--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
, "Dan Sullivan"
> Roy, all this is irrelevant. There are rental
> units for less than $389 in Pittsburgh,
> Craigslist not withstanding.
You said "houses," so I looked for houses. Not
"rental units." A "rental unit" could be a
basement bedroom. And $389/month is still
DOUBLE the approximate proposed exemption.
> Moreover, the rent of an apartment unit has to
> do with many factors besides land value.
You said, "houses," so houses it is. And when
you are looking at the lowest of low-end rentals,
land value is pretty much all there is to it.
> The pertinent data is that there are many,
> many sales of vacant buildable lots for
> $300-$500 in slum areas.
That is an unsupported claim, not "data."
> Nobody wants to build on them, but people had
> built on them in the past, and houses sitting
> next to them are therefore sitting on $300 to
> $500 parcels.
Except that for some reason, despite being fully
depreciated, those houses aren't for sale for
> Those houses still have
> maintenance costs, and still command rents.
> Generally, they are rented to people who are
> too poor to have computers, so there would be
> little point in listing them on Craigslist.
Even if that were true, which it isn't, where is
the evidence that such properties even exist?
> You can look wherever you want, but as long as
> you ignore the pertinent data, i.e., land sales,
> you are just grasping at straws. Give it a rest.
Please indicate where these land sales data can be
found. I would suggest that "grasping at straws"
more accurately describes the claim of single-
family lots in Pittsburgh yielding rent of $30/yr.
-- Roy Langston