The Housing Bubble

“Eliminate Section 8 vouchers in places such as Oakland or Compton and see what you will get in return (you might want to stand back a bit).”

+1 Arson, the methodology of the poor.

Actually arson may not be such a bad thing….could lead to rebuilding of housing meant for people who can fully pay for it…

Assuming it ever gets rebuilt.

Eliminate Section 8 vouchers in places such as Oakland or Compton and see what you will get in return (you might want to stand back a bit).

A lot of people assume that the welfare crowd will just find jobs and pay the rent. But as someone here pointed out that other day, add these people to the workforce and watch the official unemployment rate skyrocket. It’s hard to be a “discouraged worker” when you have no place to crash, but of there are no jobs then there are no jobs.

I think the “interesting” side of things won’t be limited to places like Compton. A lot of “safe” nabes won’t be so safe anymore.

So in other words, for the same quality of housing, you get a discount on the rent if you live with Section 8 neighbors?

I’m down with that; in fact, I used to live in this kind of a place. It was great until the day when the Section 8 neighbor upstairs from me flooded the bath tub, resulting in the destruction of my ceiling and the beautiful hardwood floor in my ‘luxury’ apartment.

The high end apartments going for above $1700 are up in Marina Del Rey, Playa Del Rey, and northward. They have full sized washers and dryers. Having your own W/D is high on my list. Many times some bozo put some junk in the washer in the previous load and whatever it was permanently bleached in some spots in some clothes.

What are the shacking up rules for Section 8? If you can’t get Section 8 yourself, just find a buddy who has it and move in. This is how they can absorb such high rents.

That may be true in some or most places. But not here.

I should clarify…everyone pays lot rent. But nobody can rent their trailer to anyone else. It might be possible to trick the management, but probably not for long. They pay close attention to everything that goes on.

As usual…what else can we expect from those Intelligent folks? Huh maybe end all the spiking of pensions, end free healthcare for spouses and kids after retirement.. …retirement means no work, so no double dipping anymore….start there and see how much you save…..why are we smarter then those morons in Hellinoise?

———-
He adds that the pension squeeze has already closed prisons and juvenile detention centres, and has reduced inspections by the state Department of Agriculture.

How does imputed rent affect the yield of the house-bond?

So you are ignoring taxes and insurance, bubba, though if you look at what you wrote, you said it was just the interest portion.

And, again, your statement only applies to what will happen to an existing variable rate mortgage. When you are talking about new sales, either the people buying have to be able to afford to pay more, or the higher interest rate will force prices down. And I guarantee you, a bunch of realtors weren’t talking about the budget impact on their former clients with variable rate mortgages. They think that the house prices will remain static as the interest rates go up. Absent higher salaries, that isn’t going to happen.

amortized over a 30 year term

Amortization means that a portion of the payment is applied to principal.

I guess they didn’t teach that in law school.

It amazes me how obtuse some posters have become where pointing out that a single premise is true rather than false triggers such responses.

Isn’t an argument a logical conclusion supported by factual premises?

So you think that the relevant portion of this discussion is whether you saying “interest amortized over 30 years” is a good way to describe a full interest and principle payment?

You still ignored insurance and taxes.

And you still have not addressing the static price assumption.

If you like, I will concede I got a B on the test. You got an F. Why not talk about the rest of the question?

I was pointing out that a statement was actually true at its most basic level, which was not acknowledged prior to layering the market dynamics. Nothing more, nothing less.

Concede that you got a B on the test?

You’re a very generous grader when it comes to your own paper.

though if you look at what you wrote, you said it was just the interest portion.

polly, he said no such thing. He said “at 5% interest”. The interest clearly applied to the 5%, not the payment. “Payment” is commonly used to refer to principal and interest, in the context of an amortizing loan. What Bubba wrote was quite clear, at least to me.

And you still have not addressing the static price assumption.

That is the key question. I’ve been thinking about this some, and I’m not sure that our assumption that it translates directly into lower house prices across the board is at all correct.

What it really does, more precisely stated, for payment-constrained buyers, is to shift the demand curve down to a lower-priced purchase. But that does not necessarily mean that any given house will be purchased for a lower price. Buyers may be pushed to purchase _different_ houses.

I could easily imagine that for super-expensive houses, with less budget-constrained buyers, it might have very little effect on demand. For the very rich, choosing to buy with cash or a loan may very well be more of a tax-strategy decision, and not a howmuchamonth constraint.

For the next tier down, of high-end homes for buyers who do have more of a budget-constraint, the shift in demand could be completely crushing, as those who used to buy in this range can no longer afford as much house with higher rates, there is no one higher on the price curve shifting down into this segment to pick up the slack.

For lower-end homes, the change in demand might be rather slight, as those who could only afford a minimal home to begin with would still try to stretch to reach this segment, and the demand curve from slightly more expensive home can also now only afford the lowest-end homes at this point—so between the combined demand from these two segments, aggregate demand might hold up quite well.

Thoughts?

“$100,000 at 5% interest amortized over a 30 year term means a monthly payment of $536.82

$100,000 at 3.5% interest amortized over a 30 year term means a monthly payment of $449.04″

Just in case others are missing it, suppose someone who could afford at most a monthly housing payment of $449.04 a month wants to borrow as large an amount as possible to buy a home.

If interest rates are 3.5%, then according to your calculation, they can borrow $100,000.

But if rates are 5%, the most they will be able to borrow is
($449.04/$536.82)*$100,000 = $83,648, which is 16.4% less purchasing power.

But if rates are 5%, the most they will be able to borrow is
($449.04/$536.82)*$100,000 = $83,648, which is 16.4% less purchasing power.

Yes, it is definitely a 16.4% reduction in purchasing power. But it does not necessarily mean that houses will behave in a bond-like manner; the shift in purchasing power may just shift the demand curve, and cause this hypothetical buyer to buy a different, less expensive house.

See my late response to polly above.

“…the shift in purchasing power may just shift the demand curve, and cause this hypothetical buyer to buy a different, less expensive house.”

Yes. Which explains why a further decrease in housing transactions (i.e. liquidity desertification) is a likely consequence of a future increase in mortgage interest rates. Perhaps if the Fed makes $40 bn a month in MBS purchases forever, this scenario can be avoided?

The other part of the story is the complete disappearance of inventory in the ‘different, less expensive house’ price category…positive demand in a price range where no homes are available for sale coupled with zero demand at a higher price range where homes are available sounds to me like a recipe for high-end home price collapse, but perhaps I am missing something?

sounds to me like a recipe for high-end home price collapse, but perhaps I am missing something?

Nope, I totally concur, PB; the total absence of demand at the top end of howmuchamonth will cause houses in that range to absolutely crater. I just think the effect will be different in the various portions of the price spectrum.

“I just think the effect will be different in the various portions of the price spectrum.”

Yep.

I’ve already seen a first-hand example of the crushing effect of high-end market decline which I long ago predicted, in the case of a colleague at work who had to sell recently due to unfortunate circumstances (high-end home bought long ago for at a much lower price, recently mortgaged to make it bigger / fancier, just before the primary breadwinner lost his job). It took two years and $500K in price reductions to sell.

And a couple of weekends ago, I posted a refutation of a UT-San Diego article entitled, “Are million-dollar homes selling?” A little online research revealed the ten San Diego homes selling for the highest prices in 2012 took up to five years to sell, in several cases after price reductions over 50 percent.

It’s turtles price declines all the way down.

“It’s still an assumption on your part that purchase prices will drop to offset the increased interest payments.”

In case that was aimed at me, you are incorrect. I was merely showing the effect higher rates will have on the household budget constraint for owner-occupied real estate. A more likely outcome than lower prices is lower sales, as the Fed has done a great job of brainwashing homeowners into believing that higher prices are on the way.

The price declines are likely to materialize with maybe a three-year lag after rates increase. I refer you to Ben Jones’ numerous posts on the Texas real estate crash of the mid-1980s, which followed the increase in interest rates engineered by Paul Volcker in the 1979-1982 period, which in turn led to a big increase in unemployment and big decrease in oil prices.

“I think we’ll see either a slight drop or a flattening of prices.”

What you “think” and the truth are two different far far apart.

The reality is we and our competitors are building for double digit percentages less than the inflated prices of resale housing. And we’ll continue to do so until you and resellers get it through their head that a house isn’t worth much more than $60/sq ft….. brand new.

I don’t disagree with you that much. I’m saying that I think the trajectory will be slightly different.

I also largely agree that housing is worth $60/sq ft, with slight variances for local building regs, environmental regs, zoning, etc.

I also largely agree that housing is worth $60/sq ft, with slight variances for local building regs, environmental regs, zoning, etc.

And at some point the cost of the lot comes into it.

“I also largely agree that housing is worth $60/sq ft…”

Are you saying this is what housing costs to build, or this is what it would sell for if competitively priced, or something else?

What’s a lot cost within commuting distance to NYC? 2k? 3k? Not 200k.

What’s a lot cost within commuting distance to NYC? 2k? 3k? Not 200k.

LOL. A $2k lot within commuting distance to NYC? I guess it depends on your definition of commuting distance. Or if you have a helicopter.

There are plenty of $2k lots in an around Dutchess County which is very commutable to NYC.

You were saying?

Dutchess County which is very commutable to NYC.

85 mile commutes to NYC aren’t for me. Maybe on a train.

But can you get Chinese at 3 in the morning, or whatever it is that makes NYC so desirable a place to live, in Dutchess?

Apparently we define underwater differently.

My definition is related to capital gain or loss; so far he is sitting on an unrealized loss, and it is most likely larger than what the Zestimate indicates, given that their estimates tend to exhibit upward bias. I’m ignoring whether the home has penciled out as a rental for them, as I don’t have the data.

By contrast, in your world, if you make a 100% down payment, the you can never go underwater.

Even at $450 I think AAPL is still way overvalued. AAPL is like RE. Lots of downside.

“most sophisticated and demanding electorates on the planet.” Supposed that’s one opinion. I would say one of the most gullible and naïve. Hillary dons a Yankee’s cap and viola she’s a New Yorker.

“Like, oh, maybe she played an intrinsic part in running the country for eight very profitable years?”

Thanks. As I suggested, our liberal and/or female posters are quite likely to have more upbeat assessments of Hillary than I have.

So far as the eight profitable years, I note they ended shortly after William Jefferson Clinton left office with the onset of a tech stock crash that kicked off one of the worst bear markets in U.S. history.

I suppose a Clinton fan might claim it was Bush’s fault.

Go ahead an throw out your sexist strawman. For me, it is about already having had enough of the Clintons to last me a lifetime; nothing about Hillary’s gender enters the assessment.

nothing about Hillary’s gender enters the assessment.

Not even this?

She comes off like a woman who is trying to be a man.

You do realize that’s about the oldest and weakest attack against a powerful woman there is?

“Do you realize that’s about the oldest and weakest attack against a powerful woman there is?”

And now our extreme libruhl fringe has weighed in — thx!

But don’t make the mistake of trying to fit me into your little black-and-white ’sexist’ box; I don’t fit.

don’t make the mistake of trying to fit me into your little black-and-white ’sexist’ box; I don’t fit.

You fit perfectly:

She comes off like a woman who is trying to be a man.

OK, since the gender card has already been played against me and you won’t back down, I feel compelled to explain myself further.

1. I expect the gender card to be played over and again against anyone who questions Hillary’s viability as a candidate, similar to the way Herman Cain accused all his ex-girlfriends of a conspiracy to keep a black businessman out of the WH. But it is not about gender.

2. I have no problem with powerful women who know how to wear the mantle of power; Indira Ghandi, Margaret Thatcher and Angela Merkel all come to mind as examples. Hillary does not wear the mantle of power well, at least in the subjective view of this American voter.

3. The thought of a repeat of the acrimonious 2012 presidential campaign season makes me want to hurl, and the Clintons bring so much baggage with them that it is a foregone conclusion this will happen. A few examples include Vince Foster’s mysterious death, Hillary’s unbelievably lucky foray into futures trading, Bill Clinton’s Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, and the Benghazi incident, which will be used as a bludgeon against her candidacy. Based on all of this collective baggage, I would guess her election prospects are already dead in the water.

4. I don’t like the idea of having an ex-president and his wife occupy the WH. More generally, I don’t like the dynastic element in American politics, and seek every available opportunity to thwart it.

5. The Clintons are very much into the kind of punchbowl spiking policy that makes the sitting president look good while handing a pile of steaming feces to the successor. A great example of this is the $500K capital gains exclusion for a primary residence which really kicked the housing bubble into overdrive. It wasn’t until Bush’s second term that the SHTF.

6. The Clintons are into the kind of low-income “affordable housing” policy which I disdain. I believe the weakening of underwriting standards at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac primarily occurred on the Clintons’ watch.

I’m sure there are a few other reasons I would oppose a Clinton II presidency lurking in the back of my mind, none of which have anything to do with gender.

2016 election prediction:

1. Gov Christie loses 40 lbs.

2. The Democrats go with Clinton and the Republicans go with Christie as their candidates.

3. Christie wins the election, as American voters like him and dislike Hillary.

1. Gender card

Chicago Daily Observer
Hillary 2016: The Democrats Best Hope
Russ Stewart 3 January 2013

Democratic strategist James Carville coined a phrase, which was reduced to an acronym: KISS. It meant “Keep It Simple, Stupid,” a reference to voters’ limited capacity to dissect and digest complex issues.

That was further embellished by his 1992 advice to Bill Clinton: “It’s the economy, stupid.” The astute Clinton focused on that issue, which propelled him to the White House.
…
But Hillary Clinton has the proverbial trump card – namely: gender. She need not run for president as an apologist of the Obama Administration. She need not defend his economic or foreign policies. By resigning as Secretary of State, effective 2013, she separates herself from the president. Apart from the Libya situation, Clinton has been a competent diplomat, visible on the world stage, provoking no wars. Her poll approval ratings, down in the 30s when she was First Lady, are now in the 60s. In 2016, Clinton can concoct her own platform, rejecting and criticizing Obama’s failures.

If she runs, she will be, as was Obama in 2008, an instrument of “change” – namely: America’s first woman president. And her gender, alone, is enough to elect her. On the strength of the female vote, every state that voted for Obama in 2012 would vote for Clinton in 2016.
…

2. Mantle of power

Resolved Question
Show me another »
Why is Hillary Clinton so annoying?

* Is it her sense of entitlement?

* Her shrill witch like voice?

* Is it because she is an opportunistic political bully?

* Is it because she is a liar and will do and say absolutely anything get that nomination even if it means stealing it?

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

Pantsuits.

3. Clinton baggage
a. Vince Foster

The man who knew too much? The truth about the death of Hillary Clinton’s close friend Vince Foster
By SALLY BEDELL SMITH
Last updated at 00:23 15 January 2008

b. Whitewater scandal

Untangling Whitewater
By Dan Froomkin
Washingtonpost.com Staff

Editor’s Note: This special report is an archive of coverage and related background information on the Whitewater investigations.

c. “Beginner’s luck” in futures trading

Hillary Clinton Futures Trades Detailed
By Charles R. Babcock
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 27, 1994; Page A01

Hillary Rodham Clinton was allowed to order 10 cattle futures contracts, normally a $12,000 investment, in her first commodity trade in 1978 although she had only $1,000 in her account at the time, according to trade records the White House released yesterday.

The computerized records of her trades, which the White House obtained from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, show for the first time how she was able to turn her initial investment into $6,300 overnight. In about 10 months of trading, she made nearly $100,000, relying heavily on advice from her friend James B. Blair, an experienced futures trader.
…
d. Monicagate

Monica Lewinsky And The $12 Million Affair

So there we all were, kvelling over the great seducer Bill Clinton, falling in love with him all over again following his star turn at the Democratic National Convention earlier this month. And then, just like in the movies ….

She’s baaacck.
…

e. Benghazi incident

What’s Behind the GOP’s Fixation on Benghazi?
Associated Press
Jan 23, 2013

As Republicans grilled Hillary Clinton on the Obama administration’s response to Benghazi in congressional hearings Wednesday, they repeatedly hit on a talking point that doesn’t seem like it’d do them a lot of good: It’s been four months. “Here we are, four months later, and we still don’t have the basic information,” Sen. John McCain told Clinton Wednesday. “I’m not trying to be obnoxious here, I’m just trying to get the answers I believe the American people deserve to hear. It’s been four months,” Sen. Ron Johnson told a Milwaukee radio show after he and Clinton had a testy exchange. “More than four months later its unacceptable that the State Department has made it so difficult” to conduct oversight, Ohio Rep. Steve Chabot told Clinton. Clinton will have to respond later in writing, because Chabot used up all of his time with his statement. But they all raise a good question: What have we been debating for four months?
…

4. Clinton dynasty

December 4, 2007, 9:11 pm
Clinton on the Dynasty Question
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton thinks it was not a good idea for one Bush to follow another into the White House, but having one Clinton follow another is apparently a different matter.
…

5. Clintons’ $500K capital gains exclusion for primary residence

The Reckoning
Tax Break May Have Helped Cause Housing Bubble
Monica Almeida/The New York Times
By VIKAS BAJAJ and DAVID LEONHARDT
Published: December 18, 2008

“Tonight, I propose a new tax cut for homeownership that says to every middle-income working family in this country, if you sell your home, you will not have to pay a capital gains tax on it ever — not ever.”

— President Bill Clinton, at the 1996 Democratic National Convention

…

6. The Clintons’ special relationship with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

September 9, 2008 5:30 A.M.
Politics and the Fannie Mae Piggy Bank
Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, and some very cooked books.
Byron York

Editor’s note — The impending federal bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has shed light not only on the seriousness of current housing market conditions but also on the mismanagement and corruption that helped cripple the mortgage giants. Although political figures from both parties have profited mightily from Fannie Mae, it has been a particular favorite of former officials of Democratic administrations, as NR’s Byron York found out when he looked into the situation in the summer of 2006.

On May 23, 2006, as a jury in Houston deliberated the case against top Enron executives Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling, a little-known regulatory agency in Washington, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), released a study with the dryly bureaucratic title “Report of the Special Examination of Fannie Mae.” The document received far less attention than the news from Enron, but its conclusions were stunning. In meticulous detail, it outlined a culture of corruption at the Federal National Mortgage Association — better known as Fannie Mae — that rivals the most serious corporate scandals in recent years. In this case, however, the main players are Washington insiders — some of them prominent veterans of the Clinton administration — and the scandal’s effects could ripple through Congress for years.
…

I hope when all the posts I just threw together show up, you will be fully convinced that my issues with a Hillary Clinton presidency go far beyond the “woman in the WH” strawman.

But if not, let me know: I’d be happy to remind her future Republican opponents of further ways to keep her from winning the presidency if you wish.

The 2016 campaign is already underway!

Hillary Clinton has graceful, public send-off in exit interview with ‘60 Minutes’ and President Obama
After 20 years in the public spotlight, Clinton will leave the political arena for a more private life — though it may not be for long as CBS’ Steve Kroft pushes question on presidential run in 2016.
By James Warren / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Monday, January 28, 2013, 12:39 AM

Secretary of State Clinton’s appearance on “60 Minutes” Sunday night, complete with an admiring presidential glance, may be a big help down the road. Steve Kroft (left) questioned the former rivals.

Secretary of State Clinton’s appearance on “60 Minutes” Sunday night, complete with an admiring presidential glance, may be a big help down the road. Steve Kroft (left) questioned the former rivals.

Big-shot departing White House aides usually get a small, private farewell from the boss — but Hillary Clinton got a nationwide hug on “60 Minutes” on Sunday night.

President Obama and the exiting secretary of state paid homage to each other just four years after shredding each other during the 2008 presidential campaign.

The 30-minute interview was light on news but heavy on symbolism and stagecraft. A relationship born in the campaign crucible culminated with an Obama valedictory for Clinton. The President called their association “a great collaboration.”

“I’m going to miss her. Wish she was sticking around,” he said.
…

I’m sure there are a few other reasons I would oppose a Clinton II presidency lurking in the back of my mind, none of which have anything to do with gender.

Keep telling yourself that. (”It’s not gender, it’s the pantsuits!”)

you go, bear…lol

The non-voters won by a landslide!

If only a candidate represented them.

“If only a candidate represented them.”

Ron Paul?

I don’t think Ron could even come close to winning an election among the non-voters if they were forced to vote. But I suppose I could be wrong. A few non-voters are militant about it…I think the rest are lazy. Lazy and Ron Paul probably don’t mix.

If only a candidate represented them.

If only the voting system were structured such that a majority of voters choosing not to vote counted as a vote of “no confidence” against the candidates running—and there was an automatic re-vote, with the previously-running candidates banned from participating.

Now THAT would be a great system.

What someone proposed, on the NOTA, is that if NOTA won the majority vote, the office would go vacant until at least the next election.

It would be very embarrassing for a career politician to lose to NOTA. So this would not be implemented. I do like this idea a lot as a transition to the voluntaryist society I want. But I will not agitate for it. I’m done with the political process. I’m not done agitating against government.

P.S. I will state here and now that I will not vote for the nuclear family member of any former president in the next election.

It’s time to recognize that America is not a monarchy, and move away from presidential choices that smack of dynasty.

I was just thinking…I don’t want to vote for Jeb, but after another AWB passes I might be angry enough to do so. And that might explain why the system is wasting political capital on such stupidity in the first place…to get people like me to vote to perpetuate the system. Again.

If it gets down to Jeb versus Hillary, I would probably change my voting rule and vote Republican.

Please CBIT do not even suggest such a choice. However, it is a viable possibility. How about we just hold a lottery and you buy a ten dollar ticket to become president? The proceeds could be used to pay off the debt. Citizens only please. I don’t think we could do worse.

It won’t be Jeb, surely the GOP will learn a few things before then?

I think Chris Christie sealed his own fate with the GOP primary voters by welcoming Obama in the wake of Hurricane Sandy. Remember what types of people vote in primaries. And remember that most primaries are closed, meaning you must be a registered member of the party to vote (ruling out objective independents).

Also, remember that Mark Zuckerberg and other young people can help Christie raise a billion dollars for his campaign, but young people don’t vote in GOP primaries. And a lot of young people won’t give the GOP a chance after McCain and Romney ruining the “brand”.

So it’s really going to be people like Northeasterner and AQDan, who won’t be alive when my generation gets to pay off their social security and medicare benefits, who will be selecting the GOP nominee (who will, once again, lose).

“It won’t be Jeb, surely the GOP will learn a few things before then?”

Rick Perry? Herman Cain?

More seriously, my sister, a self-professed bleeding heart liberal who takes politics far more closely than I, suggested to me recently she thought Christie might be the next Republican candidate. Let’s see if the dolts who run the party can avoid screwing up his chances the way they did Romney’s.

It probably should be Christie, if the GOP is serious about raising money AND winning. But I’d bet against Christie. He’s far too moderate, northeastern-y, and he doesn’t have right wing social beliefs (wishy washy on abortion, favors gay marriage, favors reasonable gun restrictions, etc).

The fact that Christie was a great U.S. attorney will also mean little to nothing to hard core right types. Even Giuliani couldn’t get their support bc of his moderate social views.

Joe Smith, Neither Romney nor McCain damaged the brand, they were just weak candidates. W did major damage to the brand. As others have said on this blog eight years of Obama is the price we pay for eight years of W. But what you cannot see is just how much Obama is damaging the Democratic brand. The Democrats had control of the House after 2008 by a wide margin. After the 2012 election the Republicans have control by a decent margin. The reason for that is Obama was able to motivate millions less voters than his previous run. No FDR or Reagan type re-election. Also, you did not understand the natural tendency of people to grow more conservative as they age. The baby boomers that you think are so conservative once were the Democratic party’s hope. If you think that people are going to vote the same way in 60’s as they do in their twenties than you do not understand anything about politics.

In fact, since the Democrats had control of the House after the 2006 election, they have already lost more than the gained with the 2008 win.

A story that has been going on under the radar except in Mormon circles, it involves Harry Reid among others:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/money/55679923-79/rawle-swallow-johnson-works.html.csp

CIBT: Regarding the nuclear Bushes, shouldn’t it be “nuke-yuh-lar” -

“nuke-yuh-lar”

Correct pronunciation, though I believe it is spelled ‘nuclear.’

Rubio/Jindal?

Your floor may be, but your foundation ain’t.

always wondered how do you keep them warm at 20 below? or 40 below?

I think the coldest we’ve seen here in Boulder in the last 3 years since we bought it is 10 or 12 below. The skirting is tight against the ground so I don’t think too much is lost from underneath. The windows are crappy, but seem to insulate OK with two layers of single pane, about 4 inches apart. I don’t know if it’s just a high capacity heater or what, but it keeps up far better than the end unit townhome we were renting a few blocks away for the first 4 years of bubble sitting. We had to run the oven sometimes to warm the place up over there and we were definitely buying more natural gas over there according to the bills.

Out of staters confuse front range weather with ski resort weather.

Right now it’s 54 degrees and there is no snow on the ground. We do get a few cold snaps over the winter, but lows are typically in the 20’s during the winter. Sometimes they are above 32. Going below zero happens very rarely.

Keep in mind, too, that what Carl refers to as a “trailer” is likely a manufactured home that’s built to code specs. They maybe be Barbi-doll flimsy, but they’re surprisingly cozy and easy to heat, especially with a wood/pellet stove.

Pretty sure mine is a double wide that did actually come in on wheels that could be reinstalled if needed. Originally manufactured in 1994 and then remodeled and moved to it’s current site just before we bought it used in 2009.

Trailers are cheap living and yes they heat quickly… and cool quickly. Heating unused space like a SFR is throwing good money after bad.

Never had a “bad” trailer park date. Dressing-up was a new pair of jeans, never picky about what we had to drink or watch on the VCR, and come to think about it I never heard “no” either.

‘Never had a “bad” trailer park date.’

I used to tutor a lady who lived in a trailer in maths. She was married, and I behaved myself around her, but the temptation to misbehave was pretty powerful…

but the temptation to misbehave was pretty powerful…

You’re a good man, PB…

I am probably one of the few heterosexual men on the planet who has occasionally turned down an attractive woman on principle.

“I am probably one of the few heterosexual men on the planet who has occasionally turned down an attractive woman on principle.”

And the ladies will never give you a second chance even if you’re together on a deserted island.

Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them — well, I have others!

I don’t think it’s Nick’s Mrs. Gboto, but gut feeling says it’s the queen of Kern County.

“…they just don’t like the smell of smoke.”

I’m guessing they also don’t like the health risk or the chance they will somehow get saddled with the tab for smokers’ medical care.