Cranbury Forum | Bulletin | Info Sharing

Post a reply

Username

Subject

Message body

Emoticons

Font colour: Font size:

Close Tags

[quote="Guest"][quote="Reality-Check"]Just got home from school and finished my milk and cookies!  There is no evil gloating on my part, I posted facts which are easily verifiable by going down to the assessors office.  The binary approximation used is highly accurate and takes into account the lower $$$ per square foot mentioned in one of the previous posts.  Unfortunately like politics, many people in this town get upset when they are forced to face reality regarding home values and other issues affecting our town.  My analysis above is based on mathematics, unfortunately many of the posters (multiple GUESTS???) are basing their opinions on their emotions.  For those that are not mathematically inclined, I'll break my analysis down to the cliff notes, and I mean no insult by that, but here it goes:

If the seller gets greater than $251 per HEATED SQUARE FOOT, they would've gotten a good deal.  Should they receive less than $225.89 per HEATED SQUARE FOOT, then they obviously got a poor deal.  It's merely a range.  For some of these [i]GUESTS[/i] to make a blanket statement as to what the property is worth without knowing the mathematics behind the market other than getting prices from an online source speaks for itself.  I will no longer engage in this diametric discussion.  I wish my neighbor good luck and all the best!

PS:  Degrees and credentials are very accurate     :D[/quote]

Your assertion that the people contradicting you are upset about their home values is illogical since posters have not suggested that their problem with your theory is that it is under-estimating value.  My examples all pointed toward your formula over-estimating values.  Not something I would write if I was worried about the market or I was concerned with my home value.  I’m not because I plan to live in mine at least another 20 years, but I would say if I was selling now I would be thrilled if I could sell it for $200 a foot let alone $225-225.  My neighborhood had a couple sales in the last 9 months, both below $200 and both were on the market almost a year.  Two others are on the market now, have been for months and already are asking figures that will put their cost per foot below the bottom of your average.  There has not been a single sale in the last 5 years in your range among my comp homes.

Your theory works only when you say any data point that doesn’t fit your model was a result of someone getting a “good” or “bad” deal.  That’s convenient and no real mathematician would really argue a theory works when you can dismiss as many aberrant data points as you want to isolate a subset of data that fits your theory.  It’s like doing a trial for a new drug and excluding everyone who doesn’t respond to it.

So when comparable homes fail to sell for a year each then eventually sell within the same narrow price range per foot and other homes are now after 6+ months without sales approaching those sale cost ranges, you really believe that each of them is just accepting “bad deals”?  That’s just dumb.  What they are accepting is the fair market value for their homes as defined by demand – i.e. what people are eventually willing to pay for them.  And why are all the comps coming in around the same range?  You say because each owner accepted a bad deal.  Logic says that this particular comp of homes and neighborhood has a different average per foot fair market price than other neighborhoods in Cranbury.

This is what everyone except you posting here sensibly understands.  That home values are not defined by narrow arbitrary township-wide average, but are variable based on comparable homes which includes more than one variable, including the Township, the neighborhood, age of homes, size of lots, whether the home is very large, average or small in size, etc.  Main Street homes is a market.  Shadow Oaks homes is a market.  Etc.  They are not the same market.  Your made-up theory would be even more ridiculous in large markets.  For example, try making a case that every apartment in NYC can be defined by a narrow cost-per-foot range regardless of area.  Any theory that asserts an entire township as a unified housing market is just ignorant.

What you fail to grasp is the objections to your point have nothing to do with defending the value of this home or values in Cranbury.  This home may be over-priced, I haven’t looked at the data so I don’t know.  The objections are simply to the lack of credibility to your basic argument, which is clearly based on very little understanding of residential real estate.

As for people going to see the data for themselves.  I have done exactly that so I can flatly call BS because the data absolutely does not support your theory.  And people don’t have to take a trip to do this for themselves.  Just go to the Internet.  The one thing we can agree on is please, by all means, check out the data for yourself.  Call this math posters bluff.[/quote]

Options
HTML is ON
BBCode is ON
Smilies are ON

	Disable HTML in this post
	Disable BBCode in this post
	Disable Smilies in this post