On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:35:56 -0500, krw wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 19:39:15 -0500, krw wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 21:55:55 -0500, krw wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 18:02:40 -0500, krw wrote:

In article ,
says...

snip

I'll say it again, when a property is selling at three times its
replacement construction cost even considering the acquisition and
development of the land the dwelling sits on and there is no long term
projected shortage, you know something is not quite right.

They only thing they're not making any more of is the land.

True, but except for certain classes of land there is an abundent
supply for the foreseeable future.

...but not where the people are (and want to be).

And where (please answer with statistical relevance) might that be?

SoCal. Westchester Co. NY. Phoenix AZ. Look at the census maps.
If that's too boring, look at land prices.


So are you suggesting that if I took a normal curve of the population
of the country and isolated the middle quatrile, that portion at the
top of the curve that represented the highest population based on
geographic location, those three areas would represent that quatrile
as compared to say, small town America?

I guess I'm missing your point.

I can't decode the above paragraph.

Be glad to explain if you have a specific question. You know what a
distribution curve is?

You used "most" at least three times to describe that portion of the
population that you seem to believe want to live in the types of areas
you described earlier. Most means the majority. I disagree.

My five state region about 25% live in major cities or coastal
regions, the balance in small towns and rural. That's more than "you
or I", but still might not be statistically relevant, so I won't
belabor the point.

However, if your are saying that the reason for 300% increase, in the
price of a house over a short period of time (my original statement)
is because land is scarce in those regions that are in demand, we
should agree to disagree. If you have some other point, I guess I
don't see it.

Frank