Nutcracker
I've never taken part in a "blog war" before and I don't really know what one looks like, but after witnessing the events over the past few days I'd say we're in the middle of one.
You might have seen Rain City Guide's recent post by Galen Ward, "There will never be a real estate bubble" and the comments that followed.
It appears that Galen posted the above article simply as a joke about the heat over Susan Ryan's post "Just Say No to Bubble Talk" post as well as others over on the Seattle PI-sponsored Seattle Real Estate Professionals blog.
Side Note: Notice how Susan Ryan's latest posts do not allow comments and contain very long images that scream "Get thee behind me, and much further down the page ye satanic bubblehead posts!"
Rain City's Galen e-mailed me, wanting to know why his post had irritated me so. I responded that I felt the blog appeared to be a REIC cheerleading forum (seems like a reasonable assessment if you take a gander at their authorized bloggers) My apologies to Galen for misinterpreting his post as potentially malicious.
Here is part of his response:
"My take on our blog is this: we have 2 tech people (myself and Robbie) who rarely talk about real estate specifics, a lawyer who talks about lawyer crap, Dustin who has posted one negative story in his life, and Ardell and SeattleEric."I accept this and move on until this evening when I find this puff piece posted on Rain City. Ardell writes a completely benign article about the shocking truth of banks owning a large portion of our assets (unless you happen to be wealthy).
I noticed this quote right away:
"I was perusing The Tim's blog while writing something on my blog earlier today, and ran into the comments regarding King County median income and median home prices, again. I never seem to draw the same conclusions as other people."She fails to link Tim's blog but does a nice job of linking her blog post (which takes aim at Tim's "In A Nutshell" post, which she apparently believes is poorly written and hard to understand) as a "oh by the way".
My point is this: If the "Rain City Guide" is not a Real Estate Cheerleading blog, then why is Ms. Ardell DellaLoggia allowed to use it as a pulpit?
When I first moved to Seattle, the Rain City Guide was the first blog I came across. "Great resource!" I thought. I'm just a tad upset because I know how many hits this site gets.
How many people with homeowner envy are reading these articles? How many will be pushed into Greater Fooldom after reading it? Would you be interested in hiring Ardell as your realtor when you are ready to enter the housing market?
Me, not so much.
Note: If you do choose to post on one of the above mentioned blogs, please be civil and think your arguments through all the way. I realize it can be difficult, however it won't go far in helping persuade potential home buyers from understanding our position. Thanks ;)
(Ardell DellaLoggia, Rain City Guide, 10-10-2006)
(Galen Ward, Rain City Guide, 10-09-2006)
(Susan Ryan, Seattle Real Estate Professionals, 10-08-2006)
18 comments:
Troll alert!
At the risk of feeding it, I'll give my own answer to the question: I didn't buy in 2003 because the local housing bubble was obvious, even then. I knew the market was irrationally exuberant when I met a 19-year-old girl who was "investing" in not one, but TWO houses (and yes, that was late 2003).
Did I "miss out" on the "unprcedented real estate boom"? I guess you could say that. But when the bubble goes *pop*, I'm not the guy who will be liquidating his assets in bankruptcy court to pay down an underwater suicide mortgage.
Remember, folks: the dot-bomb explosion was littered with the corpses of investors who didn't want to "miss out".
It is an attempt at link baiting, she referred to the ST SREP's earlier post with a link to search engine journal. If it is gone from the website, check in some RSS reader like bloglines\google reader.
On another note, Real Estate journal says
Seattle sees record drop in price
Amit
I love Ardell's little snipe on my age, implying that I'm a child. This is the second time now that Ardell has attempted to antagonize and insult me. Honestly, it's not worth my time to bother with such petty nonsense. We'll find out who is right soon enough.
This should come as no surprise that RCG might be a wee bit intolerant of dissenting opinions.
I've been an adult for over half my life, and in that time I have noticed that "those that talk - don't." If a forum claims to be all open-minded, progressive, and erudite, you can bet it is a few narrow-minded hacks that can't stand for anyone not to ratify their preconceived notions.
I had fun on my time at RCG, even if they hated me. I'm a hockey fan, and I'll pass on a game of gentleman's pond hockey in lieu of opening round of the Stanley Cup playoffs, with fixed bayonettes and no quarter shown. Getting hit is half the fun.
For now, the bubble argument is an uphill one. Price action and recent history is on the 'pom-pom' side. Fundamentals are on ours. You can't go into the future to retrieve data about the future, but you can go into the past to retrieve data about the past. Meshugy has made a career of this on this fourm.
My guess is the regulars at RCG look to the ever increasing price of real estate as some ratification of just how hip-n-cool Seattle is. I still have to look over that article about how gay culture attracts the best in computer software employees.
For me, and I assume most of you, I like the PNW. It is part of me. I just don't think that rising prices are needed for me to feel justified in moving back here from Flyover Country. For months, SeattleBubble dealt with the misunderstanding surrounding our identification of a bubble with people assuming we hated it here.
My guess is most of us on SB are left-of-center when it comes to politics. Fine by me. I'm comfortable around liberals, provided they don't approach every problem from a political point-of-view. My guess is the liberals on RCG can't get past their bias.
Rising property prices mean people want to be here (Seattle).
Lower property prices mean people don't want to be there (Dallas).
People want to be around a liberal city, therefore liberalism is desireable. People don't want to be around a conservative city, becasue being a conservative sucks.
IF you posit that prices will fall in Seattle, you are saying that people will not want to be here, and therefore that shows that people might not like being liberal.
Given that I am liberal, and I am not secure with my convictions and place in the cosmos, you are attacking me. Therefore, I will flame/silence you.
I know that might be a stretch, but that is the tone that seems to be set at RCG.
For the record, I don't care either way. Liberals like urban life, and that's great. I don't live in the urban area, and that works for me. I don't see this as a cultural issue (as RCG seems to), but see it as an economic one. I don't think that all liberals are close minded - just those that have no other identification in life. The same works for conservatives.
I prefer an intelligent discussion with someone I disagree with, rather than a nod-fest with someone that sees things the way I do.
They keep asking for something that is impossible to deliver - proof of a future event. Property in Seattle may increase beyond the current 3.6 sigma from normal price/income. I doubt it, but it may. Given that anything is possible (but not probable or plausable), I can't prove my thesis.
I keep referring to the NAZ bubble as a field guide to this bubble. That may be foolish, but the mindset of the participants is exaclty the same, and the underlying price action is eerily similar. So, I am identifying this in the same terms as the NAZ was IDed back in the day.
Am I wrong? Perhaps, but they can't prove it anymore than I can prove that I am correct.
RCG was a fun diversion, but is probably a waste of time.
Synthetik, it's interesting to read your history. I think a lot of people suffered a few setbacks in the latest recession. Some of us learned caution, but most did not.
Some folks frequently complain about how people snipe from the cover of anonymity. Personally, I don't need to know your name. It's good enough to know your background and perspective. You, Tim, S Crow, Eleua, and a handful of others are very good about this sort of disclosure (who is dalas, and what makes his opinions worth anything?).
Tracking a history of posts provides me with a better feeling of whom I can trust to be candid and intelligent. For this reason, I don't trust most Realtors (not all - 4-percent guy, Trevor Smith, seems fairly candid, for example).
Does that mean that Synthetik, Tim, Eleua, Dukes, Peckhammer, Matthew, Misterbubble, and Biliruben don't bloviate from time to time? Sure they do; who doesn't? But I get far more interesting information from them, than I do from the Realtor community.
As far as Susan Ryan's closed blog, who can blame her. She's just trying to post her views and promote herself as a credible expert on RE. If you disagree with her arguments, or find them lacking substance, send her a reasonably respectful comment or question. There's no reason to organize a flame-war against her.
As far as Ardell is concerned, her post "Do the Banks Own Seattle" struck me as a bit cautionary. Most of Seattle RE is %70-90 debt. Even at the high end (families that are loaded and/or have lived there for generations) 50% of the RE is debt. If prices go down by 20%, then most of Seattle is underwater, and the rich suddenly lose a large chunk of their cash.
Ardell's tone is fairly condescending, and I don't see the relevance of Tim's age, but then, she's just a JBAR (Jealous, bitter, aging Realtor).
Honestly, Tim, why are you threatened by someone who uses an out-of-focus Glamour Shot on her posts.
Biliruben has a point. It can be irritating to read the baiting comments of some posters, and some of the outright audacity, lies, and cherry-picking-of-data-passed-off-as-analysis of the REIC can really get your blood up. But sinking to their level does you a disservice. The hacks, shills, and crap-flinging monkeys at RCG may not agree with you, but I think most critical-thinking people respect your opinions and analyses.
I know it's sad for you guys who started at RCG and have had to watch it devolve, but it's beyond your control. I think Eleua said it best: RCG was a fun diversion, but is probably a waste of time.
Honestly, Tim, why are you threatened by someone who uses an out-of-focus Glamour Shot on her posts.
I'm not. That's my point. It's not worth my time.
SeattleEric said: Nothing any of us say on these blogs have an impact beyond our respective echo chambers.
I wouldn't say that. I came into the housing market about a year ago and knew nothing about it. Through reading this and several other blogs, both for and against a housing bubble, I was able to dig through the politics and mud to get to real data and analysis. I learned a ton about the housing industry and market fundamentals, none of which I knew before and most of which I learned from people on these blogs. If your posts are full of useful information and respectful, they can make a difference, even if people disagree with you. Your posts here have been both, so as far as I'm concerned, you're always welcome here.
LHR
Tim, how many unique hits are you getting now per month? 30-50K?
See for yourself. We might break 40,000 this month.
Wah, it says I don't have permission. I created an account... Do I need to create my own stat counter?
Okay, try this, then click "monthly" above the chart.
synthetik clearly wants to continue the conversation Galen began over on RCG, which is an inappropriate place to continue ranting on a subject that feels tired on that blog... However, synthetik did take the time to continue commenting, so my hope is that someone here will find it valuable.
synthetik most recent comment on RCG (that were removed by me) were:
"For the record, I didn’t call her a liar. I believe most of my posts are well reasoned through and i certainly don’t curse on other blogs."
"Anyway, I do apologize for not understanding the tone of Galen’s post. I do not appreciate being censored for having a different opinion."
"On www.seattlebubble.com, Tim would never delete a post – "
I'm assuming it is okay for me to continue the conversation here as well... if not, please feel free to delete my comments.
In the first paragraph, synthetik says: "For the record, I didn’t call her a liar." However, in the comment Ardell is likely discussing, synthetik said: "I wouldn’t be here if lies weren’t being uttered." I think it is reasonable for Ardell to interpret this as synthetik calling her a liar.
Also in the first paragraph, synthetik says: "I believe most of my posts are well reasoned through and i certainly don’t curse on other blogs."
I won't comment on the "well reasoned" part because that is very subjective, but I would like to note that on the same thread, synthetic said: "wtf is going on". I let this comment stand on the site hoping it would help calm synthetic down despite the fact it stands for "what the f**k", which clearly is a curse and inappropriate on RCG.
In terms of the 2nd paragraph, I can only agree with you that you didn't understand the tone of Galen post. Galen was clearly trying to show the ridiculousness of Susan's post, but you (mistakenly) tried to lump him in with all the other "evil" real estate agents of the world. I hope that next time you will try to read the text before commenting so that your comments can be "well reasoned".
In the third paragraph, you state "Tim would never delete a post". While I'll admit that I haven't followed the Seattle Bubble close enough to know if he has ever deleted a comment (I'm assuming you don't really mean "post"), I do know that he includes "the rules" on every post that clearly state the Seattle Bubble blog "is a dictatorship, not a democracy" and that he reserves the right to delete any comment that he feels is inappropriate. In light of Tim's attitude toward comments, I think it is a little disingenuous to say that he *would* never delete a comment.
Dustin,
The direct "you are a liar" was a comment posted on my blog, shortly after the comment you quote on RCG. It was that last one on my blog that made me decide to delete them both, and not the one on RCG.
Just a clarification.
Had he quoted something from the article and said, This xxx is a lie, I would have reponded. But simply saying I am a liar, without pointing to "a lie" in the text of the article, is just a cheap shot.
Gotha!
Ardell,
I guess you know a thing or two about cheap shots.
So "that sums it up" may make a whole lot of sense to a 20 year old...but not to an adult who thinks past today's monthly housing payment and factors in the rising cost of the land's value.
synthetik,
You've already admitted that you have trouble understanding how to interpret the written word and you've done a wonderful job highlighting this fact with your latest comment.
As I clearly explained on the thread, at the time of your "wtf" comment, I was not censoring you at all... My spam filter, Akismet, decided that your posts were spam after you posted a bunch of links in one of your comments. As soon as I noticed this, I immediately marked them as "not spam" and allowed them to go live in the comments section. My guess is that they were in moderation for all of 15 minutes. No one was waiting around deleting your comments at that point.
I tried my best to give you a platform to speak your mind, but when I finally decided that you had no intention of adding to a valuable discussion, I'll happily awknowledge that I began deleting your comments.
Apparently, you have trouble understanding a reasoned argument, but I'll summarize my previous comment because it exemplifies the reason that I began deleting your posts.
In one comment, you managed to make two false statements (lies!), acknowledge that you have trouble interpreting articles, and not even know the policy of the blog you are a contributor on.
It is because you have trouble communicating in a meaningful way that I deleted your comments.
Guys,
No offense, but I don't see how this discussion is adding anything useful for the readers of this blog. What I think Synthetik meant about me deleting comments is that I do not delete comments solely because I disagree with them, and that is correct. I don't plan to delete the comments here, but I would prefer that you take the discussion somewhere else.
Exchange emails, go out and talk out your differences over a drink, whatever, just please take it somewhere else.
Thanks.
synthetik,
Once again, I'm having a really hard time following your logic. I could be wrong, but I sincerely doubt you will find one RCG contributor making the statements:
"Real Estate always goes up"
"Buy now or be priced out forever"
"You'll be able to afford it."
"No problem, you can just refinance into a fixed rate later"
And if they did, I can almost guarantee that such a comment would be challenged by other contributors (like myself!). I've gotten to know each and every contributor well, and I feel safe in saying that none of the contributors follows that train of thought. Maybe our position is too nuanced for you and instead you wish we only kept repeating "the sky is falling!"
What purpose do we serve? To provide a healthy discussion about real estate that would help answer questions people are asking about both the Seattle area and the industry as a whole.
Maybe you think that by discussion commissions (which we do on a regular basis), we are going overboard on promoting people to buy homes. In reality, I can tell you that I get much more slack from the industry insiders than you have given me because our contributors have constantly pushed the discussion on the status quo of commissions.
In looking over recent RCG posts, we discussed (1) new commission structure experiment by one of the contributors, (2) analysis on down payment amount by income level, (3) interesting new map widget that gives neighborhood valuations at the zip code level, (4) a fun story about one man's experience with lowing the height of his house, (5) an article by another blogger where the author (Galen) laughs at "one crazy statement" made by another blogger, (6) a discussion on the applicability of the "wisdom of crowds" as it relates to home buying, (7) commentary on a new social networking site, (8) my comments on a blogging seminar that I gave with a contributor to 200+ attendees, (9) an article about the potential for others to "hijack listings" and (10) an article by one contributor where she describes the process she has gone through in trying to end the status quo of the 6% commission.
Not all of these articles are great, but in general, I think the team of contributors instinctively know that our purpose is to allow for a lively discussion on a variety of real estate topics. Despite the fact that I'd love to have more discussions on the bubble, we do not because (1) a site with agent contributors will never have credibility in talking about the bubble and (2) there are other wonderful resources where people document and discuss the bubble phenomena in detail.
Tim,
I just noticed your comment after I hit publish... I can completely understand how you would feel like this conversation is not productive on your site as well!
Best.
Post a Comment