I get the point of this thread. it is to highlight how absurdly decrepit houses command those inflated listing prices.

My remarks are solely regarding the way these houses are described — with lavish use of sarcasm. it comes across as condescending. *somebody* lives in those houses. that somebody is there because of circumstantial, financial reasons, whatever. those houses mean something to them.

simply because some of us may be able to afford better or have better “class”, doesn’t give us the right to put someone else’ house down in that manner.

pointing out flaws and defects is one thing, but to do it in such a demeaning way is not OK (in my opinion).

@Stups:

Is that short for stupid?

This is the entire point of this man’s blog. If they were well-kept houses, whose to objectively say they were inflated?

Besides, well-kept, nice decent houses are don’t really exist in SoCal. These are pre-war, stucco huts, sitting on fault lines.

Moving on.

Sorry.

This is the smartest thing I have heard yet on the whole housing debacle. Thank you! Common freakin sense.