Brighton Area

[LiveAndLetBuy]

...

I agree (I think) - all things being equal I'd buy into a 20% drop from here. Even if the market subsequently drops by another 10% it wouldn't bother me. Trying to catch the exact bottom of a market is a fools game. 20% off should allow people who have been reponsibly saving these last 10 years to get a decent place, and that's what counts. Personally I think the housing market for the next decade is going to be like the stock market was during the last decade - lots of alarms and a few ups and downs, but it'll end the decade lower than it started it. Maybe then everybody can forget about house prices and go and do something useful instead

[Tired of Waiting]

From another thread, I though you all would like to see this:

I bought a flat in Brighton for 25k in 1994 - the mate I bought it off said it was valued at 80k at its peak..

[Tired of Waiting]

(... I would say about 25% maximum (...) if you think any more then that you live in fantasy world- Brighton is save due to location (...)

Rightmove House (Asking) Price Index July 2010

Biggest fall: Kensington and Chelsea: -5.2% in one month.

( "Location location location " )

Better informed sellers? And buyers too? = better informed market, forecasting what is coming? (On page 8.)

LINK: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/news/files/2010/07/july-2010.pdf

The higher the froth, the biggest the fall. Brighton will see one of the biggest falls in the country.

[Tired of Waiting]

Another one:

i bought a flat in bournemouth in 1996, £33500. from memory 10% deposit, interest rate on loan 8%, i remember paying about £300 a month to the bank.

everyone i knew told me i was crazy, even the adviser reminded me of 15% interest rates a few years before.

and before you start on me i ama complete bear, i live in rental these days.

[shell]

Oh TOW, doncha know bull fighting's been banned? Well, in Catalonia anyway You'll never convince a bull that Brighton isn't crash proof. They're so deluded. Clearly none of them ever lived in Brighton the last time she toppled.

God, all my homeowner mates are moaning moaning moaning about being skint. It's so boring. I just wish they were all repo-ed and they could all start again by being honestly poor instead of covertly. They all shudder when I tell them the rent I'm paying, saying 'Ooh I cld never afford that!' Buncha povvers in their enormous family houses. It's pathetic!

Edited to add : Pls no one have a go at me for wishing my homeowner mates get repo-ed. I mean they are quite happy that there are many who can't afford a home. And after all, there is always rented accommodation when they do eventually lose their homes. I've put up with renting. Don't see why they can't. And if they can't afford Brighton's currently overpriced rentals, well, the prices will just have to come down won't they. See, it'll all work out nicely in the end.

Edited July 31, 2010 by shell

[Tired of Waiting]

Oh TOW, doncha know bull fighting's been banned? Well, in Catalonia anyway You'll never convince a bull that Brighton isn't crash proof. They're so deluded. Clearly none of them ever lived in Brighton the last time she toppled.

God, all my homeowner mates are moaning moaning moaning about being skint. It's so boring. I just wish they were all repo-ed and they could all start again by being honestly poor instead of covertly. They all shudder when I tell them the rent I'm paying, saying 'Ooh I cld never afford that!' Buncha povvers in their enormous family houses. It's pathetic!

Edited to add : Pls no one have a go at me for wishing my homeowner mates get repo-ed. I mean they are quite happy that there are many who can't afford a home. And after all, there is always rented accommodation when they do eventually lose their homes. I've put up with renting. Don't see why they can't. And if they can't afford Brighton's currently overpriced rentals, well, the prices will just have to come down won't they. See, it'll all work out nicely in the end.

I think I created a slogan today, in the main forum: The market is frothier at the top.

Very interesting that home "owners" can't afford rents. Now that you told the story, yes, of course, it was predictable, obvious, with these low IRs, but I had not thought about that. Thanks for pointing that out.

Your feelings, craving some fairness and realism, are very understandable.

And you are right that corrections correct things.

[whatcrash?]

The higher the froth, the biggest the fall. Brighton will see one of the biggest falls in the country.

Different scenario completly, you could be paying 300to500k for a tiny tiny tiny flat with a lease of 30 years remaining.

I'm sorry you will never ever ever pick up a flat like in the 90s EVER. Sorry not going to happen. Let me put it this way...if you could pick up flats for 50k (twice the price compared to the example you gave in the 90s) then the market could be controlled by a small group with a bit of money..What I mean is if somebody has a couple of million quid - I'm guessing doomsday thats what you are predicting so the bank only give him / her a 50% loan right...he would have four million to spend he could buy 80 flats!!! And there are lots and lots and lots of people with that kind of money lying around. Now you dont need to be a rocket scientist to work out that would be an amazing deal(there is massive demand for flats in brighton massive - blame the council for giving people that never worked a place)! And that there are not that many flats in brighton!!! No problem with renting them out - none whatsover...So you are saying but there will not be anybody with that kind of money to invest well you are wrong plain wrong. There are people that get this kind of money every year easily...and there are hundreds with tens of millions in liquid assets - London is rich I mean rich beyond your wildest dreams (i'm not saying i am but one can dream) but you just have to look prices in kensington...Anyway you would only need one person with 10 million and he could buy a large chunck of stock if he wanted to...or somebody to create a fund....basically if it all goes pearshaped for your scenario to work..investor would look for property again and at 50k it would be a steal...Of course not one individual can control the entire market but they could drive prices back up easily..

Please be reallistic...50k in liverpool city center maybe but not brighton...just ask yourself if a nice flat in brighton is 50k how many readers of this forum would buy it all of them...and what happens then the prices go up. Dont get me wrong i think the market will correct itself but never more then 25% off peack.

Tired of Waiting how much do you think a nice one bed flat without garden in regency flat will go nice location etc etc high celling, not basement.. just a basic figure so we know what you are thinkig..

Brighton is a different place compared to 15 years ago...25% drop maximum.. you either cant accept that the demand is massive in brighton or you a dreamer sorry thats a fact. Brighton needs at least 15k flats to bring prices a bit down..and I'm not talking social housing.

As for that post about having people evicted ...rotten to the core.....nothing would give your more pleasure to see your "friends" being evicted...I think there is such a think as karma You deserve everything you get...how are the pensioners in king alfred

[LiveAndLetBuy]

Different scenario completly, you could be paying 300to500k for a tiny tiny tiny flat with a lease of 30 years remaining.

I'm sorry you will never ever ever pick up a flat like in the 90s EVER. Sorry not going to happen. Let me put it this way...if you could pick up flats for 50k (twice the price compared to the example you gave in the 90s) then the market could be controlled by a small group with a bit of money..What I mean is if somebody has a couple of million quid - I'm guessing doomsday thats what you are predicting so the bank only give him / her a 50% loan right...he would have four million to spend he could buy 80 flats!!! And there are lots and lots and lots of people with that kind of money lying around. Now you dont need to be a rocket scientist to work out that would be an amazing deal(there is massive demand for flats in brighton massive - blame the council for giving people that never worked a place)! And that there are not that many flats in brighton!!! No problem with renting them out - none whatsover...So you are saying but there will not be anybody with that kind of money to invest well you are wrong plain wrong. There are people that get this kind of money every year easily...and there are hundreds with tens of millions in liquid assets - London is rich I mean rich beyond your wildest dreams (i'm not saying i am but one can dream) but you just have to look prices in kensington...Anyway you would only need one person with 10 million and he could buy a large chunck of stock if he wanted to...or somebody to create a fund....basically if it all goes pearshaped for your scenario to work..investor would look for property again and at 50k it would be a steal...Of course not one individual can control the entire market but they could drive prices back up easily..

I don't think ToW is saying that flats in Brighton will return to mid-90s prices - he's just saying that in the last crash there were cases of flats dropping to a third of their peak prices. Unfortunately most of those bargains went to estate agents (or their mates). I remember flats out by the marina dropping by 50%, while I don't think flats in the centre dropped by so much because they hadn't been inflated so much during the 80s boom (Brighton wasn't the place to be back then)

However the reason we have property crashes now and then is because there suddenly isn't enough people with enough money (or credit) to prop up the market like you suggest. Yes there are plenty of people around the place with a few million stashed away, but most of them are also holding a few million in property (if not a BTL portfolio then at least a nice place for themselves). So their few million stashed away can very quickly be reduced to much less during a property crash, and they are simply unable to snap up the bargains like you say. Sure they might pick up one or two bargains, but that's just a drop in the ocean.

Please be reallistic...50k in liverpool city center maybe but not brighton...just ask yourself if a nice flat in brighton is 50k how many readers of this forum would buy it all of them...and what happens then the prices go up. Dont get me wrong i think the market will correct itself but never more then 25% off peack.

If we get a recession with interest rates at 10% then you might find that fewer people than you imagine can afford a 50k flat. However I personally don't think that will happen very soon. As I mentioned earlier I think we're heading for about 20% drops over many years, maybe a decade. At which point nobody will be bothered with house prices and we'll have all moved on to other things to complain about.

Tired of Waiting how much do you think a nice one bed flat without garden in regency flat will go nice location etc etc high celling, not basement.. just a basic figure so we know what you are thinkig..

Brighton is a different place compared to 15 years ago...25% drop maximum.. you either cant accept that the demand is massive in brighton or you a dreamer sorry thats a fact. Brighton needs at least 15k flats to bring prices a bit down..and I'm not talking social housing.

As for that post about having people evicted ...rotten to the core.....nothing would give your more pleasure to see your "friends" being evicted...I think there is such a think as karma You deserve everything you get...how are the pensioners in king alfred

[Tired of Waiting]

I don't think ToW is saying that flats in Brighton will return to mid-90s prices - he's just saying that in the last crash there were cases of flats dropping to a third of their peak prices. Unfortunately most of those bargains went to estate agents (or their mates). I remember flats out by the marina dropping by 50%, while I don't think flats in the centre dropped by so much because they hadn't been inflated so much during the 80s boom (Brighton wasn't the place to be back then)

However the reason we have property crashes now and then is because there suddenly isn't enough people with enough money (or credit) to prop up the market like you suggest. Yes there are plenty of people around the place with a few million stashed away, but most of them are also holding a few million in property (if not a BTL portfolio then at least a nice place for themselves). So their few million stashed away can very quickly be reduced to much less during a property crash, and they are simply unable to snap up the bargains like you say. Sure they might pick up one or two bargains, but that's just a drop in the ocean.

If we get a recession with interest rates at 10% then you might find that fewer people than you imagine can afford a 50k flat. However I personally don't think that will happen very soon. As I mentioned earlier I think we're heading for about 20% drops over many years, maybe a decade. At which point nobody will be bothered with house prices and we'll have all moved on to other things to complain about.

Thanks. You saved me a lot of time unravelling some of the HUGE mess that poster made.

Edit to add "HUGE".

Edited August 2, 2010 by Tired of Waiting

[whatcrash?]

so, I think i speak for most of us a drop of 25% is the maximum for brighton

Tired of Waiting...what do you think..?

Lets be honest 120k is a good price compare that to any european city its a bargain

Also I think I speak for most of us..we dont want families evicted from their houses ..I do however think that ppl that never paid into the pot should live outside the city...

[Tired of Waiting]

First of all, that wasn't my post:

As for that post about having people evicted ...rotten to the core.....nothing would give your more pleasure to see your "friends" being evicted...I think there is such a think as karma You deserve everything you get...how are the pensioners in king alfred

(...) I'm sorry you will never ever ever pick up a flat like in the 90s EVER. Sorry not going to happen. Let me put it this way...if you could pick up flats for 50k (twice the price compared to the example you gave in the 90s)

I didn't say that either. I didn't say that prices will be as cheap as in the last bottom. If you misread (misrepresent?) things, get all worked up, and then write lots of paragraphs in the wrong direction, then you waste your time, my time, and all readers time.

My main point was to argue against the "received wisdom" that expensive properties/areas should be more resilient to crashes. In any recession the most resilient products are the cheaper and more essential ones, and the products that suffer the most are the more expensive and more superfluous ones. In other words: It is frothier at the top.

There is no reason to suppose that housing would be different. Shelter is a basic need, of course, but in this case simpler housing should resist better the crash than silly extravagances.

More: There will be a market migration towards cheaper housing, hence the price gap will reduce.

(...)

you don't need to be a rocket scientist to work out that would be an amazing deal

(...)

So you are saying but there will not be anybody with that kind of money to invest well you are wrong plain wrong. There are people that get this kind of money every year easily...and there are hundreds with tens of millions in liquid assets

(...)

It was a bubble, remember? Those/these high prices are not the "normal" level. The correction will take prices down to normal levels. You are assuming that the low prices will be temporary, and then "bricks and mortar will come back up!" Sensible investors will realise that was a myth, and will not rush back. (I bet even you will see that in 10 years time.)

(...) there is massive demand for flats in brighton massive (...)

Demand = wishes + ability to pay.

No problem with renting them out - none whatsover...

Demand = wishes + ability to pay.

50k in liverpool city center maybe but not brighton...just ask yourself if a nice flat in brighton is 50k

Wasting time. I've never said 50k for a nice flat in Brighton. I just said that it is frothier at the top. Brighton expensive areas should fall more than the national average in the next years. And I think it will fall for longer. To use your example, Liverpool should reach the bottom of its market sooner than Brighton - more froth to dissipate here, and people and markets to "get real" (it takes time to change a culture - as you exemplify so well).

Dont get me wrong i think the market will correct itself but never more then 25% off peack.

If you are talking "nominal" prices (most probably), and in the next 2-3 years, then we are not too far apart. I think 25% nominal fall is about right. But I think real prices, and in the long term, will fall by much more than that in Brighton - as I think it is frothier at the top.

Edited August 2, 2010 by Tired of Waiting

[Tired of Waiting]

so, I think i speak for most of us a drop of 25% is the maximum for brighton

Tired of Waiting...what do you think..?

Lets be honest 120k is a good price compare that to any european city its a bargain

Also I think I speak for most of us..we dont want families evicted from their houses ..I do however think that ppl that never paid into the pot should live outside the city...

I've just replied to your previous post. Please take a look above.

Edit: Re. " 'families' (1) evicted from 'their houses' (2)".

1) I don't think anybody should be made homeless, of course. But I don't make any difference if they are in a family group, friendly group, singles, retired, white black or blue. But if people can't afford to pay for a mortgage, then they have to move to a cheaper property, or into rental. Why some people should be made to pay for the houses of other people? Housing support should be directed only to the legitimate needy - disabled, temporary jobless, elderly, etc.

2) "Their houses"? really? If it is already their houses, paid for, why are they in trouble? Or do you mean mortgage owners? Remember the wise words of Mervyn? Here: "House prices are a matter of opinion whereas debt is real."

Edited August 2, 2010 by Tired of Waiting

[LiveAndLetBuy]

...

Also I think I speak for most of us..we dont want families evicted from their houses ..I do however think that ppl that never paid into the pot should live outside the city...

If a family has overstretched themselves in order to own something they can't really afford then yes I think that thing should be taken away from them rather than have everyone else pay for their greed. Especially when those paying for their greed include other families who live within their means, even if that means having to rent.

It's a sorry situation to be in, but the inevitable outcome of housing booms is that families get burnt: families get burnt on the way up because they get priced out, and families get burnt on the way down when they can't pay their debts. There's no reason to think that one set should get special treatment over the other. Blame those who promote housing booms in the first place, not those who understand the inevitable outcome of it all.

[Tired of Waiting]

If a family has overstretched themselves in order to own something they can't really afford then yes I think that thing should be taken away from them rather than have everyone else pay for their greed. Especially when those paying for their greed include other families who live within their means, even if that means having to rent.

It's a sorry situation to be in, but the inevitable outcome of housing booms is that families get burnt: families get burnt on the way up because they get priced out, and families get burnt on the way down when they can't pay their debts. There's no reason to think that one set should get special treatment over the other. Blame those who promote housing booms in the first place, not those who understand the inevitable outcome of it all.

+1

I had just edited my post above yours, adding a similar argument.

[whatcrash?]

Most people that own property got there fair and square...within the law and rules of the times...nothing wrong with that! To wish that they get repossed ...another story...and you guys just accept it...she did not say they are behind on the payments not once....

If somebody is late or unemployed i agree we should not pay for them but it was never mentioned that they are late with payments as long as they make their payments what do we care...its a bit much really same if a company goes bust there is sooo much gleee when redundancy is annouced...Nobody stands up and say hold a minute thats a bit nasty....even if its with a pinch of salt..same person wished that somebodies business goes bust etc etc...

The problem is not people trying to better themself its the people that rely on the taxpayer...hopefully the tories will sort out the layabouts...if you are trying to make a better life for yourself or your family nothing wrong with that...if you live off the state then there is a problem...stop critisinc ppl that pay the rates etc....

[LiveAndLetBuy]

Most people that own property got there fair and square...within the law and rules of the times...nothing wrong with that!

Part of the law, and the rules of the times, is that if you can't pay your mortgage then you might get repossessed. Fair and square...nothing wrong with that!

To wish that they get repossed ...another story...and you guys just accept it...she did not say they are behind on the payments not once....

If somebody is late or unemployed i agree we should not pay for them but it was never mentioned that they are late with payments as long as they make their payments what do we care...its a bit much really same if a company goes bust there is sooo much gleee when redundancy is annouced...Nobody stands up and say hold a minute thats a bit nasty....even if its with a pinch of salt..same person wished that somebodies business goes bust etc etc...

The problem is not people trying to better themself its the people that rely on the taxpayer...hopefully the tories will sort out the layabouts...if you are trying to make a better life for yourself or your family nothing wrong with that...if you live off the state then there is a problem...stop critisinc ppl that pay the rates etc....

That's fair enough. I also think Shell comes over as slightly bitter: he/she seems to wish the worst for others for personal reasons rather than any desire for a more meritocratic system. I was lucky and bought my first house in 1997, and then traded up in 2000, so maybe if I hadn't been so lucky I'd feel the same. Then again, maybe if I had difficulties repaying my debt then I'd take offense at those who wish to see repossessions. Of course, if we hadn't had any of this stupid house price inflation to begin with we wouldn't be in such a divisive situation

[shell]

Part of the law, and the rules of the times, is that if you can't pay your mortgage then you might get repossessed. Fair and square...nothing wrong with that!

That's fair enough. I also think Shell comes over as slightly bitter: he/she seems to wish the worst for others for personal reasons rather than any desire for a more meritocratic system.

Oh, a personal attack. How disappointing. Don't worry I won't attack back. It's not my style. Perhaps I'm not quite 'bitter' enough to feel the need to go there.

People only think it's 'bitter' to want the reckless repo-ed when they perceive being repo-ed as a tragedy, which I simply don't.

If someone buys a car or a TV on credit and they can't service the loan then they have to give it back. Is that a tragedy? No. Give the damn car back!

What's different about giving back a house? So you live in it, so what? Renter families get turfed out of their beloved homes all the time. Do people perceive that as a tragedy? Of course not. It's all part of the game. So why is it a tragedy when the undeserving over-mortgaged get turfed out? They signed their mortgage deals. They over borrowed. Now they are jobless and broke and they knew when they signed the dotted line they'd have to ship out. So why the outrage on their behalf?

The repossessed don't become 'homeless' like tramps sleeping on a park bench. They rent. And if they can't afford to rent then they have to claim benefit. And if there isn't enough money in the govt coffers to pay them benefit, then all rents will have to come down. Now who would THAT be a tragedy for? Not me.

People are not designated 'homeless' just because they do not 'own' their own home. Renters are not 'homeless' because they are living in a rented home. Or is a rented home intrinsically and physically different somehow from a mortgaged one? If it is a tragedy to rent why aren't we all campaigning to help renters?

Anyway, just to annoy all the Brighton bulls out there - which isn't hard, I'll admit - I went to a party over the weekend and chatted to some builders. They were all moaning about work drying up and they all reckoned next year was going to be, guess what? 'REPO TIME'! Hooray!

[whatcrash?]

nonsense The argument is not about people that are behind payments, you never mentioned that your "friends" are behind..never.. you are just jealous and you wish them harm.... ---all of a sudden its about repo because they are late..NEVER DID YOU MENTION THEY ARE LATE JUST STRUGGLING You are just so bitter and its not the first time you wished they would loose their houses.. YOU also wished that another forum members business goes bust.....and you also had a go about norman that supports local businesses. I have asked before what do you do to society not much except a useless facebook campaign ( I would even build more flats)...you probably work for the council/ teacher or NPO it sound like you never lived in the real world!

You wish harm to everybody else so you can pick up the property cheap...well i dont think this is going to happen (not that cheap anyway)...dont wish harm on others...all of sudden you have not got a job because you wanted other too loser there jobs...could be that you dont have a job maybe

Maybe you should improve your life and be happy about your friends fortunes then maybe live will be more fortunate to you! Karma can be a b*****!

BTW who do you think pays for the king alfred your £2.00 admission does not cover the costs its the business and council tax payers that pay your lifestyle! Be grateful for once and next time you see somebody that has something you dont have...a. be happy for them that they made something of themself (and probably paid a lot of tax paying for roads & hospitales etc you use) and b ask yourself who can i have this - what do i need to change & do? Not I wish they would lose it and how much i hate them! just try not being so bitter

I'm glad to announce i'm on holiday from tomorrow afternoon so no posting from me for the next three weeks! There is internet access but I think I need a break

Edited August 2, 2010 by whatcrash?

[Potwalloper]

Maybe you should improve your life

I've heard that brushing up on literacy skills can be rewarding....

There are plenty of books on your subject.

[shell]

I've heard that brushing up on literacy skills can be rewarding....

There are plenty of books on your subject.

[LiveAndLetBuy]

Oh, a personal attack. How disappointing. Don't worry I won't attack back. It's not my style. Perhaps I'm not quite 'bitter' enough to feel the need to go there.

People only think it's 'bitter' to want the reckless repo-ed when they perceive being repo-ed as a tragedy, which I simply don't.

If someone buys a car or a TV on credit and they can't service the loan then they have to give it back. Is that a tragedy? No. Give the damn car back!

What's different about giving back a house? So you live in it, so what? Renter families get turfed out of their beloved homes all the time. Do people perceive that as a tragedy? Of course not. It's all part of the game. So why is it a tragedy when the undeserving over-mortgaged get turfed out? They signed their mortgage deals. They over borrowed. Now they are jobless and broke and they knew when they signed the dotted line they'd have to ship out. So why the outrage on their behalf?

The repossessed don't become 'homeless' like tramps sleeping on a park bench. They rent. And if they can't afford to rent then they have to claim benefit. And if there isn't enough money in the govt coffers to pay them benefit, then all rents will have to come down. Now who would THAT be a tragedy for? Not me.

People are not designated 'homeless' just because they do not 'own' their own home. Renters are not 'homeless' because they are living in a rented home. Or is a rented home intrinsically and physically different somehow from a mortgaged one? If it is a tragedy to rent why aren't we all campaigning to help renters?

Anyway, just to annoy all the Brighton bulls out there - which isn't hard, I'll admit - I went to a party over the weekend and chatted to some builders. They were all moaning about work drying up and they all reckoned next year was going to be, guess what? 'REPO TIME'! Hooray!

I was wrong, I do apologise. Your posts obviously don't come across in any way bitter at all.

[shell]

I was wrong, I do apologise. Your posts obviously don't come across in any way bitter at all.

Ah, sarcasm now is it? Still more personal attack. I really don't hate you. To me you're just an anonymous poster on a forum. But if you feel the need to personally attack other posters, feel free. Personally I don't feel the need.

[Capt. Picard]

If a family has overstretched themselves in order to own something they can't really afford then yes I think that thing should be taken away from them rather than have everyone else pay for their greed. Especially when those paying for their greed include other families who live within their means, even if that means having to rent.

It's a sorry situation to be in, but the inevitable outcome of housing booms is that families get burnt: families get burnt on the way up because they get priced out, and families get burnt on the way down when they can't pay their debts. There's no reason to think that one set should get special treatment over the other. Blame those who promote housing booms in the first place, not those who understand the inevitable outcome of it all.

Standy by what Live&letBuy and TOW are saying.

Can't afford to pay the mortgage???

Sell and downsize or sell and rent!

Simples and fair!

As they're saying we've been renting for some time, while these people are still living in properties they couldn't afford without all the taxpayer's help!

How fair is that???

I also notice that whatcrash (one of the most stubborn bulls on this forum) desperately needs a crash course in spelling...

Anyhoo, price reductions are coming!

Edited August 5, 2010 by Capt. Picard

[Tired of Waiting]

Standy by what Live&letBuy and TOW are saying.

Can't afford to pay the mortgage???

Sell and downsize or sell and rent!

Simples and fair!

As they're saying we've been renting for some time, while these people are still living in properties they couldn't afford without all the taxpayer's help!

How fair is that???

I also notice that whatcrash (one of the most stubborn bulls on this forum) desperately needs a crash course in spelling...

Anyhoo, price reductions are coming!

Thanks captain.

Exactly! "Sell and downsize or sell and rent!" Well summarised.

Nobody is saying that "families" should be made "homeless", "roof removed from over their heads", "kicked out, on the streets"...

All that is such a spin-full, dishonest, rhetoric! For goodness sake!

Just downsize to something you can afford! And live within your means! Like we all do, and have been doing for years!

What a bunch of dishonest lunatics!

[i wanna house]

anything happen while i was away ?