0
0

Transparency


 invite response                
2007 Aug 20, 12:37am   18,040 views  161 comments

by Patrick   ➕follow (59)   💰tip   ignore  

transparent canoe

What would a completely transparent real estate market look like? Could it ever be achieved, and if so, how?

I mean immediate and reliable data on all completed house sales, all houses for sale, and local population housing wants and financial abilities, all available to everyone for no cost.

I think such freedom from data delays, broker data hiding, and the manipulation of statistics by the NAR would the healthiest thing for the market. But since there are only weak requirements to report house sales (in San Mateo County, for example, only the easily-manipulated transfer tax is reported) and no requirements at all to report houses for sale or accept the advertised price, I don't know exactly where to get the data.

Maybe some system like gasbuddy.com is the answer, where anyone can report prices and sales in their area. But gas prices are very easily verified, just by buying some gas, while house sale data is usually delayed and/or hidden.

Patrick

#housing

« First        Comments 147 - 161 of 161        Search these comments

147   Peter P   2007 Aug 21, 5:39pm  

I don’t think is unAmerican and poor taste to browse through readily available data, I am not the one to put these data on the internet to begin with, you should blame the service provider.

But renting is un-American.

http://tinyurl.com/yupvgf

148   SP   2007 Aug 21, 5:43pm  

Some simple-minded idiot called Kathleen Pender wrote in the SF Chronic-le today that "Higher jumbo-loan limits would help borrowers in the Bay Area". http://tinyurl.com/ys8wa7

No mention of the fact that "Lower jumbo loan limits would help buyers by bringing home prices down to sensible levels." If you have a login at the site, I would recommend adding a comment to point this out...

SP

149   DennisN   2007 Aug 21, 7:09pm  

Cupertino once had a soul: an Italian soul. It was named after their homtown back in Italy. www.laterradipuglia.it/ing/wines/copertino.htm Those old-time farmers are now sadly long gone.

150   danville woman   2007 Aug 21, 10:08pm  

OO

You have too much time on your hands. Rather than feeling better about yourself by seeing how badly other people are doing, you may wish to do PRODUCTIVE things to make yourself feel better.

151   astrid   2007 Aug 21, 11:32pm  

SP,

(Apologies for everyone for, ergh, doing what I usually do)

The main reason is that we're bringing two D80s with us, so for night time photography, we want to have two cameras running long exposures. Also for waterfalls, since we can't get the silky water effect with handheld. Also for small aperture landscapes.

We do have an 18-200mm VR but all our other lenses are non-VR and our 70-300mm is pretty slow.

Finally, one of the tripods has a (non-detachable) pan head that we already hate, so that one will probably be left in Iceland. That might be the main reason, so we can justify dumping a perfectly nice $40 tripod.

152   SFWoman   2007 Aug 22, 1:10am  

astrid,

I have left umbrella strollers on baggage carousels all over the world. Perhaps your tripod will go live with them.

153   PermaRenter   2007 Aug 22, 1:14am  

Temporary OMO: Fed adds $2.00 billion with overnight RP

154   HARM   2007 Aug 22, 3:17am  

@Original Bankster,

I flagged that one for... "Best of CL". ;-)

155   SP   2007 Aug 22, 3:18am  

[we have a new topic, so I hope the OT isn't an issue... :-) ]

astrid Says:
The main reason is that we’re bringing two D80s with us, so for night time photography, we want to have two cameras running long exposures. Also for waterfalls, since we can’t get the silky water effect with handheld.

Ahso! That's pretty much the two cases for which a tripod is still useful with a dslr. The third is when you want to set-up to photograph remotely. I used to lug a 3pod around for a while, but got tired of fiddling with adjustments in 3 planes to get a good composition.

Also for small aperture landscapes.

Only in low light. Otherwise f/8 or f/11 has still given me about 1/30, which is fine on a handheld VR lens.

We do have an 18-200mm VR

That is one sweet all-purpose travel lens. (I assume you mean the Nikkor 18-200).

SP

156   Peter P   2007 Aug 22, 3:43am  

Only in low light. Otherwise f/8 or f/11 has still given me about 1/30, which is fine on a handheld VR lens.

For landscapes, don't you need 1/32 for the field depth?

18-200mm

OMG, it that a DSLR "only" lense?

157   astrid   2007 Aug 22, 5:07am  

SP,

Yep, that's the one.

Peter P,

Yeah, its a dSLR only lens. It only works on 1.6 crop factor sensors.

You can read more about it here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200.htm

158   skibum   2007 Aug 22, 5:19am  

Surfer, this ones for you.

Dammit - they've already taken the post off of CL. What was the deal?

159   DennisN   2007 Aug 22, 5:28am  

It was about a woman advertising her numerous charms.

160   SP   2007 Aug 23, 5:11am  

Peter P Says:
For landscapes, don’t you need 1/32 for the field depth?

Not necessarily so. A smaller aperture will give you more DOF, but if you focus at the hyperfocal distance, everything from that point to infinity will be in focus. On older lenses, this used to be marked with a little infinity symbol on the focus-ring - on newer ones, it is not always marked.

For my 50mm lens, set to f/16, the hyperfocal distance is about 21 feet. If I focus at 21 feet, pretty much everything from 11 feet (about half of HFD) to infinity is sharp. And on my old 28mm lens at f/16, I used to get hyperfocus from 3 feet to infinity.

Not photographic advice :-)
SP

161   Peter P   2007 Aug 23, 8:06am  

True. This is why compact digital cameras (with tiny lens) never have DOF issues. :)

« First        Comments 147 - 161 of 161        Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions