The New York Times published an interesting piece Sunday on how the “housing market looks sickest in cities that once seemed immune,” with a not-all-that-surprising focus on the oozing, putrid pustule of a housing market that is Seattle’s. And the gray lady isn’t exactly flattering when it comes to the real estate reporting at its Bothell counterpart…

It has been a long, painful slide. At the peak, a downturn in real estate in Seattle was nearly unthinkable. In September 2006, after prices started falling in many parts of the country but were still increasing here, The Seattle Times noted that the last time prices in the city dropped on a quarterly basis was during the severe recession of 1982.

Two local economists were quoted all but guaranteeing that Seattle was immune “if history is any indication.” A risk index from PMI Mortgage Insurance gave the odds of Seattle prices dropping at a negligible 11 percent.

These days, the mood here is chastened when not downright fatalistic. If a recovery depends on a belief in better times, that seems a long way off.

Ouch.

Now, I wouldn’t want to suggest that the Seattle Times propitious reportage was in any way influenced by the profitable influx of real estate ads during the peak of the bubble, but… well… I guess I just did.

23 replies on “<i>New York Times</i> Calls Out <i>Seattle Times</i> on Its Pollyanna-ish Real Estate Reporting”

  3. If you bought your house in the 80s or 90s, all this “price drop” is meaningless.

    It’s only if you were stupid enough to buy during the Bubble – which was … wait for it … A BUBBLE OF INFLATED PRICES.

    Clue stick time …

  4. You tend to trip over your hardon for the Times – so the paper reported the comments of a couple experts who were wrong. They also reported those who were right, and continued to follow the story as good turned to bad. My only guess is that the Stranger doesn’t pay you for this silliness or we wouldn’t be reading it.

  6. A lot of things were feeding that frenzy. I remember friends buying houses and not having a dime to do anything else. I also remember friends who had purchased houses in more reasonable times enjoying their equity with frequent trips, nights out, and home improvements (Does a two-bedroom cracker box less than a half-mile from Sea-Tac really need a pool? I’m just sayin’.). But above all, I remember the talk around the office being about mortgages, mortgages, mortgages, and the phones being red-hot with calls from mortgage and re-fi agents.

    I thank my financial adviser every day for his counsel back then. I was seeing home-owning friends take lavish trips and seeing others who were wildly house poor, and I thought I was economically missing out. He said, “Bauhaus, prices are way beyond anything you want to try to afford. Home-ownership isn’t for everybody. Find an affordable rent and enjoy your life.”

    Tax breaks and assets aside, I’m so glad I didn’t get involved in the frenzy. As it turns out, given what I’ve experienced in the last five years or so, a house would have been a real migraine. My deepest condolences to those who are now under-water.

    I suppose what I take from this is this: A house is a place to live. It isn’t an investment. It isn’t a Beany Baby or Cabbage Patch Kid or something to buy and hold on to for six months until the price goes up another hundred thousand or so. When we veered away from it being more than a place to call home is when , it seems to me, we got into trouble.

    Also and alas, nothing surprises me about The Seattle Times.

  7. Aren’t the Seattle Times’ editorial offices in Seattle proper? I suspect that you’re just trying to be cute about where their printing plant is. So does that make you guys a Yakima paper?

  13. For many years now, Tim Ellis at seattlebubble has firmly and analytically called bullshit on the Times’ use of shill “economists” Gardner and Conway.

  15. This is libelous!

    The Seattle Times’ reporting on the Real Estate market leading up to the great recession is as excellent as its reporting on the financial industry, and in particular, our hometown hero, Washington Mutual!

  19. Anyone stupid enough to buy a house “worth” hundreds of thousands of dollars deserves the lifetime of servitude. When my grandfather worked he bought his house without any debt, and that’s what I plan to do as well. I get that I won’t get to live in the middle of downtown, but I’d much rather own property that would allow me to sustain myself, rather than a property that I have to cross my fingers at when I may want to move. Heck, it seems so much easier to just bounce around paying less than $500 rent for some pads and just save the money. Leave the burden of property for some loser who’s probably got a small penis.

Comments are closed.