The housing market stories just confirm my feeling that the entire real estate industry is scum. How can we sustain a raising market with 15% unemployment? Our local economy is dependent on tourism which has been the hardest hit industry under COVID. It makes no sense to me. I've seen people buy houses and the sellers are all accepting their offers immediately. I don't see bidding wars that would substantiate claims of a strong real estate market. It all seems highly suspect to me.
We have a net positive of nearly 10,000 people coming to the state per month. Over half the properties purchased in last 5 years were by investors and most are large hedge funds. It is crazy, but it is supply and demand. Only 3000 houses on the market. That is extremely low. There are bidding wars and people are paying above listing price.
I am no expert in real estate, but I do tend to notice that the real estate market amplifies a common thinking error- that things will always be as they are now.
Until of course, they aren't.
Before the bubble burst 12+ years ago, I remember similar rhetoric about influxes of outsiders and investors sustaining rising prices in perpetuity.
The pandemic, and 15% unemployment, will eventually register in the real estate market. Couldn't tell you when, or how, but gravity cannot be defied forever.
10:26 here. @11:18 exactly! I remember back in 2003 talking to my friend who is a commercial banker and has a degree in finance and I kept saying it just did not make sense that these tiny tract houses were selling for $300-400k+. He insisted that it did make sense, said the same things about investors and people moving here from CA, and limited supply, etc etc. Clearly that did not hold up.
I tried to buy a house last summer but couldn't get one. Several of the houses I looked at had bidding wars. Also, almost every house I looked at either was being sold by a flipper or ended up being bought by a flipper. It's very hard to compete with the flippers and their all-cash offers.
The difference is this time the people buying can actually afford the houses this time. People in the top half of the economy are doing well, many even better than they were before the rona. Couple that with California DBs moving to NV, AZ, TX while keeping their high paying CA jobs and you have a hot real estate market. Things might take a hit if/when they have to move back to their jobs in person, but this isn't 2007.
Before the casinos contracted out parking to companies that pay valets $8/hr, valet parkers were unionized and made upwards of $80k a year. That was not the problem, but thank you for showing your classism. God forbid you ever work for a living.
OMG, is this true? They replaced yet another solid middle class job with slave labor, all to fatten corporate casino profits? No way. When I first moved here, a HS graduate could easily afford a very plush middle class life. Coming from the haughty Northeast, it was a breath of fresh air. No more.
@11:00 AM
I also went to HS in Las Vegas. A friend was a valet at the Stardust, as was his dad before him. They made very good money. Knew everyone, had a good life.
An aside: Back in the day people carried change in the pocket (for you youngsters, "change" means what was left over from a dollar after paying for something. You received it in the form of a metal coins with fractional denomination values of one dollar). My valet friend used to say that if he did not feel paper currency in his hand as a tip, he would close the car door on the foot of the driver as he/she was getting into the car.
@9:11. I'm guessing even with $8/hour, valets are still pulling in $80-100k/year. You don't become a valet for the hourly wage. You become a valet for the tips. The issue isn't the wage. It's the casinos requiring patrons to pay for parking, reducing the likelihood of a good tip.
Yes a valet making $80k a year is the exact person we want buying 7 houses for rental income when the rents don’t even cover the mortgage payment and they are banking on selling the house and making a profit with equity.
Guest
Anonymous
February 1, 2021 7:32 pm
Abruptly shifting topics. Last week some posters were opining on the sorry state of the RJC judiciary and were critical of judges such as Tim Williams, Sturman, etc.
I'm not specifically defending those judges(although I personally consider them solid), but if someone thinks that judges like that pose the main problem at the RJC, I suggest those attorneys are in for a shocking awakening when they start appearing before some of these newly elected judges, wherein various levels of "cluelessness" may be on full and garish display.
Several of the newly-elected judges have no place on the bench. They were utter jokes as public defenders, but as judges, they have no place on the bench. Zero civil experience, no staff member in their respective departments has any experience running a district court, no judicial clerkship experience, etc. And to that, several of the judges are highly political and regardless of what those politics are, that has no place on the bench. It's just going to be a rough six years of appearing in front of people without the intellectual capacity or curiosity required of judges.
In the off chance that those newly-elected judges read this blog, any suggestions on what they can do to help with the steep learning curve? I still have nightmares of a particular female judge who had zero civil experience and clearly had never encountered discovery or summary judgment motions before. I felt so bad for my clients, and even for the opposing side, as a lot of money and resources were wasted just trying to get her to do her job.
Be humble. I mostly do family law and we've got some new judges (appointed and elected) that really are not performing up to par. They've come in with big egos and no substance to back it up. They are fickle about which rules get enforced and why. Some are nasty to attorneys. There's def been some grudge holding against former opposing counsels. It's a bigger mess than family court usually is.
1:42–I don't agree that incumbents, or their supporters or campaign managers, are dominating these remarks.
In fact none of these posts seem particularly supportive of any incumbents, or even of judicial incumbency in general.
The remarks, instead, specifically center on newly minted judges who have little or no experience in the subject matters they will preside over, and some of whom may also be unduly arrogant and overtly political(at least in the estimation of the posters).
If you wish to argue that the posters are wrong and that the new judges, by and large, are fully qualified for their positions and can hit the ground running, and are not unduly political ,that is at least a debate that can be entertained, and which directly addresses the positons taken by the posters.
But,to create a false narrative, and argue that the main point of these posts is that incumbents are wonderful, is simply off base and is creating a straw man to knock down.
Even those of us who have some concerns abut certain new judges, will be the first to fully concede that we have more than a few poorly performing incumbents.
Here are my suggestions to new judges. Do not fall into the same trap that many judges do of holding a hearing for every matter. Issue minute orders on the stuff that does not need argument or that you have already decided. Only hold hearings on stuff that is contested AND on which you have questions that need to be answered to make a decision. For example, if you are not going to grant summary judgment based on the evidence and briefs before you, do not hold a hearing. Nothing the attorney says is evidence, so why hold the hearing? It wastes everyone's time and resources. And, if you are not decided, then actually have questions for the attorneys that address the specific issues you have. Please do not pull a Judge Israel and say, "it's your motion," and then get mad when the attorney regurgitates the crap in her brief because she truly doesn't know why a hearing is being held or if the judge has read the briefs.
Finally, stagger hearings (which is easy to do if you only hear oral argument on a few cases where you actually need oral argument to make a ruling). Why do the judges in this jurisdiction set all their hearings at the same time? It is a bad habit that seems to repeat itself with each successive judicial generation.
Many clients, particularly in Family Court matters(but not just Family Court matters)pay for and expect the court hearing.
Try as we may, it is hard to de-program clients from everything they have seen and heard form t.v, the movies, as well as news reports–all which focus on the court room fireworks.
To many clients, what happens in a 20 or 30 minute hearing, is more important to them, and they are far more conscious of, than 20 hours you may have spent researching and briefing their case.
They want that show, they want the drama. If their attorney performs well over those 20 minutes in court, that means a lot more to them than tens of hours the attorney spent on the case while in their office.
Now, I realize that with many corporate, commercial and business clients that they may often have a higher degree of sophistication, and value the paperwork and background efforts by the attorneys, and not put a huge premium on courtroom performance.
But in some areas of law there is still a large emphasis on courtroom performane9albeit, often unduly so).
Agree re the cattle call hearings. I don/t need to sit through an hour+ of hearings on other motions before you get to mine, and my clients don't like paying for the same. Is pretty easy to set hearings every 30 – 45 minutes, especially with Blue Jeans.
New judge job:
1. Manage your calendar and court room efficiently.
2. Know the law and apply the law.
3. Exercise patience. You are an impartial arbiter of the law. Yes, you might not like attorney A or client B. But they are still entitled to a fair resolution according to the law. You have the power to sanction if appropriate, but you need to be even-keeled and right in doing so. Might doesn't make right, and while rank has its privilege dont put in the position of having to respect the rank but not the person.
Agree with 3:31. Can I add that judges really should not lose it in court. I hate having to tell clients I'm sorry but the judge just flipped out and I don't know what to say. It degrades the judiciary and the clients feel like they're robbed of a fair hearing.
If an attorney is not impressed with a new judge, that means that the attorney is a bigot who despises the gender and/or racial lineage of said new judge?
If that is what you're saying I am not necessarily debating that point, as that may be true in certain cases, although I personally don't believe it is true in most cases. But the main reason I am not debating the matter is that I first want to be certain that I have correctly interpreted your observation.
So, please make your point directly, without worrying about how inflammatory it may sound.
Remember when Judge Mark Gibbons' JEA or law clerk used to call your office and say, "Don't bother showing up until 11:00 a.m. We don't want you to sit around waiting for your case to be called."
I remember about the year 2000 or so (as a young first year commercial litigator) getting a sincere compliment from Then D.Ct. Judge Gibbons on the quality of my work, research and argument, after he ruled against me. It made the sting of loss much more palatable and conditioned my for a solid work ethic for my entire career. Class act.
Guest
Anonymous
February 1, 2021 8:09 pm
I oppose all confidentiality provisions in public filings. Have we learned nothing from the FISA court fiasco? Create a fake document, file it under seal and super-security, get warrant, take down lawfully elected administration. Get caught, get probation. When courts can have secret documents, it leads to secret proceeding, and it undermines the judicial system. Darkness falls.
@12:48
12:48's message is an example of what I don't like about this blog. 12:09 was clearly speaking to known prosecutorial abuse. In general, everyone probably agrees that secret courts and secret sealed document are opportunities for star chamber justice. Caution is required. But 12:48 seizes on something different to turn the topic, probably only for opportunity to make a negative comment.
The housing market stories just confirm my feeling that the entire real estate industry is scum. How can we sustain a raising market with 15% unemployment? Our local economy is dependent on tourism which has been the hardest hit industry under COVID. It makes no sense to me. I've seen people buy houses and the sellers are all accepting their offers immediately. I don't see bidding wars that would substantiate claims of a strong real estate market. It all seems highly suspect to me.
We have a net positive of nearly 10,000 people coming to the state per month. Over half the properties purchased in last 5 years were by investors and most are large hedge funds. It is crazy, but it is supply and demand. Only 3000 houses on the market. That is extremely low. There are bidding wars and people are paying above listing price.
I am no expert in real estate, but I do tend to notice that the real estate market amplifies a common thinking error- that things will always be as they are now.
Until of course, they aren't.
Before the bubble burst 12+ years ago, I remember similar rhetoric about influxes of outsiders and investors sustaining rising prices in perpetuity.
The pandemic, and 15% unemployment, will eventually register in the real estate market. Couldn't tell you when, or how, but gravity cannot be defied forever.
10:26 here. @11:18 exactly! I remember back in 2003 talking to my friend who is a commercial banker and has a degree in finance and I kept saying it just did not make sense that these tiny tract houses were selling for $300-400k+. He insisted that it did make sense, said the same things about investors and people moving here from CA, and limited supply, etc etc. Clearly that did not hold up.
I tried to buy a house last summer but couldn't get one. Several of the houses I looked at had bidding wars. Also, almost every house I looked at either was being sold by a flipper or ended up being bought by a flipper. It's very hard to compete with the flippers and their all-cash offers.
The difference is this time the people buying can actually afford the houses this time. People in the top half of the economy are doing well, many even better than they were before the rona. Couple that with California DBs moving to NV, AZ, TX while keeping their high paying CA jobs and you have a hot real estate market. Things might take a hit if/when they have to move back to their jobs in person, but this isn't 2007.
The investors back in 2007 were valet drivers with loans. The investors now are institutional. Big difference.
Wife and I are renting and putting it all in bitcoin.
Before the casinos contracted out parking to companies that pay valets $8/hr, valet parkers were unionized and made upwards of $80k a year. That was not the problem, but thank you for showing your classism. God forbid you ever work for a living.
OMG, is this true? They replaced yet another solid middle class job with slave labor, all to fatten corporate casino profits? No way. When I first moved here, a HS graduate could easily afford a very plush middle class life. Coming from the haughty Northeast, it was a breath of fresh air. No more.
Just watch the last 15 minutes of Casino and that explains pretty much everything.
I went to high school here. 20 years ago a union valet parker job was a good way to earn a living. That doesn't exist anymore.
@11:00 AM
I also went to HS in Las Vegas. A friend was a valet at the Stardust, as was his dad before him. They made very good money. Knew everyone, had a good life.
An aside: Back in the day people carried change in the pocket (for you youngsters, "change" means what was left over from a dollar after paying for something. You received it in the form of a metal coins with fractional denomination values of one dollar). My valet friend used to say that if he did not feel paper currency in his hand as a tip, he would close the car door on the foot of the driver as he/she was getting into the car.
@9:11. I'm guessing even with $8/hour, valets are still pulling in $80-100k/year. You don't become a valet for the hourly wage. You become a valet for the tips. The issue isn't the wage. It's the casinos requiring patrons to pay for parking, reducing the likelihood of a good tip.
Yes a valet making $80k a year is the exact person we want buying 7 houses for rental income when the rents don’t even cover the mortgage payment and they are banking on selling the house and making a profit with equity.
Abruptly shifting topics. Last week some posters were opining on the sorry state of the RJC judiciary and were critical of judges such as Tim Williams, Sturman, etc.
I'm not specifically defending those judges(although I personally consider them solid), but if someone thinks that judges like that pose the main problem at the RJC, I suggest those attorneys are in for a shocking awakening when they start appearing before some of these newly elected judges, wherein various levels of "cluelessness" may be on full and garish display.
Several of the newly-elected judges have no place on the bench. They were utter jokes as public defenders, but as judges, they have no place on the bench. Zero civil experience, no staff member in their respective departments has any experience running a district court, no judicial clerkship experience, etc. And to that, several of the judges are highly political and regardless of what those politics are, that has no place on the bench. It's just going to be a rough six years of appearing in front of people without the intellectual capacity or curiosity required of judges.
In the off chance that those newly-elected judges read this blog, any suggestions on what they can do to help with the steep learning curve? I still have nightmares of a particular female judge who had zero civil experience and clearly had never encountered discovery or summary judgment motions before. I felt so bad for my clients, and even for the opposing side, as a lot of money and resources were wasted just trying to get her to do her job.
Be humble. I mostly do family law and we've got some new judges (appointed and elected) that really are not performing up to par. They've come in with big egos and no substance to back it up. They are fickle about which rules get enforced and why. Some are nasty to attorneys. There's def been some grudge holding against former opposing counsels. It's a bigger mess than family court usually is.
Campaign manager working overtime on the blog to defend incumbents, I tend to like new blood other than Denton and Bell.
1:42–I don't agree that incumbents, or their supporters or campaign managers, are dominating these remarks.
In fact none of these posts seem particularly supportive of any incumbents, or even of judicial incumbency in general.
The remarks, instead, specifically center on newly minted judges who have little or no experience in the subject matters they will preside over, and some of whom may also be unduly arrogant and overtly political(at least in the estimation of the posters).
If you wish to argue that the posters are wrong and that the new judges, by and large, are fully qualified for their positions and can hit the ground running, and are not unduly political ,that is at least a debate that can be entertained, and which directly addresses the positons taken by the posters.
But,to create a false narrative, and argue that the main point of these posts is that incumbents are wonderful, is simply off base and is creating a straw man to knock down.
Even those of us who have some concerns abut certain new judges, will be the first to fully concede that we have more than a few poorly performing incumbents.
Here are my suggestions to new judges. Do not fall into the same trap that many judges do of holding a hearing for every matter. Issue minute orders on the stuff that does not need argument or that you have already decided. Only hold hearings on stuff that is contested AND on which you have questions that need to be answered to make a decision. For example, if you are not going to grant summary judgment based on the evidence and briefs before you, do not hold a hearing. Nothing the attorney says is evidence, so why hold the hearing? It wastes everyone's time and resources. And, if you are not decided, then actually have questions for the attorneys that address the specific issues you have. Please do not pull a Judge Israel and say, "it's your motion," and then get mad when the attorney regurgitates the crap in her brief because she truly doesn't know why a hearing is being held or if the judge has read the briefs.
Finally, stagger hearings (which is easy to do if you only hear oral argument on a few cases where you actually need oral argument to make a ruling). Why do the judges in this jurisdiction set all their hearings at the same time? It is a bad habit that seems to repeat itself with each successive judicial generation.
Those are good suggestions, but consider this.
Many clients, particularly in Family Court matters(but not just Family Court matters)pay for and expect the court hearing.
Try as we may, it is hard to de-program clients from everything they have seen and heard form t.v, the movies, as well as news reports–all which focus on the court room fireworks.
To many clients, what happens in a 20 or 30 minute hearing, is more important to them, and they are far more conscious of, than 20 hours you may have spent researching and briefing their case.
They want that show, they want the drama. If their attorney performs well over those 20 minutes in court, that means a lot more to them than tens of hours the attorney spent on the case while in their office.
Now, I realize that with many corporate, commercial and business clients that they may often have a higher degree of sophistication, and value the paperwork and background efforts by the attorneys, and not put a huge premium on courtroom performance.
But in some areas of law there is still a large emphasis on courtroom performane9albeit, often unduly so).
Agree re the cattle call hearings. I don/t need to sit through an hour+ of hearings on other motions before you get to mine, and my clients don't like paying for the same. Is pretty easy to set hearings every 30 – 45 minutes, especially with Blue Jeans.
New judge job:
1. Manage your calendar and court room efficiently.
2. Know the law and apply the law.
3. Exercise patience. You are an impartial arbiter of the law. Yes, you might not like attorney A or client B. But they are still entitled to a fair resolution according to the law. You have the power to sanction if appropriate, but you need to be even-keeled and right in doing so. Might doesn't make right, and while rank has its privilege dont put in the position of having to respect the rank but not the person.
Agree with 3:31. Can I add that judges really should not lose it in court. I hate having to tell clients I'm sorry but the judge just flipped out and I don't know what to say. It degrades the judiciary and the clients feel like they're robbed of a fair hearing.
Remember folks. Diversity is our greatest strength. If y'all dont like the new judges, maybe you are the one with the problem.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard
4:08–so, let's translate your remark.
If an attorney is not impressed with a new judge, that means that the attorney is a bigot who despises the gender and/or racial lineage of said new judge?
If that is what you're saying I am not necessarily debating that point, as that may be true in certain cases, although I personally don't believe it is true in most cases. But the main reason I am not debating the matter is that I first want to be certain that I have correctly interpreted your observation.
So, please make your point directly, without worrying about how inflammatory it may sound.
What does diversity have to do with it?
I agree with 1:42, except I would add Delaney to the list of incumbents I do vote for.
Remember when Judge Mark Gibbons' JEA or law clerk used to call your office and say, "Don't bother showing up until 11:00 a.m. We don't want you to sit around waiting for your case to be called."
4:50 – No. I remember sitting in Bonnie Bulla's courtroom for 3+ hours because she didn't have the courtesy to have her staff make that type of call.
I'm too young to have been before Gibbons when he was a DC judge, but I'll just add one more reason why he's awesome.
I remember about the year 2000 or so (as a young first year commercial litigator) getting a sincere compliment from Then D.Ct. Judge Gibbons on the quality of my work, research and argument, after he ruled against me. It made the sting of loss much more palatable and conditioned my for a solid work ethic for my entire career. Class act.
I oppose all confidentiality provisions in public filings. Have we learned nothing from the FISA court fiasco? Create a fake document, file it under seal and super-security, get warrant, take down lawfully elected administration. Get caught, get probation. When courts can have secret documents, it leads to secret proceeding, and it undermines the judicial system. Darkness falls.
What about your personal Financial Disclosure? Should it be available to the public?
@12:48
12:48's message is an example of what I don't like about this blog. 12:09 was clearly speaking to known prosecutorial abuse. In general, everyone probably agrees that secret courts and secret sealed document are opportunities for star chamber justice. Caution is required. But 12:48 seizes on something different to turn the topic, probably only for opportunity to make a negative comment.