Dan wrote: > I understand that sentiment, and I admit that there are far more enjoyable > places to live than Houston. When Teri gets her call, I hope to move to > one of them.
Cool, I know you were reluctant to move there in the first place. > But, LA isn't much better than Houston or Dallas. Austin is clearly better > than LA. Not by climate. Not by access to a diverse environment (beach in Austin? Mountians?) And by the way, I hate LA and I'd consider Austin before I would LA. Well, maybe... Further, the direct comparision that is so critical is _the rise_ > in price of real estate in LA vs. Dallas. Since Dallas grew faster over > the time period, by your theory, it's prices should rise faster than LA. LA is maxed out. They're overcrowded. That's why people are building homes where they shouldn't and they get destroyed by fires and mudslides. They've actually been on the decline for a long time so comparisons with LA aren't really a true measure. > > In the last 7 years, the metro population rose 19.4%. LA went up 4%, and > DFW went up 18.6%. Austin and San Antonio, IIRC, have even faster growth. > So, California seems to be peaking. I'd guess, when the bubble shakes out, > places like Palo Alto will see another factor of 2 drop in price. Palo Alto is a bad example. http://www.mercurynews.com/lauriedaniel/ci_10957727 (click on the map) I think home values went down about 2% in PA over the last year or so and not much at all before that. Doug _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
