Manhattan IS different

> "That you don't agree with the people who said these things doesn't make them strawmen."
> Really? Because the person who actually posted them actually just said they were.

Really? Isn't the guy who actually posted it now arguing with you on this specific point?

> You really don't
> understand what that term means, huh?

You really don't understand what "not" means, huh?

nyc10022, it sounds like you agree with me. I am saying that both periods were bad but the late 80s and early 90s were worse. I'm not comparing to today. Things are incredibly better now than during those periods. Our murder rate now is around 500 per year, and other crimes are down just as much.

> In your never-ending quest to be this board's biggest jackass, you failed to understand that I
> compared the 70s to 2009. Maybe read more carefully before you pick yet another fight?

so, your defense of being wrong is, "I had no idea what decade you were talking about"?

bjw, your mistake was less bad the first time, this makes it twice as bad. You should have left it at just being wrong, now you seem a bit retarded too.

"nyc10022, it sounds like you agree with me. I am saying that both periods were bad but the late 80s and early 90s were worse. I'm not comparing to today. Things are incredibly better now than during those periods. Our murder rate now is around 500 per year, and other crimes are down just as much."

In this regard, yes, I agree with you. There are multiple planes to look at, but, yes, quality of life got even worse for average folks over the eighties.

And, yes, obviously better now... BUT, lic, you can't connect that to "therefore prices are ok". Its all relative. Things are 3x better now, sure, but that doesn't necessarily translate to 5x prices. Even going from 3x better than 1986 to 2.9x better than 1986 could represent a significant change here, including in prices.

"So to remove "the idiots" and what they said from the conversation after NOT addressing them for years to be is quite disingenuous."

Actually, petrfitz has been around here only slightly longer than you have. There have always been bullish posts on this forum, but few have been as blatantly arrogant, insulting, and defiant of evident fact as his. If you're going to have worthwhile discussion on this board, it's better to just ignore that type of behavior, by and large. How many people have you seen reply (non-sarcastically anyway) "Oh yeah petriftz, that sounds totally correct!"? Exactly.

"You really don't understand what "not" means, huh?"

Listen, it's clear: distorting arguments and attacking those instead of the ones that were actually made. That's exactly what it is, whether you recognize that or not.

"bjw, your mistake was less bad the first time, this makes it twice as bad. You should have left it at just being wrong, now you seem a bit retarded too."

"And, yes, obviously better now..."

You can't have it both ways. Piss off.

> "You really don't understand what "not" means, huh?"

> Listen, it's clear: distorting arguments and attacking those instead of the ones that were actually
> made. That's exactly what it is, whether you recognize that or not.

Its a little nutty to talk about "distorting arguments" when you just claimed that malthus said X, and not only did he not say it, he comes back and says "I did not say X".... and still haven't taken it back.

> instead of the ones that were actually
> made

Interesting, I went point by point on the ones actually made.

Meanwhile, you respond to an argument on 70s vs. 80s/90s with an argument on the 2000s! That is clearly the worse case of arguing a point never made on this thread......!

Oh my lord, you are the pot AND the kettle today, aren't you...

> "bjw, your mistake was less bad the first time, this makes it twice as bad. You should have left it
> at just being wrong, now you seem a bit retarded too."
> "And, yes, obviously better now..."
> You can't have it both ways. Piss off.

You can tell me to piss wherever, but you are wrong either way. Either you confused eras, or you made a comparison irrelevant to the conversation.

I can have it both ways, your argument was nonsensical relative to the claim you "disputed" either way. It just got even funnier when you tried to backtrack...

There you go, invoking the lord again. I'm sorry, but even he can't help you out of this one.

I was invoking him for you. I think you need to start resorting to prayer, logic/facts have never quite been your spin.

Nice change of subject on your mistake, though. I almost didn't notice.

nyc, fact is I said the 70s were a horrific decade here compared to now. You said I was "just wrong." That's incredibly laughable. Now you're whining that I wasn't responding to the argument properly, like some kind of crazed debate coach. Which is it then? I was wrong, or I was posting "improperly"? Several other people here seem to be of the opinion that the 70s were at least as bad as the 80s and early 90s. What are you really arguing here? Or are you just yelling over nothing because that's how you get off around here? Lighten up (and that includes leaving God out of it, por favor).

spin, spin, baby... but you WERE wrong, and then misguided on top of that.

I'm amazed that I have to explain this to you (actually, I'm not) but you were wrong at first, wrong later, and just compounded your mistake.

LIC talked about 70s vs. 80s vs. 90s. NO mention of current. Nothing, nada.

Then your response...

"LICC, this is pretty off-base."

So, yes, you WERE "just wrong" there. Which is what the rest of the post was about

Then, you compound the error by claiming that you talking about NOW makes the argument for you?

now THAT is a funny one....

> Which is it then? I was wrong, or I was posting "improperly"?

Both. You managed two doozys. You claimed LIC wrong (first error), then went into logic that had nothing to do with the point.

Its not an either or, you pulled a double whammy!

congrats!

and, now that we're done with bjw's errors and hysterics, back past his original mistake.

Here is the NYC murder rate over time:
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/11/22/nyregion/23murder_graphic.html

The highest years, as originally noted, are the early 90s. Yes, there are multiple planes to look at, but crime-wise, its tough to make an argument that late 80s/early 90s were any kind of improvement.

Ok, nyc, since like every argument with you, this will never end, let's just agree to disagree. If you're really that offended by my post that you need to cite your case over and over again, I kindly suggest that you don't be. If not, bugger off, and that'll be that.

"Here is the NYC murder rate over time:"

Sorry, last one, as I can't help myself here - but yet another strawman (I did not mention murder rates at all)?? Are you kidding me? Patetico.

I'm not offended, I'm just amused you keep trying to backtrack your mistake and not just admit it. Or, if you don't want to admit it, just stop posting already.

If you actually care about truth and reality, just click the link in the post above, makes a pretty compelling case for the argument you missed.

Yes, how dare I! Use murder stats in talking about crime rates!

I must be absolutely insane!

"Sorry, last one, as I can't help myself here - but yet another strawman (I did not mention murder rates at all)?? Are you kidding me? Patetico."

Seriously, do you actually read the posts before you respond to them?

oh my f*ing lord.

1,500 more murders a year sucks for the 1,500 extra people who got murdered but is hardly a definition for overall quality of life. the overall (i.e. US) economic situation in the late 70's through early 80's was far worse than the 80's post collapse into the 90's recesssion.

yes, '91 and '92 were bad--otherwise clinton would never have been elected.

i think that "deathwish" circa 1974 says it all.

> i think that "deathwish" circa 1974 says it all.

Yeah, perhaps getting your New York info from Bronson movies is on the level bjw getting his from sex and the city. ;-)

I agree that murder is not the be all end all for quality of life, but crime was *specifically* mentioned by LICC (who seemed to have started the discussion), and that stat popped up on a search. I'd be curious to see the other measures as well, but they weren't as easy to find.

Still, tough to claim improvements in quality of life when your murder rates jump, and crime is noted as the #1 concern of citizens (I remember that for years and years growing up). You don't have to die or be a victim for it to MAJORLY affect your life (I can attest to it, having lived both sides). People walked around in fear.

"the overall (i.e. US) economic situation in the late 70's through early 80's was far worse than the 80's post collapse into the 90's recesssion."

Not disagreeing there, but I think national economic numbers are muuuuuuuuuch further away from NYC quality of life than the direct NYC crime statistics. Not saying its completely irrelevant, but certainly nowhere near as relevant as what was actually happening in the city.

Separately, I thought Dinkins was a big a putz as anyone, but the crime rate actually started dropping at the end of his term. However, he more than made up for it with Crown Heights and just making everybody feel like NYC was always going to be broken, which had real effects.

Actually, I do remember hearing that subway crime (all in) had hit a high sometime between '88-92. As in, I remember the television report, and it was one of those years (though could have gone up the year after). I just remember that phase of life.

And one more thing on the larger point.... while there was obviously major white flight and folks leaving town because of manufacturing losses in the 70s, I also very much remember the 80s as a time when everyone worried finance would leave town. I read several books with titles like "the death of wall street" and such talking about how technology would get rid of the need for companies to be clustered downtown... and Morgan Stanley was threatening to move to CT, etc.

True or not, it was definitely the perception then, that things were going to get worse financially, and then add in the crime stats. If RE purchases are made as "investments" (at least psychologically) then you're talking about forward-looking, and forward did not look so good in that period either.

Furthermore, neighborhoods were still getting worse. "Gentrification" wasn't said very often, neighborhoods were often seen as what got worse and then you had to flee.

I remember how whites from brownsville all fled, to places like canarsie, then in the 80s, as the non-white encroached, they fled those places, too moving en masse to long island or staten island or new jersey. Canarsie I know went from near 100% white to near 100% black, and anecdotally, half of my neighbors ended up in Staten Island or Jersey.

i lived here then. crime was a big problem. not murder, but street crime...you couldn't park your car on the street without the radio being stolen. getting hassled if you looked at all vulnerable. the 80's sucked compared to now but still better than the 70's.

in the 70's, there was no air conditioning on the subway. none, zada, zip.

by the 80's you started to get air conditioning.

in the 70's, the UWS was solid SRO's except for CPW and WEA, RSD...started to ease up in the 80's---became reasonable to live.

sorry...no real comparison.

where did you live in 1978 and 1988?

"i lived here then. crime was a big problem. not murder, but street crime...you couldn't park your car on the street without the radio being stolen."

I don't remember the 80s being any different.

"getting hassled if you looked at all vulnerable."

Yeah, that was the 80s, too. Remember wilding?

Check the non-murder crime stats. I have a funny feeling you aren't seeing decreases there.

"in the 70's, the UWS was solid SRO's except for CPW and WEA, RSD...started to ease up in the 80's---became reasonable to live."

And many neighborhoods went in reverse. Not sure of the point there. Remember blockbusting?

> sorry...no real comparison.

I agree, 80s/90s got even less safe, but air conditioned.
;-)

> where did you live in 1978 and 1988?

In the big borough. Where else?

Again, crack, I tell you. Crack did a MAAAAJOR number on the city. Economics hurt, too, sure.

But crack is whack for a reason.

BTW, if you are using movies as a source, compare Warriors to New Jack City. I'll take a bat fight on roller skates over crack gunplay. ;-)

not sure how right wikpedia is, but...

"The crack epidemic refers to the surge of crack houses and crack cocaine use in major cities in the United States between 1984 and 1990. Fallout from the crack epidemic included a huge surge in addiction, homelessness, murder, theft, robbery, gang warfare, and long-term imprisonment. The first effects of the epidemic started in the early 1980s, but the DEA officially classifies the time of the epidemic starting in 1984 and ending in 1990, in what can be considered to be the height of the epidemic."

What's the quality of life with a crack house on your block?

got it... crime overall peaked in 1990...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/322928/Langan-rel

reading some more off the graphis....

There is a mix in the types, rape actually peaker earlier, but overall violent crime peaked
in 90-02 or so on the graph

Burglary was bigger earlier, and larceny was bigger in 90s.

"i lived here then. crime was a big problem. not murder, but street crime...you couldn't park your car on the street without the radio being stolen."

vehicle theft peaked in... drumroll...

90-91

> but overall violent crime peaked in 90-02 or so on the graph

Correction, thats 90-92.

i think it is funny when i hear people saying that ny has lost some of it's "character" compared to the bad old days. the least i expect from where i live is for it a safe place to be

eastside, I'm totally with you. I can't tell you how many people have told me they miss the
"good old days" and the "character", and then the majority of those folks weren't actually here at the time they "miss". Even folks I know were here who talk about missing things that they weren't actually going to. Maybe you just like knowing they were there or something.

Growing up, the city mindset was about crime. It was the central story in politics, in the news, wherever. Its what people talked about all the time. Re and houses, was about crime. Talking about schools, it was always safety, not SAT scores. Transportation, it was about crime. Partially because the levels were at all time highs, but also because the expectation was that it would continue to get worse.

I'm willing to bet a lot of money that if you had offered everybody in town a 75% murder rate reduction in exchange for some starbucks, you'd have the most overwhelming vote of all time.

Yes, we've lost some things, but NYC is about change. We've gotten a lot of things we never had.

Like parks we can actually go to! Union square without crack vials! Neighborhoods we would have never driven through now filled with new condos.

Yes, the people are more boring on average, but thats just because its easier to live here. So, if you're so interesting, then just find the other interesting people. Avoid the retards.

"but overall violent crime peaked in 90-02 or so on the graph"

I dunno... if you look at the money "stolen" in the housing mess, I think we had a pretty high crime rate in 2007... j/k

doesn't equate for me to having to fear for my wife walking around with my kid in the park.

well, I guess you could call that pretty "violent".

wow. i feel like is deja vu all over again! I feel like it's 2004, and I'm warning people in Miami there's gonna be a real estate crash, and some boob is arguing "Rents are out of whack w/ sales prices, sales prices are out of whack with historical means, and everything is out of whack as a % of disposable income....SO WHAT?!?"

Closest thing to a time machine i've ever seen...

Its funnier because another layer of irony and delusion has been added to it.

One guy on the other thread just an hour or two ago literally listed some stats, said forget them and said "one good set of wall street bonuses will fix it all" - deja vu 2007 in Manhattan - but then actually in the SAME PARAGRAPH claimed that bears were just like the pre-crash bull crazies ignoring the data they didn't like!

Time machine, you don't say...

here it is, I just found it again...

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/14172-1991-nyc-re-rental-market-a-refresher-course
"You guys are jumping the shark, same as the crazed bulls 2 years ago.. It's always good to realize you are not omniscient, just because you were right doesn't mean you will be in the future. Look at all the facts and bits and data, rather than discounting out of hand what doesn't fit your view.
20,000 extra luxury rental units, 12% unemployment that's a bleak market for sellers, but you know what? One good year on Wall Street and bonuses will start the machine away."

That one gave me quite a laugh...

"Juice, didn't you use the same line about the pending RE crash you denied? You got tired of hearing about that one, too... which just meant you should have listened better."

No nyc10222, let's try not to deflect. I want to hear about your overshoot theory and how it applies to Manhattan. I would be great if you could actually post some data or evidence of this theory, but I'm sure you won't.

there really seemed to me to be a rather intense and brief era between 1985ish and 1990 that involved crack. then they arrested most of them, or they killed each other. to those of us (OK, me) who sadly chose to sign a rental with a slumlord in hell's kitchen, it really mattered, and actually sent me scurrying elsewhere for a few years.

but that was primarily a blip. not that i think everything is fab now, or even perfect. anyone notice how many people don't seem to be on their meds?

"anyone notice how many people don't seem to be on their meds?"

You don't say? Come a little closer...i'll solve all your problems...

only near port authority.

no esb. i'm talking near stuy town/pcv. really.

and in times of extreme unemployment, well, i wouldn't expect it to be contained. anyone have any idea what bloomberg is doing with the newly homeless?

pretending they don't exist?

I know this is going to sound wacky, but I seriously think that there HAS to be at least a building or two which is in default, to an institution which is in default, that on a real monetary basis it makes sense to turn "luxury condos" in housing for the homeless because the amount of money they would sell the loan for is a lot less than it's going to cost them to house these people thru other means.

This is the kid of idea I can totally agree with. Can't deny that I would prefer that they don't next door from my building, though.

NIMBY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

only slightly better than BANANA (who knows that one?)

A few thoughts:

1. Aside from broken windows in cars, the crack epidemic didn't have a major crime impact on people outside the crack-socioeconomic areas. In other words, 1970s crime involved robberies, muggings, rapes and murders of total strangers. Crack-era murders, etc., were amongst users, dealers, and neighborhood crack-is-whack-ac tivists. In other other words, not the sort of thing that's really going to affect or stop the kind of people who would buy in Manhattan from buying in Manhattan. And indeed it didn't, because the market boomed and prices zoomed from the mid-80s until 1990. So in other words, LICC is wrong in the context of this thread.

2. nyc10022, the reason the media was all about crime when you were growing up is Murdoch had bought and trashed the Post, and the News and others were competing to the very bottom against the Post. That's how a fairly small neighborhood uprising with one death and not much property damage became a "riot", etc. etc.

3. Murder graphs for NY truly began to grow a spike around 1961. I don't know what happened, but it's really an extraordinary sight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NYC_murders.PNG

4. Isn't the "big borough" ... Queens?

> All depends on when he bought, no? This is obvious, but making a profit in real estate is all about entry and exit point - knowing just one or the other doesn't really tell the full story.

Alanhart/bjw
I know where you're trying to go with this but sorry... he bought new construction, bought at peak < 2 yrs ago and sold for profit albiet probably not much, all cash deal. I'll watch acris to confirm, but I really don't think he's lying. Pretty ridiculous because I really wanted to try to lowball it cheap next year rather than moving/upgrading apts.

(I wouldn't have brought it up if he bought 10 years ago and sold at profit. He clearly bought near peak, hence the shock.)

JuiceMan: "I[t] would be great if you could actually post some data or evidence of this theory, but I'm sure you won't."

That's called the JuiceMan Trap - any data anyone posts is valid for Albany and Wayne New Jersey but not for Manhattan. JuiceMan posts no data on anything, and then claims he was right all along, or it's Lehman's fault.

Not even worth the discussion. Boor.

Saying that the crack epidemic only affected isolated neighborhoods and users and dealers is ridiculous. That is so ludicrous that it shouldn't even be taken seriously. The crime stats, broken down by neighborhood, show that generally everywhere in the city things were worse in the early 90s than in the 70s. And that is for just about all major crime categories. The number of rapes were about the same, and burglaries were higher in the 70s. For everything else, the early 90s were worse. Murders, assaults, car theft, robberies, larcenies - all worse in the late 80s/early 90s. As usual, alan is talking out of his butt and is wrong.

"That's called the JuiceMan Trap"

It's nice you have a name for it steve, but I've posted plenty of data and articles. I can understand why you ignore them because it is usually to prove you are wrong.

Thanks for adding my [t], I will use that method in the future

"Not even worth the discussion. Boor."

The fact that you thought the economy was great and that real estate was going to magically fall 50% in 2007 is a very interesting discussion, but maybe not for you.

"I've posted plenty of data and articles."

I do remember one paper you posted on real estate in Hong Kong stating that it supported your theory about the mortgage interest deduction, even though there is no mortgage interest deduction in Hong Kong.

I also remember that you completely distorted a New York Times article (and others) that clearly said that the historical average price to rent ratio was 12x annual rents, which somehow you claimed supported your point that the proper ratio was 15x - 18x annual rents.

I also remember you said there was no correlation between housing prices in Wayne, NJ and the Upper East Side, yet the data were nearly perfectly correlated if you allowed for a one-year lag (that is, prices rise and fall first in Wayne, then on the UES).

I remember you posting a lot of things.

Regarding your comment on my posting in 2007, I was not posting in 2007 so you must have me confused with someone else.

"only slightly better than BANANA (who knows that one?)"

Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything! Especially Three Mile Island - leave that one alone!

"1. Aside from broken windows in cars, the crack epidemic didn't have a major crime impact on people outside the crack-socioeconomic areas. In other words, 1970s crime involved robberies, muggings, rapes and murders of total strangers. Crack-era murders, etc., were amongst users, dealers, and neighborhood crack-is-whack-ac tivists. In other other words, not the sort of thing that's really going to affect or stop the kind of people who would buy in Manhattan from buying in Manhattan. And indeed it didn't, because the market boomed and prices zoomed from the mid-80s until 1990. So in other words, LICC is wrong in the context of this thread.

2. nyc10022, the reason the media was all about crime when you were growing up is Murdoch had bought and trashed the Post, and the News and others were competing to the very bottom against the Post. That's how a fairly small neighborhood uprising with one death and not much property damage became a "riot", etc. etc.

3. Murder graphs for NY truly began to grow a spike around 1961. I don't know what happened, but it's really an extraordinary sight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NYC_murders.PNG

4. Isn't the "big borough" ... Queens?"

alanhart, I agree, but there's a bit of obtuseness from the opposition here, I think. Sometimes, all it takes is having a crack vial thrown at your head sometime in 1989 for you to convince yourself that "this is the most dangerous era ever." I know my cousin's daughter thought the same thing when Dora the Explorer got into a physical soccer match against the dinosaurs. And yes, isn't the big borough Queens?

back to the 70's: LIC--you obviously never took the subway in a suit and tie in the summer day after day with no frigging AC. yes, crime was an issue but there were many things that one could do to offset it such as not walking in CP--which for your information was actually dangerous during the day in the 60's.

bjw, i think many people could avoid most evidence of drug-related crime. not all of course. i thought the subway was scary (and walked to work instead), and many of the people in my neighborhood were kind of scary, but that was true with my first apartment in Chelsea also, which slightly predated the crack era.

yes, there will always be a contingent that flees when hearing bad news, but most just engaged in coping behaviors. i would have been fine, probably, if i hadn't lived across from a crack park, but really i just fled because my landlord was a thief and an asshole, and i'd had it with the rental market, not so much the crime really.

aboutready, I think we agree here. I was being sarcastic, but ultimately this is turning into a "which decade was worse?" debate - for what aim I am still not quite sure - and the fact is that people's opinion will be significantly colored by their experiences and whatever media, stories, hearsay found its way to them. Seems like most people feel it was rougher being a New Yorker in the 70s; hardly think that's worth the vitriol coming out of some posters' keyboards in response.

Your landlord wasn't petrfitz by any chance? Seriously though, I can sympathize - I left what was one of my favorite apartments in this city after finding out my landlord had done a little time in the clink for attempting to off her son-in-law (confirmed by NYS' online records!). Sometimes I feel renters should push for their landlord's credit and background check. It's something too few people do.

I wouldn't wish an in-law on anyone.

"I do remember one paper you posted on real estate in Hong Kong stating that it supported your theory about the mortgage interest deduction, even though there is no mortgage interest deduction in Hong Kong."

Classic spinner steve, this is why you have no credibility. I posted that particular article to discuss comparison of net costs. Read it yourself, why do you spin so much steve?

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/10692-cheaper-to-own-than-to-rent?page=2

Also, from this very thread, steve finally agreeing with my conclusions of the paper I posted!

JuiceMan - "The paper clearly states that it should cost the same to rent compared to mortgage interest (that's without principal big boy) and it doesn't mention the tax deduction because it is a HK paper and there is no deduction there."

Stevejhx - "You are right - it says that. You are right, the tax deduction should be there."

Steve, why do you make yourself look so foolish all the time?

Still waiting for nyc10022's “overshoot” analysis

"Seems like most people feel it was rougher being a New Yorker in the 70s"

Just watch "Panic in Needle Park", that's a different UWS than the one I live in today.

"I posted that particular article to discuss comparison of net costs."

You did. You said that the tax benefit was included in net costs, when the paper says no such thing.

It should be there - but it isn't. Hence my granting your (dumb) "proof" the benefit of the doubt. Your entire posting was based on a premise that wasn't supported by the paper you posted to prove your point. Just like all the other "proof" you have posted.

So - Spinmeister - what about all the other "postings" you claim you made? Care to discuss?

Poor steve, digs his holes and can't get out of them. The paper proved exactly the point I was trying to make and you confirmed it. No backing out of this one steve.

"The paper proved exactly the point I was trying to make and you confirmed it."

The paper didn't "prove" anything; it said that the cost to buy and the cost to rent should be the same, which is what I've ALWAYS said and what you deny. You said it proved that the mortgage interest deduction should be included - although I agree, it wasn't in the paper in question.

No need to back out - you're being LICC boorish again.

It also stated that principal should be excluded in the comparison which you had NEVER agreed to until that paper was posted.

"I would be great if you could actually post some data or evidence of this theory, but I'm sure you won't."

Shiller chart, do you really need me to post it AGAIN. Its a patter of overshoots all over the place!

"alanhart, I agree, but there's a bit of obtuseness from the opposition here, I think. Sometimes, all it takes is having a crack vial thrown at your head sometime in 1989 for you to convince yourself that "this is the most dangerous era ever.""

Yes, guys like bjw who get their NY histotical info from dora the explorer, friends and sex in the city, I generally don't pay attention to for reality.

The ACTUAL crime stats bear out the truth - murder and crime overall peaked in the late 80s/early 90s, no matter how many stories bjw wants to tell about his butcher's mom.

"Saying that the crack epidemic only affected isolated neighborhoods and users and dealers is ridiculous. That is so ludicrous that it shouldn't even be taken seriously. The crime stats, broken down by neighborhood, show that generally everywhere in the city things were worse in the early 90s than in the 70s. And that is for just about all major crime categories. The number of rapes were about the same, and burglaries were higher in the 70s. For everything else, the early 90s were worse. Murders, assaults, car theft, robberies, larcenies - all worse in the late 80s/early 90s. As usual, alan is talking out of his butt and is wrong."

I'm usually in agreement with alan, but I agree he's a bit off here.

He claims, for instance:
"Aside from broken windows in cars, the crack epidemic didn't have a major crime impact on people outside the crack-socioeconomic areas. In other words, 1970s crime involved robberies, muggings, rapes and murders of total strangers. Crack-era murders, etc., were amongst users, dealers, and neighborhood crack-is-whack-ac tivists."

Ignoring the fact that it wasn't just murders in the stats I provided.

Car theft peaks in the 80s/90s. Did the crack addicts only break into the dealer cars?

And pretending there were "non-crack" neighborhoods. One of my good friends growing up lived a couple blocks from the park in the Slope... and had a crack den on his street well through this period.

And did they have separate subways for the crack addicts, too? I don't remember express trains skipping the bad neighborhoods.

Pretending that the majority of the city wasn't affected is a bit ludicrous to me. (no matter how many episodes of sex and the city bjw watches).

> 4. Isn't the "big borough" ... Queens?"

I still think of that as the back end of Brooklyn. ;-)

But, population wise (which is what makes NYC the big city), nah, still Brooklyn...

"the fact is that people's opinion will be significantly colored by their experiences and whatever media, stories, hearsay found its way to them. "

Agreed, and that includes you. So stop getting your info from sitcoms, bjw.

As I said before, its about the stats, and the stats show that crime (murder and overall) peaked in the late 80s and 90s...

Are you trying to pick an argument with me now steve? That's not very smart, being that you haven't won an argument with me yet.

The point about the early 90s is that someone compared rents and prices now to rents and prices in the early 90s, to say that things are out of whack now. I said this is flawed because the early 90s were the worst times in NYC in decades and should not be a base model for a normal market. That is when people starting talking out of their butt that the 70s were worse. Both times were bad, and I don't think either should be the model for a normal real estate market in NYC, but as far as crime and quality of life, the late 80s/early 90s clearly were worse than the 70s.

> such as not walking in CP--which for your information was actually dangerous during the day in the
> 60's.

Not like the late 80s had a shortage of that. (and I'm not just talking the central park jogger).
I also remember Union Square and Bryant Park as "places to avoid" in the 80s as well.

But, as I said, I think the stats make it pretty clear...

"It also stated that principal should be excluded in the comparison which you had NEVER agreed to until that paper was posted."

No. I have always said that the paydown of principal is not a deductible expense in certain circumstances. It depends on which formula you're using - I said several are applicable, all giving slightly different results but all valid ways of looking at the problem. What I never acquiesced to (and never will) was including tax deductions or principal in a price-to-rent ratio, as under that scenario the comparison is between gross out-of-pocket expenses of renting versus buying. They ARE valid deductions if looking at owners' equivalent rent and imputed rent; if using the third-party rental scenario, interest and taxes can be deducted, but not principal.

Your problem, JuiceMan, is you confound different models, mix and match to get the result you want. Each model is valid as it is established, not one invented by you.

"Are you trying to pick an argument with me now steve? That's not very smart, being that you haven't won an argument with me yet."

You've been drinking from the Newtown Creek again, LICC. It's affected your perception of reality.

"Shiller chart, do you really need me to post it AGAIN. Its a patter of overshoots all over the place!"

Yes, please do nyc10022

"One of my good friends growing up lived a couple blocks from the park in the Slope... and had a crack den on his street well through this period."

Park Slope was rougher in the 70s and 80s - not sure you have much of a point here. Were there crack dens on 70th and 5th too? It was bad but don't get carried away.

"Yes, guys like bjw who get their NY histotical info from dora the explorer, friends and sex in the city, I generally don't pay attention to for reality."

Nice - typing things like this pretty much disqualifies you from a reasonable conversation. No wonder you're agreeing with LICC.

"I generally don't pay attention to for reality."

Not sure how the word "for" got in there, but otherwise right on!

JuiceMan, getting nyc to post a link to threads where he claims to have already proven something (QED) is like trying to get tequila out of a cow (maybe if it's a Mexican cow?).

> Nice - typing things like this pretty much disqualifies you from a reasonable conversation

bjw, the judge of "reaosnable conversation". I love it! Meanwhile you're the one who brought it all up! not to mention complaining about the arguing, and then proceed to continue arguing, with the most ridiculous claims of them all.

If its hypocrisy from bjw, it must be a weekday...

> Park Slope was rougher in the 70s and 80s

You saw that on tv, too?

Or grow guacamole on Mars.

> Not sure how the word "for" got in there, but otherwise right on!

Yes, remove key words like "for" and "not" and you'll one day finally be right bjw!

rotfl.

So, which one are you.... Miranda?

"JuiceMan, getting nyc to post a link to threads where he claims to have already proven something (QED) is like trying to get tequila out of a cow (maybe if it's a Mexican cow?)."

Still much easier than getting bjw to actually understand all the words in one post. He often has trouble with the big ones.

> Yes, please do nyc10022

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-housing-chart-thats-worth-1000-words-2009-2

There you go, shiller chart. Besides the little ones, 1920-1940 is quite a giant overshoot gone decades long. Overall, very little time is spent at "equilibrium".

Now, if somebody had the long term chart on price to rent...

JuiceMan, here's the chart anyway:
http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2009/1/30/saupload_case_shiller_chart_updated.png

Looks to me like since 1942, there hasn't really been much "over-correction" on the downside.

> No wonder you're agreeing with LICC.

So, bjw, you're one of those hook, line and sinker folks who believes everything your mommy and dora the explorer tell you, and disbelieves everything any non-democrat tells you?

That clearly got you far.

I have disagreed with LIC in the last about as much as anyone short of steve, but correct is correct, whether you keep making mistakes or not.

> JuiceMan, here's the chart anyway:

uh, whoops.

btw, caught in another lie. Never surprises me.

"Meanwhile you're the one who brought it all up!"

What did I bring up - you're the one who needs to "correct" every post I make. It's a bit perverse, no? Point is, if you have to keep repeating that I get my info from tv shows, what's the point in arguing with you anymore? So you can make more ridiculous claims? Not why I'm here, sorry. Move along.

"So, which one are you.... Miranda?"

That's such a Samantha thing to say.

"He often has trouble with the big ones."

Uh... that's what she said?

"You saw that on tv, too?"

Wait, so you're saying it's not true then? Park Slope is rougher now than in the 70s and 80s? Wrong.

"uh, whoops."

I posted the exact same chart. WTF?

> I posted the exact same chart. WTF?

After claiming I wouldn't post it! another of your bs accusations....

> What did I bring up - you're the one who needs to "correct" every post I make. It's a bit perverse,
> no? Point is, if you have to keep repeating that I get my info from tv shows, what's the point in
> arguing with you anymore? So you can make more ridiculous claims? Not why I'm here, sorry. Move
> along.

Potboy hypocrite, you are the person with NOTHING to add here, you just keep coming back and arguing and adding zero. Once again, you don't know diddly here, but you are posting over and over again, complaining about everyone else's arguing.... and noone has been more wrong here than you.

> So you can make more ridiculous claims?

Nah, thats just you.

If you're so "over it"... just take off. You know nothing about the subject, so you're obviously posting for your own perverted needs.

> Uh... that's what she said?

bjw, why don't you make yourself more useful and takes notes when you watch tonight and tell us the buildings they live in. Maybe you'll finally have something to add here.

> you're the one who needs to "correct" every post I make.

And lets clarify here.. the utter irony.
It was YOU who went to correct a post - LIC's - and you were 100% wrong in doing so.

Completely hypocritical that you are complaining about folks correcting posts.

Perhaps if I was as wrong as you it would be ok?

> Wait, so you're saying it's not true then? Park Slope is rougher now than in the 70s and 80s? Wrong

you win!

bjw, you are now officially the king of strawmen. (who, ironically doesn't understand what a strawman is)

congratulations!

"After claiming I wouldn't post it!"

I said getting you to post things (mostly threads that "prove" you were "correct") is difficult. Great, you posted the chart. It IS actually appreciated, but do you want a cookie? It's not a bs accusation, as it's often true.

"you are the person with NOTHING to add here, you just keep coming back and arguing and adding zero. Once again, you don't know diddly here, but you are posting over and over again, complaining about everyone else's arguing"

Hey, plenty of people seem to disagree with you. If you really think I have "NOTHING" to add, please put me on ignore. It's fine, really, do it; this board will be better for it. Why are you wasting so much time arguing with someone whose posts here are so "useless"? Maybe you're a troll? I actually enjoy some of your posts, but by and large they're full of arrogant, know-it-all vitriol and condescencion. Fun sometimes, but gets old fast. Put me on ignore and we won't have to deal with this - it's that simple.

"It was YOU who went to correct a post - LIC's - and you were 100% wrong in doing so.
Completely hypocritical that you are complaining about folks correcting posts."

There's a difference between having a conversation and disagreeing (and several other people have disagreed pretty strongly with LIC, yet you haven't gone after them with a fraction of the hysterics you've tossed my way - touching, when you think about it) and going after nearly every single comment from one poster (sometimes with several fun replies to a single post!). But you've always seen things black and white.

"you win!"

Well, which is it then? Was Park Slope rougher in the 70s/80s or now? Because if you agree with me, why did you even bother responding?

"Hey, plenty of people seem to disagree with you. If you really think I have "NOTHING" to add, please put me on ignore. It's fine, really, do it; this board will be better for it."

Why should I cover for your mistakes?

The board would be much better off if you just didn't post them in the first place. Not only would it save the replies you so hate, it would save your initial bs as well!

> Why are you wasting so much time arguing with someone whose posts here are so "useless"?
> Maybe you're a troll?

Ironic, you're still here arguing AND complaining about my posts.

I love it!

> Put me on ignore and we won't have to deal with this - it's that simple.

Amazing, why haven't YOU done this? YOU are the one complaining about the responses!

same 'ol bjw. At least you are consistent in your hypocrisy.

"Well, which is it then? Was Park Slope rougher in the 70s/80s or now? Because if you agree with me, why did you even bother responding?"

Its both! You managed a twofer!

Because the response is STILL nonsensical. You're talking about a period noone is talking about to make an argument about 2 different periods.

And its the second time you made the error.

Whoops.

"There's a difference between having a conversation and disagreeing (and several other people have disagreed pretty strongly with LIC, yet you haven't gone after them with a fraction of the hysterics you've tossed my way - touching, when you think about it) "

Not surprised you can't tell the difference. Alan is smart, has a good frame of reference, and argues well.

Your posts about either about 1) the wrong decade 2) dora the explorer 3) sex and the city or 4) me.

You could learn many things from alan. Until you do so, its just a lot of nonsense and hysterics comine from you.

and, meanwhile... you are the guy complaining about the arguing... and here you are... STILL arguing! without a fact or a clue...

"The board would be much better off if you just didn't post them in the first place. Not only would it save the replies you so hate, it would save your initial bs as well!"

Take the blinders off and realize that you are the only person here who really has a problem with my posts. I'm not going to leave to save you the supposed trouble of countering everything I say.

"Amazing, why haven't YOU done this?"

Because, as I said before, I'm not of the opinion that you have "NOTHING to add." You seem to think that, so it's only natural that you should do that. But I secretly think you really really enjoy ceaselessly berating people anonymously over the internet, so ultimately it's up to you. I'd rather you put me on ignore.

"Its both! You managed a twofer!"

Oh, gotcha. So Park Slope was rougher in the 70s/80s than it is now, and it is also rougher now than it was in 70s/80s. Nice! Did you know FDR died in 1945? And that he also died in 5491? It's true!

"Not surprised you can't tell the difference. Alan is smart, has a good frame of reference, and argues well."

Wasn't talking about alanhart, though I enjoy his posts. Was talking about debating with LICC - you brought that up, jackass.

"Until you do so, its just a lot of nonsense and hysterics"

Says the guy who frequently types "OH MY LORD!" on a real estate message board. Nice!

"Take the blinders off and realize that you are the only person here who really has a problem with my posts. "

Another lie (and a repeat). Again, not surprised!

"I'd rather you put me on ignore."

Well, too bad for you then. If you don't want to hear it, put me on ignore, or STOP COMPLAINING ALREADY. Otherwise, bite me.

But if you yell go after someone else for being wrong, and be as mistaken as you have been here, sorry, I will respond. Since you have so much nonsese, that will happen a lot.

> Did you know FDR died in 1945? And that he also died in 5491? It's true!

At least your level of accuracy has stayed consistent. As has your ability to read numbers correctly.

Congrats!

"Wasn't talking about alanhart, though I enjoy his posts. Was talking about debating with LICC - you brought that up, jackass."

Uh, jackass, you don't even understand your OWN POSTS!

and YOU! brought it up.

rotfl!

You don't even understand the words coming out of your OWN mouth!

YOU said... "and several other people have disagreed pretty strongly with LIC, yet you haven't gone after them with a fraction of the hysterics you've tossed my way"

yes, and alan was one of those people. He argued with LICC on this.

You got the response saying "you have no idea what you are talking about" because... well... you have no idea what you are talking about.

Alan hart disagreed with LIC, and he's intelligent about it, and you're not. Pretty plain to see.

Now you are complaining and calling me names?

ROTFL.

You brought it up, and now you're complaining again! I love it!

(and I'm not surprised)

Thanks for the laugh!

> Says the guy who frequently types "OH MY LORD!" on a real estate message board

If i typed it in posts as nonsensical as yours, sure, complain away!

But you're the only one with the hysterics and nonsense combined!

You rule!

thanks, bjw, thanks for the great pick me up this weekend!

I'm in such a good mood now, you're always great for amusement!

Love is in the air, bjw & nyc are just two peas in a pod.

Now back to the overshoot, where do you see that again? Are you saying we are headed under 120, 110, 100? What makes you think that?