<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:gml="http://www.opengis.net/gml"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Is Freakonomics Right for the Wrong Reasons?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://raincityguide.com/2007/02/12/is-freakonomics-right-for-the-wrong-reasons/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://raincityguide.com/2007/02/12/is-freakonomics-right-for-the-wrong-reasons/</link>
	<description>Seattle&#039;s Leading Resource for Real Estate Information</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 06:01:18 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Rhonda Porter</title>
		<link>http://raincityguide.com/2007/02/12/is-freakonomics-right-for-the-wrong-reasons/#comment-101460</link>
		<dc:creator>Rhonda Porter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:14:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://raincityguide.com/2007/02/12/is-freakonomics-right-for-the-wrong-reasons/#comment-101460</guid>
		<description>Ardell, I think your comment to Jen would be an excellent post (if you haven&#039;t done one on pricing homes all ready).   That&#039;s great info.   Just my 2 cents.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ardell, I think your comment to Jen would be an excellent post (if you haven&#8217;t done one on pricing homes all ready).   That&#8217;s great info.   Just my 2 cents.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ARDELL</title>
		<link>http://raincityguide.com/2007/02/12/is-freakonomics-right-for-the-wrong-reasons/#comment-101390</link>
		<dc:creator>ARDELL</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 2007 07:08:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://raincityguide.com/2007/02/12/is-freakonomics-right-for-the-wrong-reasons/#comment-101390</guid>
		<description>Jen,

Just don&#039;t be &quot;a 59er&quot; as in $259,000 or $359,000.  Be a buyer and look at your house on a site that makes you look in price tiers as in $350,000 to $375,000.  Look at all the homes and make sure yours &quot;lines up&quot;.  give the low side of the street, yours should look like the best home in the price tier and near the top of the tier and not the bottom.  A $349,950 will sell better than a $359,950.  A $319,000 will often get past over as people &quot;stretch up&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jen,</p>
<p>Just don&#8217;t be &#8220;a 59er&#8221; as in $259,000 or $359,000.  Be a buyer and look at your house on a site that makes you look in price tiers as in $350,000 to $375,000.  Look at all the homes and make sure yours &#8220;lines up&#8221;.  give the low side of the street, yours should look like the best home in the price tier and near the top of the tier and not the bottom.  A $349,950 will sell better than a $359,950.  A $319,000 will often get past over as people &#8220;stretch up&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jen in WA</title>
		<link>http://raincityguide.com/2007/02/12/is-freakonomics-right-for-the-wrong-reasons/#comment-101387</link>
		<dc:creator>Jen in WA</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 2007 06:36:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://raincityguide.com/2007/02/12/is-freakonomics-right-for-the-wrong-reasons/#comment-101387</guid>
		<description>Ardell,

Thanks for the clarifications - you have given me some things to consider, for sure.

We are on a hill, so we have a view from the back side of our house - but not as nice as the view from the upper houses, I am sure.  

Yes, our house was pretty reasonably priced when we bought it (but with a lot of positives) and I think our initial asking price was definitely too high, as evidenced by the lack of offers or even much interest.  I&#039;ll talk to my agent about some additional repricing to put it in the lower tier, if it doesn&#039;t move soon where we have it now (in the middle of a pricing tier).

Thanks, 
Jen.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ardell,</p>
<p>Thanks for the clarifications &#8211; you have given me some things to consider, for sure.</p>
<p>We are on a hill, so we have a view from the back side of our house &#8211; but not as nice as the view from the upper houses, I am sure.  </p>
<p>Yes, our house was pretty reasonably priced when we bought it (but with a lot of positives) and I think our initial asking price was definitely too high, as evidenced by the lack of offers or even much interest.  I&#8217;ll talk to my agent about some additional repricing to put it in the lower tier, if it doesn&#8217;t move soon where we have it now (in the middle of a pricing tier).</p>
<p>Thanks,<br />
Jen.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ARDELL</title>
		<link>http://raincityguide.com/2007/02/12/is-freakonomics-right-for-the-wrong-reasons/#comment-101382</link>
		<dc:creator>ARDELL</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 2007 06:19:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://raincityguide.com/2007/02/12/is-freakonomics-right-for-the-wrong-reasons/#comment-101382</guid>
		<description>Hi Jen,

A &quot;T house&quot; is at a T intersection, usually when you enter a development there is a dead end where one must go right or left.  There is a house right in front of you.  That is &quot;the T house&quot;.  In winter when it gets dark early, that house gets the headlights of everyone coming home from work who enters the development.  They must stop and then turn right or left and the headlights are usually pointed straight into the living room of &quot;the T house&quot;.

You touched on the one I rarely mention, but we have a lot of here in Kirkland.  The &quot;front door is lower than the pavement&quot; house.  It&#039;s not a killer, but where it is hilly, and we love our hills for view considerations, one side of the street is &quot;the high side&quot; and one is &quot;the low side&quot;.  The benefit in view neighborhoods is if the land drops down toward the lake, the views from the back of the low side are fabulous.  My house would be that except there is a porch with steps up to the front door, so the front yard is steps down from the pavement, but the house is steps up to the porch and front door.

Some houses are so low that the pavement is at window level of the house.  I&#039;ve seen some where the roof is at pavement level in CA.  

You just can&#039;t &quot;comp&quot;, when setting price, to houses on the high side.  Don&#039;t think about &quot;next price reduction&quot;.  Get it priced properly now before you get more competition come May and June.  Value is relative.  If the same house with door at or above street level is $350,000, then yours should be about $325,000. 

If you are lucky, you can be at a &quot;price point&quot;, meaning if the high side is $325,000, then you can be $299,950.  Same price differential, but better results.  The difference is usually not less than 5% and not more than 8%.  Pretty much the same for a T house.

One of the fears of a &quot;low house&quot; is water intrusion, as water runs downhill.  So have good records of no water penetration or water runoff issues or standing water in front yard issues.  Also below grade sewer lines that have to &quot;run up&quot; to the street sewer connection unless you connect to a line in the rear.

Was it a &quot;good value&quot; when you bought it?  And does your price currently reflect that same &quot;good value&quot; today?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Jen,</p>
<p>A &#8220;T house&#8221; is at a T intersection, usually when you enter a development there is a dead end where one must go right or left.  There is a house right in front of you.  That is &#8220;the T house&#8221;.  In winter when it gets dark early, that house gets the headlights of everyone coming home from work who enters the development.  They must stop and then turn right or left and the headlights are usually pointed straight into the living room of &#8220;the T house&#8221;.</p>
<p>You touched on the one I rarely mention, but we have a lot of here in Kirkland.  The &#8220;front door is lower than the pavement&#8221; house.  It&#8217;s not a killer, but where it is hilly, and we love our hills for view considerations, one side of the street is &#8220;the high side&#8221; and one is &#8220;the low side&#8221;.  The benefit in view neighborhoods is if the land drops down toward the lake, the views from the back of the low side are fabulous.  My house would be that except there is a porch with steps up to the front door, so the front yard is steps down from the pavement, but the house is steps up to the porch and front door.</p>
<p>Some houses are so low that the pavement is at window level of the house.  I&#8217;ve seen some where the roof is at pavement level in CA.  </p>
<p>You just can&#8217;t &#8220;comp&#8221;, when setting price, to houses on the high side.  Don&#8217;t think about &#8220;next price reduction&#8221;.  Get it priced properly now before you get more competition come May and June.  Value is relative.  If the same house with door at or above street level is $350,000, then yours should be about $325,000. </p>
<p>If you are lucky, you can be at a &#8220;price point&#8221;, meaning if the high side is $325,000, then you can be $299,950.  Same price differential, but better results.  The difference is usually not less than 5% and not more than 8%.  Pretty much the same for a T house.</p>
<p>One of the fears of a &#8220;low house&#8221; is water intrusion, as water runs downhill.  So have good records of no water penetration or water runoff issues or standing water in front yard issues.  Also below grade sewer lines that have to &#8220;run up&#8221; to the street sewer connection unless you connect to a line in the rear.</p>
<p>Was it a &#8220;good value&#8221; when you bought it?  And does your price currently reflect that same &#8220;good value&#8221; today?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jen in WA</title>
		<link>http://raincityguide.com/2007/02/12/is-freakonomics-right-for-the-wrong-reasons/#comment-101379</link>
		<dc:creator>Jen in WA</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 2007 05:56:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://raincityguide.com/2007/02/12/is-freakonomics-right-for-the-wrong-reasons/#comment-101379</guid>
		<description>I found this article very interesting, as well as the article about &quot;Why hasn&#039;t my house SOLD yet?&quot;  I have read Freakonomics and enjoyed it immensely.  I think the authors had some points, but this is an interesting additional perspective.  We are homeowners in South King County in the process of repricing our home after almost a month on the market and no offers.  I have a question about terminology - what is a &quot;T house?&quot;

I have a feeling that we may have made a few purchasing mistakes with our house that is making it hard to sell.  For example, the &quot;pavement&quot; (a gravel road in our case) is higher than our house.  Is there any hope for selling our home?  And how long should we wait after a pricing decrease to see results before we lower our price again?  

I liked the questions to ask the agent before he/she puts in an offer for you - we will be making an offer on another place soon and I will be sure to ask our buyer&#039;s agent those questions.  

Thank you for this interesting and informative blog.

-Jennifer.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I found this article very interesting, as well as the article about &#8220;Why hasn&#8217;t my house SOLD yet?&#8221;  I have read Freakonomics and enjoyed it immensely.  I think the authors had some points, but this is an interesting additional perspective.  We are homeowners in South King County in the process of repricing our home after almost a month on the market and no offers.  I have a question about terminology &#8211; what is a &#8220;T house?&#8221;</p>
<p>I have a feeling that we may have made a few purchasing mistakes with our house that is making it hard to sell.  For example, the &#8220;pavement&#8221; (a gravel road in our case) is higher than our house.  Is there any hope for selling our home?  And how long should we wait after a pricing decrease to see results before we lower our price again?  </p>
<p>I liked the questions to ask the agent before he/she puts in an offer for you &#8211; we will be making an offer on another place soon and I will be sure to ask our buyer&#8217;s agent those questions.  </p>
<p>Thank you for this interesting and informative blog.</p>
<p>-Jennifer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian Brady</title>
		<link>http://raincityguide.com/2007/02/12/is-freakonomics-right-for-the-wrong-reasons/#comment-101376</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Brady</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 2007 05:46:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://raincityguide.com/2007/02/12/is-freakonomics-right-for-the-wrong-reasons/#comment-101376</guid>
		<description>Thanks.  Hope to see the post soon!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks.  Hope to see the post soon!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ARDELL</title>
		<link>http://raincityguide.com/2007/02/12/is-freakonomics-right-for-the-wrong-reasons/#comment-101372</link>
		<dc:creator>ARDELL</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 2007 04:57:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://raincityguide.com/2007/02/12/is-freakonomics-right-for-the-wrong-reasons/#comment-101372</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m due for an article.  I&#039;ll address that in a post Brian.  Hopefully by night end.  I want to include some real specifics, and not just a general opinion.  I&#039;ll use some &quot;apples to apples&quot; examples to track appreciation rates.  Generally the answer is yes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m due for an article.  I&#8217;ll address that in a post Brian.  Hopefully by night end.  I want to include some real specifics, and not just a general opinion.  I&#8217;ll use some &#8220;apples to apples&#8221; examples to track appreciation rates.  Generally the answer is yes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian Brady</title>
		<link>http://raincityguide.com/2007/02/12/is-freakonomics-right-for-the-wrong-reasons/#comment-101363</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Brady</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 2007 04:35:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://raincityguide.com/2007/02/12/is-freakonomics-right-for-the-wrong-reasons/#comment-101363</guid>
		<description>Off topic but I wanted to ask you a question, Ardell.

Has Seattle been a rising market from Feb, 2005 through today?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Off topic but I wanted to ask you a question, Ardell.</p>
<p>Has Seattle been a rising market from Feb, 2005 through today?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ARDELL</title>
		<link>http://raincityguide.com/2007/02/12/is-freakonomics-right-for-the-wrong-reasons/#comment-96673</link>
		<dc:creator>ARDELL</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Feb 2007 06:08:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://raincityguide.com/2007/02/12/is-freakonomics-right-for-the-wrong-reasons/#comment-96673</guid>
		<description>I agree.  In fact, I think it is bad advertising to have a sign out that sits forever.  But I&#039;ve certainly heard that reasoning many times from agents.  It&#039;s the same as an agent who does Open Houses to &quot;get buyers&quot;.  And then they wonder why they never sell a listing at an Open House.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree.  In fact, I think it is bad advertising to have a sign out that sits forever.  But I&#8217;ve certainly heard that reasoning many times from agents.  It&#8217;s the same as an agent who does Open Houses to &#8220;get buyers&#8221;.  And then they wonder why they never sell a listing at an Open House.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reba Haas</title>
		<link>http://raincityguide.com/2007/02/12/is-freakonomics-right-for-the-wrong-reasons/#comment-96657</link>
		<dc:creator>Reba Haas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Feb 2007 05:25:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://raincityguide.com/2007/02/12/is-freakonomics-right-for-the-wrong-reasons/#comment-96657</guid>
		<description>Time in the business has nothing to do with realizing that this is a poor business practice. It&#039;s great if a listing provides that kind of exposure but to take one just for that aspect and potentially abusing the client in the process is not something I&#039;d advocate.  There are too many agents that think more about marketing themselves rather than their clients property which is not where the focus should be. If you provide a good product and can run your business efficiently you should be able to do better than just stick a sign on a busy road to attract business.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Time in the business has nothing to do with realizing that this is a poor business practice. It&#8217;s great if a listing provides that kind of exposure but to take one just for that aspect and potentially abusing the client in the process is not something I&#8217;d advocate.  There are too many agents that think more about marketing themselves rather than their clients property which is not where the focus should be. If you provide a good product and can run your business efficiently you should be able to do better than just stick a sign on a busy road to attract business.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
