Pages
Stay In Touch
More
© 2021 The Somerville Times. All rights reserved.
By William C. Shelton
(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries and letters to the Editor of The Somerville Times belong solely to the authors and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville Times, its staff or publishers)
I can’t count the number of people that I care about who have been priced out of our city. I suppose I could tell you some of their stories to add “human interest” to this column. But if you’ve been here even a few years, you can provide your own list.
We should add a suffix to the City’s promotional tag line: “Somerville is a great place to live, work, play, and raise a family” if you can afford it. Many people who have spent their lives here can’t, or are barely hanging on.
As the Cub Scout den mother, neighborhood peacemaker, church deacon, little league coach, community artist, school volunteer, and local merchant who gave credit to trusted neighbors are displaced, we are all diminished.
In this housing market, working families can’t outbid childless affluent professionals or adult millennials who share rent expenses. So the proportion of children in our population declined for two decades, while that of millennials is now more than double the nation’s.
The Centers for Disease Control reports that when people are displaced from their communities, they “typically have shorter life expectancy; higher cancer rates; more birth defects; greater infant mortality; and higher incidence of asthma, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.”
We who remain here are harmed as well. We may have trendy new restaurants, if we can afford them. But we are increasingly surrounded by more homogenous and transient strangers. And as the fabric of community unravels, we are lonelier and less secure.
I was no prophet to anticipate this trend thirty years ago when rents began escalating. Nor to predict in a 1996 article that the vote to end rent control in Boston, Brookline, and Cambridge would result in homebuyers who had accumulated savings by living in rent-controlled apartments bidding up Somerville rents. The trends were implicit in the data.
Those same data made clear—and make clear—that no amount of new housing production that our small city can realistically accommodate will equilibrate supply and demand at a lower price point. Housing market forces are regional.
Comprehensive data analysis provided the criteria by which those of us on Mayor Capuano’s 1998 Affordable Housing Task Force tested our assumptions and evaluated our policy proposals. We included realtors, landlords, tenants, housing advocates, a developer, a banker, and a first-term alderman named Bill White.
We deliberated for a year. The truth that emerged was that, over the long term, the only way to keep Somerville a place for people of all income levels would be to permanently remove some portion of our housing stock from the inflationary spiral. Even if we were to buy and hold homes at then-current market prices, they would become “affordable” as the market continued its vertigo-inducing escalation.
This, of course, would require substantial capital. So I proposed a transfer tax and an anti-speculation tax as sources, and the Task Force adopted these proposals. But we issued our report a month after Mike Capuano was elected to Congress, and the transfer tax was never acted on.
Chris Mirakian at the Warren Group tells me that over the twenty years since the Task Force began its work, the median sale price of a Somerville home has increased by 402%, from $184,000 in 1997 to $740,000 last year. While breathtaking, these figures still understate the true amount of inflation, because so many homes have been condominiumized into smaller units.
If a 1% transfer tax had been implemented in 1998, by now we would have obtained about $105 million in revenues. Leveraged with debt and state and federal subsidies, this would have invested over $1 billion in keeping Somerville housing permanently affordable.
Failing to seize this opportunity then, is no excuse for failing to do so now. On Wednesday evening the Board of Aldermen will hold a public hearing on instituting a transfer tax, a measure that already exists in all but thirteen states, and in three Massachusetts jurisdictions. Live-free-or-cheap New Hampshire imposes a 1.5% transfer tax.
I understand why those who advocate for it prefer to use the more euphemistic term, “transfer fee.” But let’s be honest. Fees are usually fixed amounts, while taxes vary with what is being taxed.
Taxes are what we agree to pay for things that benefit us all, but which none of us can obtain by ourselves. For me, holding on to Somerville’s soul fits that description.
I also understand why so many homeowners feel ground down by continually increasing property taxes, seemingly arbitrary water surcharges, and a Community Preservation Act surcharge that gets spent on things different from what was presented when it was on the ballot.
What I do not understand is why some people whose property values have been appreciating at ten percent per year are unwilling to give just one percent to the community that created that added value. They will realize a windfall through no effort of their own beyond breathing. Is it too much to ask for them to contribute a small fraction of their good fortune so that others may continue to breathe here?
I am certain that the large majority of Somerville voters would say “No.” And I would happily see this proven through a ballot measure.
In the meantime, I would advocate two modifications of the proposal currently before the Board. It includes an exemption for those of us who have owned and occupied our homes for more than twenty years. But having enjoyed, on average, a 402%+ increase in our home values, we are the most able to give to the community that has given so much to us. I believe that the only exemption should be for sellers who are realizing a capital loss.
And asking sellers who will enjoy a windfall to pay the transfer tax is more just than taxing buyers who are struggling to purchase a home in this inflated market. The argument that 100% of the tax would eventually be included in the sales price is one of those that makes theoretical sense in econ class, but never seems to be fully realized when it encounters the real market’s price elasticity of demand, and externalities.
With or without these modifications, this policy is long overdue. Without a financing source of this magnitude, affordable housing efforts will remain feeble, benefitting a few households who fall within a narrow income-distribution range. And we will complete our transition to being a city of the affluent, punctuated by small enclaves of poor folks in public housing, and devoid of the diversity, cultural riches, and bonds of community that made Somerville so attractive in the first place.
If you found this article of interest, please consider sharing it.
Bill, the idea is not horrible and with some tweeking (focused on flippers and people who don’t actually live in their homes for a min. period of time) could be very palatable. The problem with the $ generated is we can’t use them in a way that benefits people who live in, and want to continue to live in Somerville. The state puts a cap on the number of spots reserved for current, long term Somerville residents. If they wanted to keep the community the home rule petition would focus on how the money is used, not just getting the money.
“What I do not understand is why some people whose property values have been appreciating at ten percent per year are unwilling to give just one percent to the community that created that added value. They will realize a windfall through no effort of their own beyond breathing. Is it too much to ask for them to contribute a small fraction of their good fortune so that others may continue to breathe here?”
Bill, thank you so much for writing this, and for including the moral argument squarely. We who believe in equality and justice cannot be afraid to confront the “me first and me only” mentality that too often takes over these and similar conversations. No one “deserves” their good fortune; we all, without exception, are benefited and harmed by chance events. As we consider the 50th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. King (who increasingly was turning his attention to issues of economic injustice as well as of racial injustice) we would do well to remember that a country (or a city) whose citizens will not support each other WILL fall apart.
Well, at least we now know where this idiotic idea originated from. And at least they’re being truthful now that there will be NO exemptions and the seller (not the buyer as was supposedly the intent) will be the one paying (“….asking sellers who will enjoy a windfall to pay the transfer tax is more just…” ) .
Luckily, this has ZERO chance at the state level of passing as most people with a functional brain realize that real estate pricing is regional (not specific to some 4 sq mile area) and this would have zero impact on AH.
IF Cambridge/Arlington/Medford all decided to also to levy transfer taxes it would have a better chance, but since this idea got laughed at in all those cities it won’t and should not pass here.
Lastly, we already do pay a transfer tax (deed tax) when a property is sold here in MA. The tax is $4.56 per thousand of the purchase price on the deed. So for a $500,000 sale, that’s a $2,280 tax bill. This transfer tax would be ON TOP of that.
Thank you Bill. This captures my feelings exactly.
Will this increase above the 1% at some point in the future?
Once they lower our taxes from all this new income they are bragging about maybe we would not object to this. But all I see is new ways of getting money out of us and new ways to spend it. Much of it wasteful. So NO. Enough already. And also NO. I don’t expect the money to be used properly. Based on over 70 years experience here.
Of course Katie you’ll get housing paid for by people who made an investment in this city and want to use their home as their retirement nest egg. Of course.
Hi Courtney, I very much doubt it. The goal is to spread out the burden as far as possible in a modest way, not to scam homeowners. The RKG report indicates that over the next ten years we could see close to a billion dollars worth of sales per year in Somerville ($910 million as a high estimate). At 1 percent, that right there is twice as much, in a single year, as the CPA has made in its entire history. It’s a big deal.
Craig, if you oppose it on the merits, that’s great! But please don’t just attack renters. There’s a lot of old Somerville that is already gone, whose lives could have been vastly improved if this had gone through in 1998 back when it was first proposed by the Affordable Housing Task Force. Those are *also* the people you’re attacking, when you say that this is only supported by people who stand to personally gain.
Matt, your point is well taken, infuriating, and I plan to emphasize it in tomorrow night’s hearing. Somerville has already gone beyond most of our neighbors in our commitment to affordable housing. I’m guessing that, with the level of funding that a transfer tax can generate, we can create land trusts and work with banks so that we need not be restricted by the constraints imposed by state and federal funders.
The amount of money is a lot to many of us. Earning $20000 to $25000 a year the $3500 or more is a lot of money. I am already stuck with the CPA thing and now the high school tax will be coming in and when I sell in the near future I will need every dime to move to an affordable place. I do not want to be penalized twice, once by the state and by the city also. This city barely does anything for the homeless, never mind low income.
the Beatles had this long ago:
you drive a car, i’ll tax the street
if you walk i’ll tax youjr feet
I find it interesting that anyone who sells their home in today’s market is referred to as cashing in or receiving a windfall. Many of us lifers are getting older and need to downsize. Many of us lifers also spent many thousands of dollars over the years maintaining a 100+ year-old home when everyone around us were leaving. We supported our community through the schools, the churches, and community organizations. Please stop making us the bad guy. The bad guy is the policy of allowing everyone who wishes to flip a 2 or 3 family ‘home’ or condo ‘units’, destroying our neighborhoods and the community we once loved. When you hold Federal Realty to the 20% affordability rate, then maybe we can talk.
Bill, I think, even if the proposal passes the city should indicate that they will not collect the tax until they can effectively target >85% of the money to individuals and families that have set roots in the city and want to continue to live here.
So to clarify what Katie and Bill and the progressive crew are proposing:
1. There will be NO exemptions. Even for someone who owns a single unit – 1 or 2 or 3 family house – EVERYONE who owns here would be paying this extra tax that no other neighboring city has or is considering.
2. Even if you’ve owned for 20 + years — EVERYONE who owns here would be paying this extra tax that no other neighboring city has or is considering.
3. Even if you still have mortgages that account for 99% of the equity of the property that you took against the property for unforeseen issues (medical/etc.) – EVERYONE who owns here would be paying this extra tax that no other neighboring city has or is considering.
4. Nantucket/Martha’s Vineyard/Provincetown are the 3 locations (I believe) that Bills mentions. Those are by nature exclusionary areas – they want to KEEP people OUT that is why they have that tax. What does Somerville have in common with those areas? Nothing.
5. We already pay a transfer tax in MA (Bill lied or misspoke). The tax is $4.56 per thousand of the purchase price on the deed. So for a $500,000 sale, that’s a $2,280 tax bill. If this passes then on top of THAT transfer tax we would have this one.
6. This will have zero impact on AH and no one knows where this money would go to – even Bill is “guessing”.
7. No one has accounted for all the extra monies currently collected from property taxes and excise tax and the current transfer tax. But the city wants a new tax and revenue?
8. Ultimately this has no chance of passing at the state house – the state is not going to allow Somerville to run amuck simply because we have a new group of ultra-left aldermen/women. So why is the city wasting everyone’s time and money doing this?
9. Lastly, when this was first proposed we were lied to – supposedly this was to keep investor/house-flippers out (“The buyers PAY the tax!”) and there would be exemptions for older / long-term property owners who own a single property. We now see those were both lies. The burden falls on the seller to pay it and EVERYONE would be paying.
Sadly, it appears that this new crop of alderman/women will need constant watching for their reach into our wallets. We have had a mayor hungry for extra revenues and now we have a BOA that will provide him cover to grab more of hardworking resident’s money. Trust me that this is just the first of many ideas that will be floated to take money out of our pockets and feed theirs.
I agree that we need a solution to pricing people out of the Boston-metro region. I’m not convinced that we can solve it at the Somerville-scale. I find the transfer tax interesting, but I still do not fully understand how it is proposed to work. I need to do more homework to fully understand it.
With that said, I take issue with the following quote:
”
What I do not understand is why some people whose property values have been appreciating at ten percent per year are unwilling to give just one percent to the community that created that added value. They will realize a windfall through no effort of their own beyond breathing. Is it too much to ask for them to contribute a small fraction of their good fortune so that others may continue to breathe here?
”
No effort of their own??! We made a decision to jump into the Somerville real estate market in 2006 at the end of the previous housing boom. In fact, we unknowingly purchased right when the housing market started to go down. It was a HUGE risk and stretch for us to buy our home, but we did it for many reasons. We thought it was the right decision for us for lifestyle reasons: Somerville provides the right balance of urban/suburban for us, among many other things. We also thought it made sense financially, and we were right even though many people disagreed at the time.
For us to afford our home, we scraped every penny we could. We lived a super frugal lifestyle for years. Now, I know that many people could not afford our home at the price we paid, even if they were as frugal as us. I also know that we have had a lot of luck in life to get to that financial point. BUT we still put in a LOT of effort to be able to afford our home.
No more affordable housing for people who don’t even live here! Why are we putting up money to solve problems created by other communities? Honestly, this money should go first to the locals who lived here in the late 80s and 90s when prices started taking off. “Right of return” to our hometown. The millennials who’ve moved here in the last five to ten years knew exactly what they were getting into, so I don’t feel as sorry for them. You can’t claim “displacement” from a place you didn’t grow up and barely lived in. Everyone wants to be a victim these days.
Jamie, its considered cashing in because if you had taken every dollar you put into your property and put it in the market you would be walking away with a fraction of what you would with a home in Somerville over the same period. Its a windfall because you were lucky that Somerville turned out the way it did… had you bought in Lawrence or Lowell you would have a very different check when you sold. You can go all what-about-ism and point to FRIT but if you are not an idiot, you know that the 20% would never have held up in court and would have cost the city in wasted legal fees.
What a sickening display of arrogance tonight. There was this hippie who read his own poem like he would talk to children, as if Somerville homeowners are too stupid to know when they are getting screwed. Let me guess: living on daddy’s dollar? So much hypocrisy.
Bill — making statements like “they will realize a windfall through no effort of their own beyond breathing.” are not only untrue but insulting to the people who very much have made an effort to preserve and maintain their homes and give back to the community. You can casually throw out comments like this but as a home owner who has owned 2 properties here over the past 15 years (the first one of which I sold at a loss just 6 years ago when the markets were not so hot) and the 2nd one which I currently live in and is a historic home, I can attest the fact that nearly ALL the increase in value in my historic home has come from real dollars I have put into it. It is expensive to own and maintain a historic home. New windows cost me more than $2K per window. That is more than double what none historic home owners would pay. I have no options for cheaper ones as I have to follow the city’s historic guidelines. I knew this going in. But I did know know that I would then be being asked to pay an additional 1% when I sold. If you are going to give your opinions on this tax, I’d suggest you present the facts and not make broad statements like the above that are not based real world situations.
Matt C: Do you know me? Do you know anything about my home? I took a calculated risk in the 70’s when no one wanted to live in Somerville. I stayed because my roots are here and I am one of the ‘old Somerville’ people who kept the city going through all of the bad years. Have you ever lived in a 100+ year-old home? Scraped and saved to fix everything from the original electrical and plumbing to the original kitchens and bathrooms, to the original roof, etc., etc., etc., because with an older home it never ends. I have always paid more to the home monthly than my tenants, including when taxes and water bills went through the roof. Yes, I stood at the craps table and rolled the dice and maybe, for once in my life, I’ve won a little something. It is nothing compared to what I’ve spent in time, in sweat, and in dollars for my family and my community. Listening to people like you last night I regret not charging the $2,000/month rent that everyone around me is. But guess what? Since the city wants to take money away from the sale of MY property, I think I’ll start padding my nest egg now by doubling the rent.
I’m all for creating exemptions for longtime residents (provided that it only applies to owner-occupied homes). Yet the average home in Somerville goes for $642,000. I’m thinking people will be able to get by on $635,580. All of us who’ve owned homes in Somerville for longer than a decade are going to reap a windfall even with this fee.
As Bill noted, what we need is more housing outside the market, which is not working for the average person. That takes money. This gets us money.
To all those who wish to spend other people’s money, please explain where this windfall will be spent and how? No one has a clue.
I love these people who have no mortgage or mortgages and who have never invested their own money into their property for repairs or remodeling. Mommy and Daddy must have really big pockets! Newsflash: most normal people have mortgage(s) and will NOT be recouping all that much money and in some cases will not get back what they put in. Depending on when they bought. Here is the order that gets paid, the state/city, the banks (most of us have mortgages), the realtors and then (last) whatever is left the owner will get.
People need to sit up and pay attention to this. This is class warfare, pitting one group against the other, a classic tactic of groups trying to push their agenda. I find it interesting that most of the current BOA do not own property, so will not be affected by this and also don’t know what it’s like to purchase property, spend all your time and money fixing/maintaining it, watching the value go up and down over the years, etc. The address given for several BOA members does not show up on the city database, which is also interesting. People need to question the following:
-Why did the BOA take a vote NOT to inform property owners about this
proposal? How did Our Revolution Somerville know about it?
-At the February 15th Committee Meeting exemptions were considered but put aside for ‘a later time’. There was discussion to change the tax amount from 1% to 2%.
-At the March 1st Committee Meeting, it was stated again that the proposal MUST be submitted to the state by the end of April. There was a discussion as to whether selling your home within 2 or 5 years of purchase would make you a speculator. There was no discussion regarding extenuating circumstances. While considering whether seniors should be exempt someone asked….’how much of an overlap would there be between senior homeowners and those who had owned their homes for 20 years.’ The motion to exempt all seniors was tabled.
-Members requested a Right of First Refusal to allow tenants to have the first option to purchase ‘their’ homes if they are being sold. If the tenant does not exercise this right a non-profit affordable housing developer or the city or its’ assignee would have the right of first refusal.
Go to https://www.somervillema.gov/departments/proposed-transfer-fee-home-rule-petition and read all of the documents. This is truly scary stuff. If they can take away your property rights, they can take away other rights as well.
Bill, me thinks thou doth protest too much.
This 1% fee — above and beyond our taxes and fees — for what you call the greater good is more troublesome knowing that it’s been floated for over 20 years. As you’ve shown, house values in 1998 were a mere pittance of their value today. Yet, you would have proposed a fee on homeowners to still take 1% of a sale, a cost seemingly more unjust than today (since the homeowners didn’t have the equity growth seen today, supposedly through no effort of their own beyond breathing).
The push to save our beloved community has been used as a tactic for well over two decades and is really meant to divide us. After all, you must be an awful person to not help out your fellow neighbor. Yet Somerville, with one of the most aggressive subsidized housing policies in the state, continues this tactic and has barely realized those benefits for long-term Somerville residents. Your solution is to throw more money at it at the home owner’s expense without letting the homeowner see where their money is spent or know that it’s really helping out, while other communities don’t do the same?? I’ll play along when every community in the state plays along and when your gang accepts that there is a limit.
So, why don’t you and your fellow revolutionists just come out and say that you love subsidized housing and that you have no other solutions (or choose not to find them) to keep Somerville affordable for anyone. I would respect you more. Maybe then we can find real ways to tackle this complex issue. It’s not lost on me that I could not buy my house today at my current salary. At the same time, I can’t be expected to solve a statewide problem. We aren’t Massachusetts’s trust fund.
This thing is already dead in the water. It will never get through at the state level. But at the very least they should be putting this on the ballot as a question to the people before they go tinkering with stuff like this. Not these happy, puffed up little overlords. For now let’s let them enjoy their sh*t eating grins and condescending antics. Bunch of rank amateurs. Once this is all over and they’ve been slapped back a few Tuesdays maybe they’ll get a little humility. Probably not, but one can hope. So kids, the next time these twa— er…twits are up for re-election you know what to do. Vote early, vote often.
I’d love to know how Our Revolution felt watching last night’s meeting as their “Dream Slate” buckled under the pressure when it came time to vote on the HRP Transfer Tax. Not such an easy decision when over 65% of the community is adamantly against this tax. Shame on Mark N, Matt M and Lance D for being the driving force behind dividing our community. You three are now on everyone’s radar and will likely face an opponent in the next election.
Finally the light bulb went on for some of the BOA. There needs to be an extensive audit of the Affordable Housing Trust as no one can say for sure where all the money has gone and what it has exactly been used for. Fact: The Affordable Housing Trust has not been audited since 2008. That’s 10 years and a lot of money that has never had to be answered for. It’s time for a forensic audit by a reputable outside source to give the public some clarity on what is actually being done with the funds and who is actually benefiting from their use. I think a lot of folks might just be surprised with what is uncovered, and a few folks might just be a little worried.
Gaspar, If its put to a citywide vote it will assuredly pass. We have a history of voting for new taxes that are either not well targeted (CPA) or uncapped (HS Funding). Plus the message behind it is a populist one that pulls at the heart strings of folks who believe that long term renters shouldn’t be forced to move because of market forces and those who want a hand up in achieving home ownership in the city they live in. While i think these are great things, I would vote against them until there is a sound plan in place… I think i may be in the minority of voters.
By the same token, I would like to live in Back Bay in a brownstone….or maybe Beacon Hill. Where is my affordable house in those areas? People should buy where they can afford to live. Period.
People who buy in an areas are taking risk. Renters do not have that risk. If an area goes down the sewer, a renter hands in his 30 day notice and can leave. Buyers do not have that luxury. So when the area goes down, is anyone from Revolution Somerville going to suggest that these homeowners get money from the city to cover their losses? Of course not.
So, the other side of the coin is that when the area does well, the homeowner does well. Yes, I can afford to live in a Condo in Somerville. You know why? Because I grafted very hard for 4 years in undergrad, 3 years in law school, took on $150k in student loans, passed two bar exams, took a low paying clerkship in 2006 (paying $40k) and worked my way up to Partner at a firm over 8 years…..this took many years of hard work and long hours. Many people don’t want to do the hard graft. They just want their “affordable house” given to them. No, I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth. My father was born in the projects of North Cambridge and died young. My mother was a flight attendant with no college degree. You want to live in Somerville? Figure out a way to make reach your goal and work hard at it.
To those who are proponents of the ‘moral argument’: how is it moral to put a gun to the head of homeowners and demand ANY portion of what they own? How is it acceptable to violate basic principals of consent? Taking from someone else something you didn’t earn is the definition of Theft. Coveting what is not yours is the definition of greed. Yet, it is the property owners who are labeled greedy and covetous.
Private property is a commodity, not a public good. The minute you declare that a commodity is a public good to be regulated by the government, then the government has the right to take that amenity away depending on the political motivation of the ruling party.
Alderman Scott made the same argument against the city’s seizure of his property through eminent domain (in the name of creating more housing/commercial property via private developer). He even made a presentation to the CAC about the value of his private business over proposed new development which would provide much needed housing that his current property would not. If Alderman Scott can make the case that his gym on his private property should be exempt from the deal between the City and a private developer, then property owners should be able to make the case that the profit from the sale of their property should be exempt from City management.
Oliver, its a tax – plain and simple that the city wants to levy and target the revenues in a very specific way. They could turn around and add $0.50/thousand on your property tax and accomplish the same thing. right.. it would probably be a lot to avoid the home rule petition, put it on the ballot and watch it pass along with the midterm elections coming up.
While people think this is not going to happen, i think its inevitable (in one form or another) and I want to make sure that the way we spend it is as targeted and as transparent as possible.
These people were never taught to live within their means. They are trust fund kids who suckled on the teats of their wealthy parents until even the parents said ENOUGH. Now they’re looking for handouts from the working people of Somerville who scrimped and saved and played by the rules all their lives. Funny how when we made a good investment by staying in our homes, they say it was just “dumb luck.” I guess we couldn’t possibly be smart to enough to know what’s good for us. But if it was them, they would be touting their investment prowess and intellectual achievements. “Look, Mom and Dad! Do you approve of me now??” Somerville locals need to RESIST! They have already destroyed so much of our community and look down on us when we try to stand up for ourselves. Did you see all the smirks and laughter when long time residents spoke at the public hearing on this tax? They have nothing but contempt and disdain for anyone who isn’t Ivy League educated and part of the country club set. Have they ever heard, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house”?
I fail to see where “all” are funding these proposals. Absentee owners are unable to vote in the city and are going to pay for this. Already the state collects capital gains, as does the IRS (there is no 250 k deduction for single and 500k for married). For years the absentee owner has not gotten residential exemptions (worth 2-3k per year. Put another way – the long term owners have “made out” and are exempt?).
As a responsible non owner occupied housing provider I do not get any deduction for being a senior. Nor a veteran. Nor being disabled. Where is the “all” in that? Where is my benefit for having rents below market and not doing the very short term rentals?
If the city really wants the current proposals please prove to us how well the CPA funds have been invested. And how much was doled out in govt payrolls vs community things.
What 98 percent of you are missing is the reason WHY housing and other things have increased at such a fast rate. Its due to the fed res. Audit it.