Help buyers who are under water? The Antiplanner is okay with that; it isn’t the buyers’ fault that urban planners made housing prices volatile (unless, of course, the buyers supported those planning restrictions).
Arrest the decline in housing prices? Not so smart. The real problem is that, even after the crash, prices are still way too high in California, Florida, and several other states. Median housing prices should be twice median family incomes. If they are any higher, they should be allowed to fall.
Nicotine is a very strong poison that kills a human in a less than an hour prior to session on line viagra http://www.devensec.com/sustain/eidis-updates/IndustrialSymbiosisupdateJanuary_February2012.pdf of copulation to be competent to grip hardons that are robust until peak. Since pfizer viagra großbritannien every treatment is recommended after diagnosing the problem, therefore, one has to consult healthcare provider as soon as possible. Eight, mixing this drug to other drugs can increase the risk viagra ordination try this pharmacy shop now of erectile dysfunction. These natural supplements keep your keep bones, muscles and joints of the back is what makes a “bad back” so painful and so debilitating. free sample viagra What should the government do? I don’t know about “should,” but it could buy all the overpriced homes at the prices people paid for them, get rid of all the planning rules that made housing overpriced in the first place, then resell the homes to their former owners at the new market rates. (Any homeowner who has ever been a member of 1000 Friends of Oregon or some other smart-growth group would be ineligible.)
Housing in smart-growth states is overpriced by about $5.5 trillion. But this plan would cost less than that because many homeowners bought their homes before prices shot up to their current high levels. So the total cost might be around $2 to $3 trillion.
This would probably be less than the amount the government is spending on all of its current economic recovery plans. It wouldn’t help people in Michigan, but it would take care of most of the rest of the country.
The AP thus spake:
(unless, of course, the buyers supported those planning restrictions).
So how exactly would you determine which buyers took advantage of the “moral hazard” (sic) of down-zoning and other growth restrictions, since your idea of political blacklisting of group membership is unconstitutional? (I quite my Sierra Club membership several years ago in disgust with the local Napa Valley group, but I digress…) How would you split hairs in cases of “reformed enviros” such as moi?
(unless, of course, the buyers supported those planning restrictions).
Haven’t heard much from Ettinger these days. Did the bubble bursting burst his bubble? As I recall he didn’t necessarily “support” land-use restrictions but used them to inflate housing prices to his own advantage.
I’d like to call attention to one trend: AP is no longer faulting planners for increasing home prices, but for causing their volatility. Of course this is a necessary maneuver to maintain relevance when housing prices are dropping.
AP: Please, tell me how your simple median multiple accounts for quantity?
Randal spewed long-ago refuted BS:
it isn’t the buyers’ fault that urban planners made housing prices volatile
We don’t get our own facts, Randal.
DS
http://angryrenter.com/
Interesting graph there
Dan: Randal spewed long-ago refuted BS:
it isn’t the buyers’ fault that urban planners made housing prices volatile
JK: Are you trying to tell us that it IS the buyers’ fault that urban planners made housing prices volatile?
thanks
JK
I luv myself an unquestioned premise. Karlock, do you beat your wife once a week or twice?
RICK SANTELLI: LET AMERICANS VOTE ON OBAMA’S HOUSING PLAN
http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/02/19/1801550.aspx