas, where there is little or no aesthetic value, an ambience of economic
sluggishness, or both.

That's right, us ignorant hillbillies cain't 'ford no waterfront home nor
nuthin' like a fancy sailboat.

Understood. You buy trawlers. (sorry, couldn't resist)

Get back to me when you've owned land in the area half as long. There have
been cycles of booms & busts (as you pointed out) but no booms as big...
and that leads me to believe that the bust will also be big.

LOL. Okay, Doug. But here are a few facts for you. When we bought our
property, there were literally hundreds of parcels of land, from development
lots to large acreage plots, for sale. Today there are a mere handful. And
the prices have skyrocketed, and have done so since before I bought there.
I receive periodic calls and snail mail from realtors asking if I'd like to
sell. They claim to have buyers waiting for something to open up. 2200 sq.
ft homes (avg.) in similar waterfront subdivisions to mine were listing for
roughly $200K to $300K when we bought. Today the same type homes are going
for $400K to over $600K. Only one factor drives values to double in just a
couple of years: demand. There simply is less supply than demand for
waterfront property. And tidewater NC is still considered "very affordable"
by the RE gurus. I doubt that Oriental property will ever come close to
similar parcels/estates along the Chesapeake, NJ, RI, MA, CT, VA, FL, or WV.
It may not even reach the values of similar properties in Maine or Georgia,
but it most certainly will rise. I have not the slightest doubt about that.
Nor do the potential buyers or investors who would like me to sell them my
land. What's even more ridiculous is I couldn't care less. I like Oriental
and the locals, I like the river and the sound, I like the fishing industry
there. I like the sleepy ambience of the town and the surrounding area.
The only thing I fear is not a RE bust, rather a *boom* so substantial that
the small village character of Oriental disappears in a flurry of big money
and tourism. Oriental has far more to lose than to gain at this point, IMO.



Did you *buy* the entire state, or just a small part of an isolated
locale?

Okay, I'll acknowledge that you just don't seem to follow, and let it go at
that.

My point is that you are a bright shining example of thinking that if it
happens to somebody else, it's an isolated incident in an otherwise
positive trend... and that you also seem to think it can't possibly happen
to you.

Not even close. Economists speak daily about large-scale trends. They use
phrases like "the economic indicators all seem to be pointing to a solid
economy over the next quarter," and such. And during the next quarter,
there will be individuals who go broke, declare bankruptcy, lose their
personal possessions, end up on the street. So are the economists wrong?
Would you have them say instead, "the economic indicators all seem to be
pointing to a solid economy over the next quarter, however the Miller family
in Duluth will suffer a substantial setback when Bob loses his job at the
taconite mill, and Geoge and Henrietta Wellcamp of Denton, TX, will face
foreclosure . . ." blah, blah, blah. Even my example of Chicago isn't free
of such variations. While downtown RE has gone through the roof, the south
side properties have remained relatively stagnant. Some regions probably
have fallen in value. But that doesn't have sufficient force to effect the
net RE market trend. (whew, this is becoming cumbersome)

Really? It seems to me like I have agreed with a lot of what you said,
after being accused of being a xenophobic hillbilly and a Nazi. I am
merely pointing out the places where your "logic" takes a flying leap and
your facts are (shall we say) less veritable.

Jesus, Doug, did you, or did you not, see the Seinfeld episode, The Soup
Nazi????? It was quintessential Seinfeld, and the term "(something) Nazi"
is as common as dirt these days. When my wife takes the TV remote away from
me, she is The Remote Nazi. When I won't let the dogs roughhouse in the
living room, I'm The Canine Recreation Nazi. Get a life.

Just as well. Actually I have enjoyed discussing issues with you, but you
seem to get very upset when people disagree with you.

Despite what you and Mooron read into my posts, they are almost always typed
with a rather large grin. Nothing, absolutely nothing, about Usenet could
make me angry. Not even Binary Bill, albeit he's come close on an occasion
or two. I tire of putting smiley emoticons or a g behind my comments, but
you could literally assume they are there most of the time.

That said, this thread has deviated into the carnival of the ridiculous, I
think. You may have the last word, should you feel inclined to so do.

Max

Sounds like you're in Janeiro, not Oriental. Dawson's Landing?


Maxprop wrote:
Nope. I'm within the city limits of Oriental.


Well, thye've expanded "city limits" considerable.



Ah yes, come and join the flood of Yankees complaining that that local
workers are lazy & unreliable & charge too much.


Do you hear that in New Bern?

I hear that pretty much everywhere, most recently in Chicago.


... Haven't heard anything of the sort in
Oriental. The locals there are an eclectic bunch of my sort of people. No
snobs or yuppies--just bright, creative folk.


Good.



The "original premise" seems to be your advertising-driven conviction that
*your* land will go up astronomically in value forever, and that anybody
who says different is a corn-pone munchin' hillbilly.


For the record, my original premise was that in San Francisco, Miami, and
Chicago (examples, all) the property has risen in value with only momentary
burbles.

Duh. Pretty much everything goes up, over the long run. Does
property go up faster than everything else, always & always?


... The long-term trend is always up.

It is if you extend "long-term" to encompass enough time.


... My land was simply an example
to contradict something you brought up, which, for the life of me I can't
recall at this late post.

Then why do you feel you have to contradict it? It's been
clear to me, all along, theat you really don't have much
idea of most of what I'm talking about (yet you claim to
have aced Econ 101).

DSK

"DSK" wrote
Duh. Pretty much everything goes up, over the long run. Does
property go up faster than everything else, always & always?

Not always, but generally, due to inflation and population growth. The latest
"bubble" was predictable when folks with $million and $10 million incomes found
themselves with lower taxes and more dispoable income.