"It's
a
great
time
to
buy,"says
the
National
Association
of
Realtors
(NAR).
Alternatively,
says
NAR,
existing
home
prices
in
February
2007
were
down
1.3
percent
when
compared
with
a
year
earlier.
So
can
this
really
be a
great
time
to
buy
if
home
values
are
falling?
The
answer
is
yes.
Increased
real
estate
ownership
is a
national
goal
which
has
produced
helpful
and
useful
national
policies.
For
instance,
we
encourage
homeownership
by
tilting
the
tax
system
to
favor
owners.
As a
property
owner
you
can
write
off
property
taxes,
you
can
deduct
mortgage
interest
in
most
cases
and
when
you
sell
you
can
shelter
profits
of
up
to
$500,000
if
married
and
$250,000
if
single
from
federal
taxes.
We
do
these
things
because
we
believe
that
ownership
gives
people
a
greater
stake
in
local
communities
and
because
owning
a
home
affords
individuals
a
certain
ego,
status
and
financial
standing.
We
also
encourage
ownership
for
a
very
simple
reason:
Money.
In
addition
to
all
the
good
qualities
associated
with
ownership,
each
real
estate
transaction
generates
substantial
transfer
taxes,
brokerage
commissions,
loan
fees,
insurance
charges
and
legal
fees.
As
to
renting,
not
so
much.
There
are
no
transfer
taxes
to
be
paid
when
someone
leases,
no
closings,
no
new
mortgages,
few
if
any
legal
fees
and
only
small
real
estate
commissions.
And
yet
as a
society
we
need
renters
and
we
recognize
that
not
everyone
benefits
from
homeownership.
We
need
renters
because
without
'em
investment
real
estate
would
make
little
sense.
Also,
not
everyone
should
buy,
especially
individuals
who
will
be
short-term
residents
in a
given
community;
those
with
small,
declining
or
uncertain
incomes
and,
often,
individuals
who
live
in
areas
where
both
jobs
and
people
are
leaving.
Real
estate
ownership
is
not
a
good
short-term
option
because
of
the
costs
to
acquire
and
sell
property,
but
it
routinely
makes
sense
for
those
who
expect
to
hold
for
a
lengthy
period,
say
eight
to
ten
years.
|
 |
|
|
The
NAR
says
it's
a
great
time
to
buy
or
sell
because
interest
rates
are
near
historic
lows,
"prices
overall
have
stabilized,"
there's
a
positive
outlook
according
to
Alan
Greenspan
and
during
the
past
decade
real
estate
has
been
a
great
investment.
"The
national
median
price
of
homes
bought
ten
years
ago
has
increased
88
percent.
The
number
of
US
households
is
expected
to
increase
15
percent
during
the
next
decade,
creating
a
continued
high
demand
for
housing,"
says
NAR.
The
points
made
by
NAR
are
all
true
--
and
each
deserves
to
be
examined
with
some
care.
To
say
that
prices
have
"stabilized"
is a
good
example
of
creative
wordsmithing.
This
is a
cute
expression,
but
irrelevant.
The
important
issue
to
check
real
estate
trends
with
local
brokers
because
some
communities
are
seeing
price
increases,
some
are
seeing
declines
and
what
happens
nationwide
may
not
reflect
local
market
activity.
Alan
Greenspan,
the
former
chairman
of
the
Federal
Reserve,
is
quoted
by
NAR
as
saying
that
"most
of
the
negatives
in
housing
are
probably
behind
us.
The
fourth
quarter
should
be
reasonably
good,
certainly
better
than
the
third
quarter."
The
thoughts
of
the
Chairman
Greenspan
are
no
doubt
interesting,
but
quarterly
results
are
for
Wall
Street
and
not
homeowners.
The
real
question
is
where
local
values
are
headed
in
five
or
ten
years,
something
unknown.
Price
increases
during
the
past
decade
have
plainly
benefited
most
owners
in
most
communities.
However,
as
they
say
on
Wall
Street,
past
performance
does
not
guarantee
future
results.
What
happened
before
does
not
tell
us
what
will
happen
tomorrow.
One
way
or
another,
we
just
do
not
know.
The
view
here
is a
little
different:
People
ought
to
buy
real
estate
because
it's
an
investment
that
provides
shelter,
tax
breaks,
amortizing
loans,
the
potential
for
appreciation
and
encourages
the
joy
of
individualism,
having
something
of
your
own
to
shape
and
develop
as
you
wish
--
an
option
unavailable
to
tenants.
|
