Realtor's Say it Is A Buyer's Market

[jazzman]

Could be worse... The tax rates in the "vacation" communities are about 1/2 of what the rest of the state pays. Of course the houses are worth more, but that's real $$$ you get to keep if you ever sell.

My prior lakehouse in Hillsboro NH was about 2.5% of it's value per year in taxes. Here, closer to 1.25%.

[secondcurve]

Originally Posted by jazzman

Could be worse... The tax rates in the "vacation" communities are about 1/2 of what the rest of the state pays. Of course the houses are worth more, but that's real $$$ you get to keep if you ever sell.

My prior lakehouse in Hillsboro NH was about 2.5% of it's value per year in taxes. Here, closer to 1.25%.

True but the average vacation home owner gets very little in the way of services for his/her tax payments. As a result, tax rates should be low!

[jazzman]

Maybe true, but be happy you own a vacation house in a low tax town... It could be way worse. A 500k vacation house in many towns = 12K tax bill and how many Winnipesaukee houses can be had for 500K? Imagine what a 12k tax bill does for the resale value of your house.

The expensive tax towns are going to become more and more expensive when all the retirees move out and everyone who lives there have kids that need schools.

The NH tax system is clearly broken.

I don't know what the right answer is, but a system where people pick towns a few miles apart to live in because of local real estate taxes is broken.

And what happens when 2nd home real estate taxes aren't deductible on your federal taxes any more???

[Woodsy]

Jazzman....

I have to disagree with you. The NH tax system work just fine. Its supply and demand. Properties on or close to the water or properties with a view are worth more than an average property. They are worth more because people will pay more to purchase them. Blame it on human nature! A prime example is the new $500K - $600K CONDOS for sale on Scenic Road.... because they have an awesome view. Less than a mile away, you can buy a townhouse condo for $130K.... (not exactly an apples to apples comparison, but the HUGE price point difference is because of location) To this day, property on the Meredith, Laconia & Gilford side of the Lake is more valuable than similar properties in Moultonboro, Center Harbor & Tuftonboro. Why? Because for whatever reason, people desire to be on this side of the lake instead of that side.... go figure!

If anyone can afford to buy a desirable property on/near the water or with a spectacular view I am happy for you. I dont think complaining about the taxes or mortgage on your property is a viable argument. If you can afford the house, you can afford the taxes. If you dont like the way the town is spending your tax $$ then move up here and become a resident and vote your opinion. Its that simple!

I do feel a little bad for families who have had these camps/cottages forever, and thier tax bill is making them unaffordable to keep. That being said, None of those families complain when the $20K camp thats been in the family since the 60's (and you were rich in the 60's if you could afford a $20K camp) and gets sold for a $500k profit.

Woodsy

[DickR]

The valuation on which the RE tax is supposed to be based is some (crude) measure of what someone else likely is willing to pay you for your property. The claim that "if you can afford to buy it then you can afford the taxes on it" loses validity as time goes on. The case of the property bought decades ago is a good example. The wealth of people of means who can afford vacation homes keeps bidding up the going prices (over time). The long-time owner essentially is paying a tax on someone else's ability to pay it.

The present system of leaning heavily on the RE tax is a sweet deal for towns on the major lakes, as they see a huge chunk of money coming in from people who don't use much in the way of services and also who have no say in the matter. I don't see this changing soon, but if it did, lakefront towns would be seriously impacted.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by DickR

The valuation on which the RE tax is supposed to be based is some (crude) measure of what someone else likely is willing to pay you for your property. The claim that "if you can afford to buy it then you can afford the taxes on it" loses validity as time goes on. The case of the property bought decades ago is a good example. The wealth of people of means who can afford vacation homes keeps bidding up the going prices (over time). The long-time owner essentially is paying a tax on someone else's ability to pay it.

The present system of leaning heavily on the RE tax is a sweet deal for towns on the major lakes, as they see a huge chunk of money coming in from people who don't use much in the way of services and also who have no say in the matter. I don't see this changing soon, but if it did, lakefront towns would be seriously impacted.

DickR

When you own something that someone else covets, be it a piece of property, an old musclecar a rare toy or whatever, the value of that item will proportionally increase relative to the desire of the person who covets it most.

On one hand I do agree with you that the long time property owner is paying taxes based on what others are willing to pay for that property or a similar property. Not to be heartless but so what? That same long term property owner is going to be laughing all the way to the bank when he gets a huge $$$ amount when he sells the property. The same way the original owner of a 1965 Shelby Cobra is going to laugh when his $6000 sports car fetches 1.1 Million at auction.

Real Estate can fluctuate in value... I feel bad for the people who bought when the market was artificially high... alot of them are now upside down in thier mortgages or have watched thier home devalue dramatically. Hence all the foreclosures and short sales. On the upside, for other people its def a time for some real bargains. It is what it is. When some people lose, others win. It all depends on your perspective.

I blame the banks for the most part... the Feds def had some complicity. The Feds pushed banks into writing mortgages for lower income people. The banks said SURE! But instead of writing easy stable long term fixed rate mortgages, they wrote variable rate mortgages, knowing full well that once the gates were open and flood of people started buying house, the housing prices would go up, as would the risk of inflation and that would force the Fed to raise the Prime Rate to slow it all down.... the BANKS knew this when it all started. They knew it was a bubble that would eventually pop!

The banks could have very easily rewritten the shakey notes to avoid the meltdown... they chose not to. They didnt want to hurt thier bottom line. EVERYBODY involved in the process made alot of $$$.. and the taxpayers got stuck with the bill!


Woodsy

[CateP]

Having just gone through selling and buying this past year I would definitely agree that it is a buyers market. I could not get a loan for a new house until I sold the old house. I sold my old house for almost $100k less than original list and $20k less than town assessment. (boo hoo) BUT then I bought a beautiful house in Wolfeboro for $40k under town assessment and $150k less than buyers paid.

It's all relative. Had I sold my house back in that crazy time around 2004-2007, I would have gotten a LOT more money for it and it probably would have sold within weeks. AND I probably would have paid a LOT more money for my next house and maybe even gotten involved in a bidding war, only to loose any equity I thought I had.

In retrospect I am glad the market took a nose dive and I bought and sold when I did. It all feels so much more sane AND I feel like I got the real value of my new house, not some inflated price driven by greed. (which by the way was the real culprit for the housing crisis by many parties)

[BroadHopper]

Before the 1980's education crisis, Tax evaluation was left to the towns. In Gilford the selectmen realized that seasonal owners do not use the schools and winter services. Seasonal owners were giving a break. Same with the farmers, they were giving a break because they normally do make enough money to pay residential tax.

Today the state has to approve all tax evaluation. Regardless of how the land is used, with the exception of wetlands, all evaluation is based on what the land and building can be reasonably sold for. That is why the blind Orford farmer sue the state for unreasonable RE tax. This case started the 'view' tax mess. Of course the state won.

The family lake estate RE tax increased 6 fold during to 80's. The family had the property since 1892 and had to be sold because of the RE tax. The family farm saw a four fold increase during that time period. The family is barely able to prevent the land from going to developers.

Many of the waterfront owners on Teraace Hill Road before the 80's were firemen, policemen, blue collar workers that have worked hard for their piece of paradise. Today the small cottages are torned down for MacMansion owned by fat cats and white collar workers.

I hope you realized where some of us are coming from.

[secondcurve]

Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco
By Jeff Jacoby
Globe Columnist / September 28, 2008
Email|Print|Single Page||ShareThis Text size – +
'THE PRIVATE SECTOR got us into this mess. The government has to get us out of it."

That's Barney Frank's story, and he's sticking to it. As the Massachusetts Democrat has explained it in recent days, the current financial crisis is the spawn of the free market run amok, with the political class guilty only of failing to rein the capitalists in. The Wall Street meltdown was caused by "bad decisions that were made by people in the private sector," Frank said; the country is in dire straits today "thanks to a conservative philosophy that says the market knows best." And that philosophy goes "back to Ronald Reagan, when at his inauguration he said, 'Government is not the answer to our problems; government is the problem.' "

In fact, that isn't what Reagan said. His actual words were: "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Were he president today, he would be saying much the same thing.

Because while the mortgage crisis convulsing Wall Street has its share of private-sector culprits -- many of whom have been learning lately just how pitiless the private sector’s discipline can be -- they weren't the ones who "got us into this mess." Barney Frank's talking points notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn't wake up one fine day deciding to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and demanding that they do so - or else.

The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.

The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.

All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense. "Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor," the Fed's guidelines instructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare payments and unemployment benefits as "valid income sources" to qualify for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.

As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was good public policy could be sustained. But it didn't take a financial whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. "What does it mean when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities?" I asked in this space in 1995. "Most likely, that they are knowingly approving risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs . . . When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and regulators plans to take the credit?"

Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.

Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train. If Frank is looking for a culprit to blame, he can find one suspect in the nearest mirror.

Jeff Jacoby can be reached at [email protected].

© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company

[secondcurve]

Politicians, Banks, Borrowers, etc. Let's hope things get back to normal in the next few years.

[tis]

In Wolfeboro they like to call us who live on the lake, the "Cash Cows". How does that make you feel?

[DRH]

I think the following video tells the real story about Fannie and Freddie's (and the housing market's) collapse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HQWk1Wp3L4

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by CateP

BUT then I bought a beautiful house in Wolfeboro for $40k under town assessment and $150k less than buyers paid.

Plus I'm sure you got a good deal on the loan interest rate.

Congratulations and enjoy your new home in the best little town in NH.

[fatlazyless]

....so...what's the latest at 22 Cattle Landing...or what...is it back on the market again? In the past day or two a new Susan Bradley-Caldwell Banker, for sale sign went up at the roadside over there? So, in September 2012, last month, (see post #6), it was the highest priced sale on the lake, and now it has a new sign out front.....anyone know what happened.......did the sale not go through or something...did the buyer come down with a case of buyers regret or something and kill the purchase?

[lawn psycho]

I just put a lot in NH under contract and yes, it is a buyers market

Unfortunately I'll feel the pain when the house in ME sells but the rates are amazing right now.

For those that are gullible to think the CRA has anything to do with the housing implosion, you need to understand credit default swaps and mortgage bundling. The CRA has been around since 1977.....

If you don't understand what this video is about you have no business discussing the bank liquidity crisis which was basis for the Fall 2008 economic implosion:
http://m.youtube.com/results?q=timbe...?v=whlzFWwVv98

[songkrai]

By Barry Ritholtz,
The Washington Post

"One group has been especially vocal about shaping a new narrative of the credit crisis and economic collapse: those whose bad judgment and failed philosophy helped cause the crisis.

They all suffer cognitive dissonance — the intellectual crisis that occurs when a failed belief system or philosophy is confronted with proof of its implausibility.

And what about those facts? To be clear, no single issue was the cause. Our economy is a complex and intricate system. What caused the crisis? Look:
●Fed Chair Alan Greenspan dropped rates to 1 percent — levels not seen for half a century — and kept them there for an unprecedentedly long period. This caused a spiral in anything priced in dollars (i.e., oil, gold) or credit (i.e., housing) or liquidity driven (i.e., stocks).

●Low rates meant asset managers could no longer get decent yields from municipal bonds or Treasurys. Instead, they turned to high-yield mortgage-backed securities. Nearly all of them failed to do adequate due diligence before buying them, did not understand these instruments or the risk involved. They violated one of the most important rules of investing: Know what you own.

●Fund managers made this error because they relied on the credit ratings agencies — Moody’s, S&P and Fitch. They had placed an AAA rating on these junk securities, claiming they were as safe as U.S. Treasurys.

• Derivatives had become a uniquely unregulated financial instrument. They are exempt from all oversight, counter-party disclosure, exchange listing requirements, state insurance supervision and, most important, reserve requirements. This allowed AIG to write $3 trillion in derivatives while reserving precisely zero dollars against future claims.

• The Securities and Exchange Commission changed the leverage rules for just five Wall Street banks in 2004. The “Bear Stearns exemption” replaced the 1977 net capitalization rule’s 12-to-1 leverage limit. In its place, it allowed unlimited leverage for Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns. These banks ramped leverage to 20-, 30-, even 40-to-1. Extreme leverage leaves very little room for error.

•Wall Street’s compensation system was skewed toward short-term performance. It gives traders lots of upside and none of the downside. This creates incentives to take excessive risks.

• The demand for higher-yielding paper led Wall Street to begin bundling mortgages. The highest yielding were subprime mortgages. This market was dominated by non-bank originators exempt from most regulations. The Fed could have supervised them, but Greenspan did not.

• These mortgage originators’ lend-to-sell-to-securitizers model had them holding mortgages for a very short period. This allowed them to get creative with underwriting standards, abdicating traditional lending metrics such as income, credit rating, debt-service history and loan-to-value.

• “Innovative” mortgage products were developed to reach more subprime borrowers. These include 2/28 adjustable-rate mortgages, interest-only loans, piggy-bank mortgages (simultaneous underlying mortgage and home-equity lines) and the notorious negative amortization loans (borrower’s indebtedness goes up each month). These mortgages defaulted in vastly disproportionate numbers to traditional 30-year fixed mortgages.

●To keep up with these newfangled originators, traditional banks developed automated underwriting systems. The software was gamed by employees paid on loan volume, not quality.

●Glass-Steagall legislation, which kept Wall Street and Main Street banks walled off from each other, was repealed in 1998. This allowed FDIC-insured banks, whose deposits were guaranteed by the government, to engage in highly risky business. It also allowed the banks to bulk up, becoming bigger, more complex and unwieldy.

●Many states had anti-predatory lending laws on their books (along with lower defaults and foreclosure rates). In 2004, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency federally preempted state laws regulating mortgage credit and national banks. Following this change, national lenders sold increasingly risky loan products in those states. Shortly after, their default and foreclosure rates skyrocketed.

Bloomberg was partially correct: Congress did radically deregulate the financial sector, doing away with many of the protections that had worked for decades. Congress allowed Wall Street to self-regulate, and the Fed the turned a blind eye to bank abuses.

The previous Big Lie — the discredited belief that free markets require no adult supervision — is the reason people have created a new false narrative."


LINK

[ITD]

Originally Posted by songkrai

By Barry Ritholtz,
The Washington Post

"One group has been especially vocal about shaping a new narrative of the credit crisis and economic collapse: those whose bad judgment and failed philosophy helped cause the crisis.

They all suffer cognitive dissonance — the intellectual crisis that occurs when a failed belief system or philosophy is confronted with proof of its implausibility.

And what about those facts? To be clear, no single issue was the cause. Our economy is a complex and intricate system. What caused the crisis? Look:
●Fed Chair Alan Greenspan dropped rates to 1 percent — levels not seen for half a century — and kept them there for an unprecedentedly long period. This caused a spiral in anything priced in dollars (i.e., oil, gold) or credit (i.e., housing) or liquidity driven (i.e., stocks).

●Low rates meant asset managers could no longer get decent yields from municipal bonds or Treasurys. Instead, they turned to high-yield mortgage-backed securities. Nearly all of them failed to do adequate due diligence before buying them, did not understand these instruments or the risk involved. They violated one of the most important rules of investing: Know what you own.

●Fund managers made this error because they relied on the credit ratings agencies — Moody’s, S&P and Fitch. They had placed an AAA rating on these junk securities, claiming they were as safe as U.S. Treasurys.

• Derivatives had become a uniquely unregulated financial instrument. They are exempt from all oversight, counter-party disclosure, exchange listing requirements, state insurance supervision and, most important, reserve requirements. This allowed AIG to write $3 trillion in derivatives while reserving precisely zero dollars against future claims.

• The Securities and Exchange Commission changed the leverage rules for just five Wall Street banks in 2004. The “Bear Stearns exemption” replaced the 1977 net capitalization rule’s 12-to-1 leverage limit. In its place, it allowed unlimited leverage for Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns. These banks ramped leverage to 20-, 30-, even 40-to-1. Extreme leverage leaves very little room for error.

•Wall Street’s compensation system was skewed toward short-term performance. It gives traders lots of upside and none of the downside. This creates incentives to take excessive risks.

• The demand for higher-yielding paper led Wall Street to begin bundling mortgages. The highest yielding were subprime mortgages. This market was dominated by non-bank originators exempt from most regulations. The Fed could have supervised them, but Greenspan did not.

• These mortgage originators’ lend-to-sell-to-securitizers model had them holding mortgages for a very short period. This allowed them to get creative with underwriting standards, abdicating traditional lending metrics such as income, credit rating, debt-service history and loan-to-value.

• “Innovative” mortgage products were developed to reach more subprime borrowers. These include 2/28 adjustable-rate mortgages, interest-only loans, piggy-bank mortgages (simultaneous underlying mortgage and home-equity lines) and the notorious negative amortization loans (borrower’s indebtedness goes up each month). These mortgages defaulted in vastly disproportionate numbers to traditional 30-year fixed mortgages.

●To keep up with these newfangled originators, traditional banks developed automated underwriting systems. The software was gamed by employees paid on loan volume, not quality.

●Glass-Steagall legislation, which kept Wall Street and Main Street banks walled off from each other, was repealed in 1998. This allowed FDIC-insured banks, whose deposits were guaranteed by the government, to engage in highly risky business. It also allowed the banks to bulk up, becoming bigger, more complex and unwieldy.

●Many states had anti-predatory lending laws on their books (along with lower defaults and foreclosure rates). In 2004, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency federally preempted state laws regulating mortgage credit and national banks. Following this change, national lenders sold increasingly risky loan products in those states. Shortly after, their default and foreclosure rates skyrocketed.

Bloomberg was partially correct: Congress did radically deregulate the financial sector, doing away with many of the protections that had worked for decades. Congress allowed Wall Street to self-regulate, and the Fed the turned a blind eye to bank abuses.

The previous Big Lie — the discredited belief that free markets require no adult supervision — is the reason people have created a new false narrative."


LINK

None of this could have happened without Fannie and Freddie underwriting sub prime loans and certain members of congress threatening banks for refusing to write loans to low/no income applicants.

[Mink Islander]

There are plenty of other sites to go if you want to debate political topics of the day. This started as an interesting LAKE ORIENTED post about lake home prices and market dynamics. Sadly, though predictably, several of you have decided to flip this into blame game diatribes about the mortgage crisis. In doing so you effectively killed an interesting non-partisan topic of discussion. Proud of yourselves?

Thanks for supporting our community and following the pool rules.

[lawn psycho]

ITD had excellent post and glad to see some of us can be objective.

Few things to add that people should understand:

The vast majority of subprime loans were written by banks not subject the the CRA.

The fact that nobody has listed credit default swaps in this discussion.

Sadly, the US has short-term memory and will do the exact same thing again.

I plan to be mortgage free in 5-6 years and stepping away from future train wrecks. And I'm not that old

[ITD]

Thanks Lawn Psycho, unfortunately Washington politics have had a huge impact on the lake's economy and this thread has meandered since its first day.

To me the big question is whether buying a second home with a mortgage is a prudent thing to do. I'm sure there are situations where it makes sense, but what are those situations and how do you determine when you are getting in over your head. Just because a bank qualifies you doesn't mean you should take the loan.

[fatlazyless]

So anyone know what happened at 22 Cattle Landing ...... like why is there a new realty listing sign out front now when therehadnever been a sign out front since it was constructed in 2006 and up thru Oct 2012?

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

So anyone know what happened at 22 Cattle Landing ...... like why is there a new realty listing sign out front now when therehadnever been a sign out front since it was constructed in 2006 and up thru Oct 2012?

Arms Length Transaction in September. Then something happened to put it up for sale again.


Below is what it said in september abount the sale:



The highest sale on the lake in September was at 22 Cattle Landing Road in Meredith. The sale of this property was another long ordeal as it was listed prior to construction back in June of 2006 at $2.995 million with construction to be completed in 2007. The price escalated to $4.25 million in June of 2008, then was reduced to $3.2, to $2.895 in 2010, and finally down to $2.695 million this year. Anyway, this exquisite 6,000 square foot Adirondack has all the features one would expect in a Winnipesaukee waterfront estate home including Brazilian Cherry hardwood floors, a great room with cathedral ceilings and floor to ceiling fireplace, lots of glass, six bedrooms including a sumptuous master suite with its own private deck, the requisite gourmet kitchen with all the goodies, a home theater, and an attached, three car, heated garage for the toys. The home sits on a .72 acre peninsula lot with 328′ of frontage, amazing landscaping, beautiful patios and walkways, a perched beach, and, of course, a dock. The home also has 50% interest in another 8.5 acre lot to provide additional privacy. So, this home was marketed for 1,450 days with the sale coming in at $2.2 million. The assessed value by the Town of Meredith is at $2.577 million

[Belmont Resident]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Arms Length Transaction in September. Then something happened to put it up for sale again.


Below is what it said in september abount the sale:



The highest sale on the lake in September was at 22 Cattle Landing Road in Meredith. The sale of this property was another long ordeal as it was listed prior to construction back in June of 2006 at $2.995 million with construction to be completed in 2007. The price escalated to $4.25 million in June of 2008, then was reduced to $3.2, to $2.895 in 2010, and finally down to $2.695 million this year. Anyway, this exquisite 6,000 square foot Adirondack has all the features one would expect in a Winnipesaukee waterfront estate home including Brazilian Cherry hardwood floors, a great room with cathedral ceilings and floor to ceiling fireplace, lots of glass, six bedrooms including a sumptuous master suite with its own private deck, the requisite gourmet kitchen with all the goodies, a home theater, and an attached, three car, heated garage for the toys. The home sits on a .72 acre peninsula lot with 328′ of frontage, amazing landscaping, beautiful patios and walkways, a perched beach, and, of course, a dock. The home also has 50% interest in another 8.5 acre lot to provide additional privacy. So, this home was marketed for 1,450 days with the sale coming in at $2.2 million. The assessed value by the Town of Meredith is at $2.577 million

Now that is one beautiful house.
It blows away any of those houses on Governors Island for curb appeal.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by Rusty

. Anyway, this exquisite 6,000 square foot Adirondack has all the features one would expect in a Winnipesaukee waterfront estate home .......

I can't understand why realtors claim the house is so desirable. The only thing I find desirable is the location. I'd be happy with an old fishing cottage. Less maintenance, more time to enjoy the lake!

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Mink Islander

There are plenty of other sites to go if you want to debate political topics of the day. This started as an interesting LAKE ORIENTED post about lake home prices and market dynamics. Sadly, though predictably, several of you have decided to flip this into blame game diatribes about the mortgage crisis. In doing so you effectively killed an interesting non-partisan topic of discussion. Proud of yourselves?

Thanks for supporting our community and following the pool rules.

I just bought a lot in NH and the price I paid was directly related to the banking crisis. It would be nice to ignore but they are intertwined.

As to the reasons, there are those who understand the issues and those who "think" they understand the banking system