real estate prices in

MemeFirst: New York real-estate prices explained -- MemeFirst December 01, 2005 New York real-estate prices explained The 2.2 million jobs in Manhattan pay, on average, $2,025 per week . (You know that feeling you get when you find out you're below average? I've been having that for years.) Manhattan is 22 square miles, which means that the island of Manhattan pays, on average, $378 per square foot per year . And that includes Washington Heights. Posted by Felix at 02:54 PM GMT All proceeds go to MSF -- Comments #1 Pity we can't all work for Goldman Sachs. Posted by: Gherimiah on December 1, 2005 03:28 PM #2 I'll happily defer to someone with a firmer grasp of stats on this, but in the meantime, I wonder, does that average income number tell you very much? Given the massive disparity in Manhattan incomes, between, say, the dishwasher and the hedge-fund owner, which surely are among the widest in the country, wouldn't you also need to know the distribution of the data points? At a minium, wouldn't you want also to know the median income? Also, is this net or gross? Article talked about paychecks, which could probably mean either. Posted by: Matthew on December 1, 2005 04:36 PM #3 Oh, and also, Felix, presumably the 2.2 million people with jobs in Manhattan don't all live there, so your extrapolation doesn't wash. Posted by: Matthew on December 1, 2005 04:38 PM #4 Obvs mean incomemedian income, and I'd be surprised if more than 40% of Manhattanites made above average. Probably less. But even so. And actually, the fact that there are 2.2 million jobs to 1.5 million people in Manhattan actually only serves to exacerbate the demand-supply imbalance when it comes to real estate. Posted by: Felix on December 1, 2005 04:53 PM #5 I hate to be the one to break this to you, Felix, but nearly all residential housing in Manhattan consists of multi-story buildings. The salary range you describe explains real estate prices in Westchester County, NY and Bergen County, NJ to about the same degree as prices in Manhattan. Posted by: Sterling on December 1, 2005 07:05 PM #6 How delightful that the discussion of property prices one is sometimes unable to defuse at dinner parties just carries on here - almost as if taunting one with its dreary ineluctability. And how nice that Felix should bring along his no doubt expert appreciation of statistical lore. The one thing I am missing is the crucial evaluation of bedbug incidence as it affects property prices in Manhattan. In another thread, Betty has said this bedbug malarkey is all a plan of Bush's. For myself, I prefer to recall that bedbugs tend to originate in Belgium. Schtumm for now. More on this later. Posted by: Claude de Bigny on December 1, 2005 08:40 PM #7 Also, this seems to imply that everyone pays all of their income for housing, which is hopefully not the case. To be more realistic (ignoring the issues rightly brought up by the other commentators, including whether all of those people actually live in Manhattan and whether you can just take the sq ftge of Manhattan as the residential sq ftge), say people on average spend 40% of their income on housing. That gets your income for housing per sq ft to around $151. Posted by: Susan on December 1, 2005 09:14 PM #8 Susan and Sterling, you are embarassingly confused. What percentage of real estate in Manhattan is used for housing? According to this http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/landusefacts/landuse_tables.pdf (in case you are confused by the graph, the percents sum together veritcally and the land area sum horizontally). And even assuming that all "Mixed Residential and Commercial" was used for housing, less than 38% of the land in Manhattan is for housing. These data certainly allow for the idea that much of rent paid in Manhattan is for commercial use, and even then, a considerable percent is used for public space (Central Park alone is 10% of the area of Manhattan). Anyway, the amount people earn in a particular location is not directly related to the amount the people who live there earn, or the amount the people live there pay for rent. Look at this site: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/saipe/index.html The direct link is unavailable, but the Median household income for New York County was 43,573. Nassau County on the other hand is more than 71,000. In which place is it cheaper to rent by the foot? Posted by: Andrew on December 2, 2005 07:22 AM #9 I don't think I'm confused. My points are: a) there is actually quite a bit more than 22 square miles of residential floor space in Manhattan because of vertical construction b) a lot of upper-income Manhattan workers live outside Manhattan, and their buying power lifts prices in tony bedroom communities Posted by: Sterling on December 3, 2005 03:38 PM #10 OK, Sterling, let's do it your way. Assume that each of the 1.5 million residents of Manhattan has 400 square feet to call their own: that works out to 1200 square feet for the average family of three and 1600 square feet for the average family of four. Generous, I'd say. That comes out to 600 million square feet of residential real estate in Manhattan. Using that figure, my calculation actually comes out slightly higher : $386 per square foot per year, rather than $378. What makes you think that there's more than 22 square miles of residential floor space in Manhattan? As for your point b, I fail to see how it is in any way germane. Posted by: Felix on December 3, 2005 11:09 PM #11 OK, 22 square miles equals about 613,324,800 square feet. That would leave each of Manhattan's 1.5 million residents with 409 square feet of living space. But I don't believe that most Manhattan residents are actually so deprived, especially when you take into account common areas in apartment buildings such as laundry facilities, hallways, lobbies, etc. I'd be surprised if the average wasn't at least 600, and it's probably more than 800. And besides, that's not what you originally meant - you were dividing Manhattan's land footprint and not taking into account its vertical expansion. As for the second point, I suspect there's a strong tendency among $100,000 - $1,000,000 per annum Manhattan earners - which is well-off to wealthy-on-a-budget - to live in places like Valhalla and Ho-Ho-Kus, especially if they're married with kids. Family-flight in turn increases the average per-capita-square-footage of the Manhattan residential footprint through bleed-off of children. Posted by: Sterling on December 4, 2005 02:29 AM #12 Sterling jumped the shark so long ago it's probably not surprising, but for those of you keeping score at home, he really did just say that the average Manhattanite has 800 square feet of their own. So if you're an average person living with 2 roommates, that means you're in a 2400 square foot apartment. In Manhattan. Yeah. Oh, and that 350 square foot apartment you've got? It's not 350 square feet at all, it's probably more than 4000 square feet. You're just not including the lobby and all the hallways. Posted by: Felix on December 4, 2005 02:43 AM #13 My claim is that the amount of residential-zoned floor space in Manhattan probably works out to between 600 and 800 square feet per resident of Manhattan. You're not only challenging this, but asserting that my claim is absurd. Sure you wanna do that? Posted by: Sterling on December 4, 2005 02:59 AM #14 I've tried to find the statistic, but to no avail. It seems that while office space inventor is measured in square footage, residential space is simply measured, in all documents, by units. But we can work with that. So far I've learned that 82% of zoned lots in Manhattan are residential, making up about 280,000,000 square feet, which includes permanently undeveloped spaces like yards and gardens. If the average height of development across all that land is four stories, then, we're looking at about 750 square feet per person. I've also learned that in 1999 there were about 727,000 residential units in Manhattan , which means that the average unit houses two people. So those three-roomies crammed into one 800-square-foot-tenement-with-the-bathtub-in-the-kitchen examples are mostly fiction. Which is a shame because I get a tingle from the mental picture of Manhattan twenty- and thirty-somethings living in cramped, dingy conditions. If we divide the total residential land area by the total number of units, we get 385 square feet, which works out to 192.5 square feet per person, assuming no dwellings above one story in height and no unimproved/vacant land. If the average height is assumed to be four stories, in this scenario we get about 770 square feet per person. Here's a report from Prudential Douglas Elliman that details its 1Q 2005 sales. Units sold averaged 1,334 square feet, which divided by two yields 767 square feet per person. Breaking it down further we find co-ops averaging 1,197 square feet, condos at 1,496 square feet, luxury at 2,921 and loft at 2,145. So that's 598.5 square feet per person at the low end all the way up to 1,460.5 at the top. There's three separate analytical models for you Felix, all of which yield per-person square footage of 750 or better. I admit they're not all that fleshed out, but I'm stuck inside with a cold watching The Taking of Pelham One-Two-Three on DVD, and I'm disinclined to dig deeper. But you're welcome to. Posted by: Sterling on December 4, 2005 04:04 AM #15 Sterling: do your calculations include infrastructure or is the 280MM number a percentage of raw space? Building density is higher here than anywhere else in America, but 15% to circulation (in buildings and streets themeselves) would be an easily defended metric. Counting hallways in urban residential structures is like counting sidewalks as part of sf for suburban homes. As much Sterling does sound like a set designer for Friends, Felix, I gotta say, of the 25 or so apartments of people that I can definitely make an estimate of size, we average 500 sf easy. Most everyone is a half a standard tenement lot (25 x 25), with a couple of lofts and post-war, large-scale developments thrown in. This is skewed because many of them are single (I live in a 2bd alone) or have rent-controlled apartments from way back. Posted by: 99 on December 4, 2005 07:19 PM #16 Where does your 280m sq ft number come from? Your first two calculations are based on it, so I'd like to know. (They're also based on a multiplier of 4, which as far as I can tell came pretty much out of thin air.) As for apartment sales, in Manhattan individual condos and coops tend to be much larger than the apartments inside rental buildings. So if you look just at sold apartments as opposed to rented apartments, you're going to get a skewed figure. What's more, if a 3800-square-foot brownstone in Harlem, say, is sold and then the downstairs floor is rented out, that still counts as a 3800 square foot deal under these figures. Posted by: Felix on December 4, 2005 09:21 PM #17 The multiplier of 4 was back-of-envelope guess. The 280,000,000 number came from this PDF . Sorry, thought I'd linked to it initially. As for rental apartments being smaller than privately owned condos or co-ops...not sure I buy that. But even if it's true, how much smaller could they be? 10%? Doesn't really matter. You can apologize any time now. Posted by: Sterling on December 4, 2005 10:06 PM #18 if anyone is real curious why not pony up the $250 to get a list of every tax lot in the city? http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/bytes/applbyte.shtml in the meantime, simply because i am tired of having to read sterlings pontifications about things he knows anything about, i downloaded a list of all the residential tax lots from 14th street and below from propertyshark. only 14th street and below, because after 6000+ entries, i became bored. 14th street down is a good representative sample of the 99000+ residential tax lots in manhattan. it includes spacious luxury lofts of tribeca, tenements of the les, projects on the eastside, high rise high density battery park and half building condo conversions of downtown (note that a rental bldg with multiple units counts as a single tax lot with the number of units listed as a seperate data field). the average unit size works out to 1100sf with 590sf per person (based 2000 census population stats for 14th st & below). this includes all common space in a building as it is based on total building size for single tax lot (rental) buildings and counts common space tax lots for condo buildings (read lobbies, circ, etc.) multiplying back out by the 2000 census population numbers for manhattan of 1,537,195... we get 906,945,050sf of residential space in manhattan. let's call that an even 9Bsf since the city lists 3800 acres of lot area in manhattan (165,500,000sf), that gives a rough overbuild factor of 5.5. this will obviously skew higher with the ues & uws densities without actually affecting the sf/person. summary- -590sf of residential per person (inclusive of common areas). close to sterlings low estimate of 600, but nowhere near the 800sf -1100sf average size per unit (inclusive of common areas). again close to sterlings guess based on broker mumbojumbo, but still below the stated average. -9Bsf of residential space in manhattan sterling- close on your numbers, but not nearly close enough to be quite so pompously smug. stick to things you know about, like why bush is a foreign policy genius. felix- remind me what this related to? Posted by: geoff on December 5, 2005 12:34 AM #19 Geoff - The only reason I was pompously snug is because Felix had reacted to to my estimates with such comedic outrage. Also, I don't think 14th St. and below is a good representative sample. Newer and I suspect more spacious high-rises make up a much larger proportion of housing from the 30s up through the low 100s. So I'm sticking with 600+. I suspect the actual number is around 750, as stated above. As for your justification of your work - "simply because i am tired of having to read sterlings pontifications about things he knows anything about" - I'm not sure what it means. Perhaps you meant to write "nothing" instead of "anything"? I'm not claiming to be right all the time - I am not right all the time. I am, however, pretty much always right whenever Felix gets all worked up and tells me I have no idea what I'm talking about. Thanks for your small role in marking off another example for me to throw back at him at some future date. Posted by: Sterling on December 5, 2005 06:19 AM #20 Renter-occupied apartments are much smaller than owner-occupied apartments. And as the PDF you yourself linked to shows (see page 24), the vast majority of apartments in Manhattan are renter-occupied. Think about it: one needs maybe 350 sq ft per person to live in some reasonable comfort. Beyond that, you're shelling out extra cash for extra space. Owners are happy doing that because they have 100% equity in that space: everyone has heard the advice that they should buy the biggest apartment they can afford. Renters, on the other hand, are simply giving away thousands of dollars in rent every month, with nothing at all to show for it. So they tend to go not for the biggest apartment they can afford, but rather the cheapest apartment they find adequate. Put it this way: Manhattan is full of individuals spending an enormous proportion of their income on outsize mortgage payments. Almost everyone, when they move from renting to buying, sees their monthly housing costs rise substantially. If you move to Manhattan and have a relatively low income, then you might spend a crazy amount of it on rent, it's true. But if your income is average or higher (and remember that average is $2,025 per week), I very much doubt that your rent is making nearly as much of a dent in your paycheck as it would if you owned your own apartment. You reach a standard of living you're comfortable with, and you stop. Anything beyond that is money which you could otherwise spend on clothes, or travel, or restaurants. Whereas if you buy , you're not spending so much as investing. The only money which you're really spending is the interest on your mortgage -- and even that comes with a tax deduction. Or let's put it another way. That Elliman report you linked to has an average sales price of $1.21 million. A typical rental yield in Manhattan these days is 4%, so if rentals were functionally identical to owner-occupied apartments, which you seem to assume, then the average rent in Manhattan would be over $4,000 a month. In fact, of course, it's nowhere near that. Posted by: Felix on December 5, 2005 06:55 AM #21 There's the shark, and then there's the A train. Sterling's Manhattan clearly stops at 96th street. Sterling, dear, north of that bright white line, the housing stock is incredibly stable and consistent in terms of size and layout. Harlem is just now getting it's first 'luxury' apartment building in a half century. Any larger apartment complexes are housing projects, which have smaller units by definition, and, allowing for the dispersal of the towers in some International Style fantasy also insures that the density does not increase much. Posted by: 99 on December 5, 2005 04:03 PM #22 Felix, just because apartments are currently going for $1.21 million a pop doesn't mean that everyone who owns an apartment paid that much. Rent prices move in sympathy with real estate prices but are less prone to bubbles. What you're missing here, and you've missed the same thing when we've talked about the stock market in the past, is the difference between speculative investors and income investors. Speculators don't buy an apartment (or apartment building) primarily for the benefit of the rent; their main motivation is the hope of flipping the property at some later date for a larger sum than they paid for it. The current Manhattan real estate bubble is the product of speculators. Real estate income investors view rent collection as their goal - most apartment buildings in any town or city in the U.S. are owned by income investors. They get less press than speculators, but they also tend to go bankrupt less often. The market value of a rental property can be determined by the amount of rent it generates for the owner, not the other way around. Manhattan rents are high - probably even ludicrously high - but that is a function of large demand chasing relatively low supply, and is only weakly related to current real estate prices. I do acknowledge your point about space not being a priority for Manhattan renters, there is some truth in that. People who do see space as a necessity tend to wind up in rental units in Brooklyn, Queens or Hudson County. But that's not exclusively the case. Posted by: Sterling on December 5, 2005 04:59 PM #23 This thread is hilarious and sad, although a good example of how the same statistics can be applied to support any and all political positions. Posted by: sac on December 5, 2005 06:39 PM #24 Sterling, Manhattan is the one real-estate market in the US where there are, to all intents and purposes, zero speculators under your definition. No one buys Manhattan property in order to flip it. For one thing, co-op boards (and even condo boards, for that matter) hate flippers, and are likely to punish them. There's flip taxes, brokers' fees of 6% for the seller, and a luxury tax of 1% on any apartment over $1m for the buyer. Prices are so high that the carrying costs are enormous -- and you can't rent out the apartment in the meantime, because that makes it pretty much unsaleable. There are, of course, lots of buildings owned by income investors in New York. Most of the East Village, where I live, is comprised of such buildings: they normally have 20 or so apartments (say 5 floors, 4 apartments per floor), and they've been going up in price almost as much as individual apartments have -- the only reason they haven't gone up just as much is because many of the tenants are rent-controlled or rent-stabilised below market. These are typical New York apartments, from a renter's point of view -- but I can tell you, as someone who was apartment hunting in the East Village for almost a year, they're much less typical from an owner's point of view. Also, there's a strong incentive for for-sale apartments to be as large as possible: price per square foot is positively correlated with size. That's not the case in the rental market: it's easier to rent out a 650sqft apartment for $2500 than it is to rent out a 1300sqft apartment for $5000. Posted by: Felix on December 5, 2005 09:14 PM #25 "Manhattan is the one real-estate market in the US where there are, to all intents and purposes, zero speculators under your definition. No one buys Manhattan property in order to flip it." Felix, of course people speculate on property in Manhattan. Just because the barriers to entry are high doesn't mean some won't jump them. How else do you think a modest apartment winds up costing as much as a dozen Mercedes-Benz CL500s? Who do you imagine is providing demand at that level? You know banks are not issuing $1,000,000 mortgages to households with joint incomes of $200,000. It's trust fund kiddies - who are often divorced from fiscal reality - and speculators. As for your point about different-sized apartments being suitable for rent versus sale, I might agree with you except for the fact that every rental apartment IS OWNED by someone. It IS PART of the for sale market. I'd be surprised if fewer than half of the condos in Manhattan are rented out by their owners. Posted by: Sterling on December 6, 2005 01:51 AM #26 Sterling, I'm afraid the factors leading to high apartment prices are much more mundane than your feverish mind would like to imagine. Lots of global liquidity, driving down interest rates and banks' credit tests. Lots of demand, due to Manhattan's status as the center of the universe and high Wall Street bonuses. And very limited supply. The market for flippers is Miami, not NYC -- where a condo can be bought and sold three or four times before it is even built. As for your point about rental apartments being owned by someone, it sounds clever until you stop to think about what I've already said. Rental buildings are owned by landlords; the vast majority of condos and co-ops are owner-occupied. For one thing, co-ops vastly outnumber condos, and they're hard to rent. And as for condos, they generally get rented out when they're not the place their owner really wants to live. Given how valuable they are, few owners who don't want to live here would rather rent out their condos rather than simply sell them. Take my East Village condo building, for instance: when it went condo in 1983, only one owner lived here. Today, all the units bar one are owner-occupied. I haven't done my homework on this, but I'll happily accept your wager: I'll bet the standard bottle of vintage champagne that more than half the condos in Manhattan are owner-occupied. Deal? Posted by: Felix on December 6, 2005 02:43 AM #27 If you go double or nothing on the proposition that the amount of existing residential floor space in Manhattan divided by the number of residents of Manhattan is equal to or greater than 600 sq. ft., then it's a bet. How are we going to research this? FWIW, I am descended from a man who is reputed to be the first person to negotiate a real estate deal in New York: Wessel Wesselse (ten Broek). He may have been the man to offer 60 guilders (often misreported as $24) as the purchase price of Manhattan from the Canarsies. (Technically the Canarsies didn't own Manhattan Island - it's not for nothing that "Canarsie" is in Brooklyn. Also technically the Dutch West India Company didn't care which tribe owned it. It just needed some bunch of natives to smile and sign off on the deal to keep the English away.) This of course conveys no special knowledge upon me, but it certainly adds a humorous subtext to our disagreement. Posted by: Sterling on December 6, 2005 04:14 AM #28 I'm not sure about the terms of the wager: we seem to be betting on two different things at the same time. But spell it out, and I'll be amenable. I do want to ensure, of course, that hallways and elevator shafts and the like do not count as residential floor space. And please also ensure that if one of the propositions can be determined while the other one can't, then the other wager still stands. Posted by: Felix on December 6, 2005 05:55 AM #29 I'm not sure how we could specify the terms to exclude elevators if they are included in filings. However, it occurs to me that Manhattan Borough probably requires a statement of total dwelling space for its Certificate of Occupancy, so that would work for me. And no, I think double or nothing sounds good to me, especially since we will be attempting to falsify two of my estimations, rather than either of yours. Posted by: Sterling on December 6, 2005 06:20 AM #30 You've lost me, I'm afraid. When you say "double or nothing", are you proposing a 2BVC bet on the residential floor space, and no bet at all on the proportion of condos which are rented out? Or what? It makes no sense to me: "double or nothing" normally happens after A has lost a bet and B has won it. Then going double or nothing means that either B wins double the original amount, or he wins nothing. You essentially run the bet over again. Are you maybe trying to propose something whereby if I lose I lose 2BVCs, and if I win I win nothing? Posted by: Felix on December 6, 2005 07:44 AM #31 Are you trying to squirm out of it? Posted by: Sterling on December 6, 2005 06:03 PM #32 Sterling, will you propose your bet already? I've already said that I'm likely to accept. Just tell me the terms! Posted by: Felix on December 6, 2005 06:12 PM #33 I did! Posted by: Sterling on December 6, 2005 06:25 PM #34 OK, have a few moments now, I had to get someplace before 2pm and the roads are crap with snow and slush. Um, OK. My terms for the bet is those two things specified, avg. sq. footage = 600 and = 50% of condos. Either side has to get both right to collect. gotta run Posted by: Sterling on December 6, 2005 06:51 PM #35 So if one of us gets both right, he wins 1BVC or 2BVCs? And if one of the two turns out to be unverifiable, then it's a wash? Posted by: Felix on December 6, 2005 07:22 PM #36 Honestly, Felix, I doubt either number is verifiable. Like I wrote above, the city appears to track residential rental inventory by units, rather than by square footage. Also, most owners of condominium units who rent them out do so through agents - even the tenant may be only vaguely aware of the legal status of the unit. In NJ I don't think an individual condo owner even needs to report the unit as a rental property if it's in a building that's already inspected under multi-family housing regulations (or if it's a standalone unit or duplex). The rent revenue has to be reported as taxable income, naturallly, but not to any entity with housing oversight. So make it for one bottle and yes both figures have to be verifiable. That said, if either of us can show a grouping of not-completely-conclusive figures from multiple sources that seem reasonable and fall long or short of my guesses by ten percent or more, then I think we should accept them. (Of course, I have arguably already met this condition with my square footage prediction, and Geoff's calculations don't contradict it under the 10% rule I suggest.) Posted by: Sterling on December 6, 2005 10:05 PM #37 as i mentioned earlier, you can get the sf and unit count for every residential tax lot in the city from the cities web site... google 'bytes of the big apple' and look at the 'pluto' product. the license fee is $250 or you can get the info from propertyshark.com. there are 99000+ listings for manhattan. at 100 listings per page, thats a lot of cutting and pasting into excel. both of these will give you tax lot sizes (whole buildings/unit count or condo unit), which will be inclusive of common area. 10-15% is considered a fairly standard deduction for circulation. mechanical space is not included in the floor area count. happy dueling Posted by: geoff on December 6, 2005 10:29 PM Post a comment Name: Email Address: URL: Remember personal info? Yes No Anti-spam question: Share four cupcakes equally among four people. How many does each person get (in digits)? Comments: XML Atom RSS 2.0 RSS 1.0 Sources Eurof Felix Jame Michelle Mike Sage7 Stefan Sterling &c. Disclaimer Archive 12/05 11/05 10/05 09/05 08/05 07/05 06/05 05/05 04/05 03/05 02/05 01/05 12/04 11/04 10/04 09/04 08/04 07/04 06/04 05/04 04/04 03/04 02/04 01/04 12/03 11/03 10/03 09/03 Old site Recent posts 08/12: Not man enough (1) 08/12: Fare's fair (0) 07/12: Briddishisms (5) 06/12: The Trial of Saddam (5) 05/12: Leg deficiencies (4) 01/12: New York real-estate prices explained (37) 30/11: Bad vibe (22) 30/11: Thick-headed bouncers (0) 29/11: Argentina's sinister move (2) 28/11: Bedbugs and the city (8) 27/11: I've got a fast card (1) 22/11: Pedestrianize Broadway! (5) 19/11: Century 21 the next casualty at Ground Zero? (23) 19/11: Johnny Depp - sunshine traitor (4) 18/11: Gawker F***** by Yahoo! (7) Comments 06/12: geoff: as i mentioned earlier, you can get the sf and unit count for every residential tax lot in the ci 06/12: Sterling: Honestly, Felix, I doubt either number is verifiable. Like I wrote above, the city appears to tr 06/12: Felix: So if one of us gets both right, he wins 1BVC or 2BVCs? And if one of the two turns out to be unv 06/12: Sterling: OK, have a few moments now, I had to get someplace before 2pm and the roads are crap with snow an 06/12: Sterling: I did! 06/12: Felix: Sterling, will you propose your bet already? I've already said that I'm likely to accept. Just te 06/12: Sterling: Are you trying to squirm out of it? 06/12: Felix: You've lost me, I'm afraid. When you say "double or nothing", are you proposing a 2BVC bet on the 06/12: Sterling: I'm not sure how we could specify the terms to exclude elevators if they are included in filings. 06/12: Felix: I'm not sure about the terms of the wager: we seem to be betting on two different things at the s 06/12: Sterling: If you go double or nothing on the proposition that the amount of existing residential floor spac 06/12: Felix: Sterling, I'm afraid the factors leading to high apartment prices are much more mundane than your 06/12: Sterling: "Manhattan is the one real-estate market in the US where there are, to all intents and purposes, 05/12: Felix: Sterling, Manhattan is the one real-estate market in the US where there are, to all intents and p 05/12: sac: This thread is hilarious and sad, although a good example of how the same statistics can be appli 05/12: Sterling: Felix, just because apartments are currently going for $1.21 million a pop doesn't mean that ever 05/12: 99: There's the shark, and then there's the A train. Sterling's Manhattan clearly stops at 96th stree 05/12: Felix: Renter-occupied apartments are much smaller than owner-occupied apartments. And as the < 05/12: Sterling: Geoff - The only reason I was pompously snug is because Felix had reacted to to my estimates with 05/12: geoff: if anyone is real curious why not pony up the $250 to get a list of every tax lot in the city?<br 04/12: Sterling: The multiplier of 4 was back-of-envelope guess. The 280,000,000 number came from <a href 04/12: Felix: Where does your 280m sq ft number come from? Your first two calculations are based on it, so I'd 04/12: 99: Sterling: do your calculations include infrastructure or is the 280MM number a percentage of raw 04/12: Sterling: I've tried to find the statistic, but to no avail. It seems that while office space inventor is 04/12: Sterling: My claim is that the amount of residential-zoned floor space in Manhattan probably works out to b 04/12: Felix: Sterling jumped the shark so long ago it's probably not surprising, but for those of you keeping 04/12: Sterling: OK, 22 square miles equals about 613,324,800 square feet. That would leave each of Manhattan's 1 03/12: Felix: OK, Sterling, let's do it your way. Assume that each of the 1.5 million residents of Manhattan ha 03/12: Sterling: I don't think I'm confused. My points are: a) there is actually quite a bit more than 22 02/12: Andrew: Susan and Sterling, you are embarassingly confused. What percentage of real estate in Manhattan i Trackbacks

real estate investing market.

Real Estate Investment Ideas? New Search Advanced Search Hot Property The real story on real estate BLOGS Blogspotting Brand New Day Byte of the Apple Deal Flow Economics Unbound Fine On Media Hot Property NussbaumOnDesign Tech Beat BLOG RSS FEEDS About RSS Blogspotting Brand New Day Byte of the Apple Deal Flow Economics Unbound Fine On Media Hot Property Nussbaum On Design Tech Beat PREMIUM CONTENT MBA Insider ONLINE FEATURES Book Reviews BW Video Columnists Interactive Gallery Newsletters Past Covers Philanthropy Podcasts Special Reports TECHNOLOGY Product Reviews Startups Special Reports Tech Stats Wildstrom: Tech Maven SMALLBIZ Smart Answers Success Stories Today's Tip Trailblazing Companies INVESTING Annual Reports BW 50 S&P Picks & Pans Stock Screeners Free S&P Stock Report SCOREBOARDS Mutual Funds Info Tech 100 S&P 500/BW 50 B-SCHOOLS MBA Profiles MBA Rankings Who's Hiring Grads BW EXTRAS BW Digital BW Online Alerts Handheld Edition RSS Feeds Reprints/Permissions Conferences Investor Workshops BUSINESS DIRECTORY -- Find local experts in: « Cooling in California | Main | Land Sales Could Slow » October 28, 2005 Real Estate Investment Ideas? Peter Coy Every December, BusinessWeek publishes an investment guide for the year ahead. This year I'm doing the real estate story. Here's the question my editors want me to answer: Are there still any real estate bargains out there? What do you think? Any U.S. cities where house prices still have room to rise? ( Youngstown ?) Any countries where real estate is still relatively cheap? ( Germany ?) Condos feel kind of pricey lately, but are there still deals to be had? What about REITs? If you like REITs, which kinds? Name names, please. Remember, it's not enough to say that an investment costs less. You have to make the case that it's likely to go up in price and/or throw off a lot of cash in the next year. Be prepared to defend your choices because at least someone reading this blog is bound to disagree with whatever you say. I'm thinking of giving a prize to the Hot Property reader who comes up with the idea that works out the best over the next year. Let's say, either 100 acres of midtown Manhattan real estate or a paper crown labeled Real Estate Emperor. My choice. So ... send in those ideas and start arguing with each other. 04:56 PM Investing in Real Estate Trackback Pings TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blogs.businessweek.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/ Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Real Estate Investment Ideas? : » Business Week posts "Hot Property" Real Estate Contest from Pacesetter Mortgage Blog Peter Coy, over at the Business Week Hot Property Blog, is posting a Real Estate Investment contest of sorts. His question is this, Are there still any real estate bargains out there? I will put my hat in the ring [Read More] Tracked on October 29, 2005 12:06 PM » The US Real Estate Market from Adam Dudley This article at Business Week Online caused me to post my thoughts about the US real estate investing market. With rising interest rates and a multitude of home owners using deadly interest only loans and ARM's in the US, there [Read More] Tracked on October 31, 2005 09:25 AM Comments how about being a contrarian, and invest in the tanking market. For example, buy puts or short homebuilders and the credit agencies that have the largest exposure. Posted by: bradley jellerichs at October 28, 2005 06:37 PM I'll start the brawling by saying that I'm pretty darn bullish on the Seattle market. My reasoning? It's the economy... With Boeing and Microsoft doing a wonderful job of holding down the fort, and a thriving start-up vibe (in real estate alone, there is Zillow, Redfin, and HouseValues), it seems like enough of the area residents will be flush with cash for the near future to keep prices rising. And while Seattle has definitely seen some growth in the recent past, things have never gotten out of control like they have in the Bay Area. Because I really want to win the 100 acres in Manhattan (or at least an Emperor crown!), I'll get a little more specific. I'd invest in a starter home (~$350K) in the Ballard neighborhood. Of course I'm only speculating, but I think that a home like this still has plenty of room to grow in the near future (i.e. one year). Posted by: Dustin at October 31, 2005 01:30 AM OK, so far I have Maricopa County, Ariz., and Seattle. I have "short the homebuilders." I also got a very intelligent email from someone suggesting a narrow segment of REITs--ones with low debt/equity ratios that get most of their income from leasing buildings to companies in healthy industry sectors. What else? Posted by: Peter Coy at October 31, 2005 05:23 PM First, I have put aside some cash ($50k) in my money market account. I also have on my current house a 15-Year fixed mortgage (50% loan-to-value) with really affordable monthly mortgage payment. Finally, I have no plan to move out for at least 5 years. Second, I opened an (still untapped) equity line of credit on my current home (200k, about half of the equity in my house). And now, guess who will be a major player in the foreclosure market in my county after the housing boom goes bust. Assuming a worst case scenario of a 25% decline in valuation in the years following the bust, my remaining equity stake will vanish but I compensated for that by buying $20,000 worth of premium on OTM put options (CTX Jan08 45 Put for example) on the 2 big home builders in my county. Posted by: the contrarian at October 31, 2005 11:04 PM The conventional wisdom is that "as interest rates rise, real estate values must decline, and so to must REITs." The problem with this CW is that it is too simple, and it doesn't take into account the wide variation in the various types of REITs out there. If rising interest rates and the risk of a "real estate bubble" is a concern, then it is possible to screen for REITs that minimize that risk. For example, if we look at REITs that have low debt/equity ratios and derive their income mostly from leasing properties to other businesses, those REITs will be less sensitive to land valuation and interest rates. These success of these REITs are more dependent on the segment they lease to, such as healthcare, retail, etc. I ran a screen looking for REITs with debt/equity ratio less than 0.5 and whose income is tied to leases. Some promising candidates include Universal Health Realty Income Trust (UHT). Leases out 43 medical buildings in the Southwest (where there are plenty of retirees and demand for medical services), has a debt/equity ratio of 0.23. Dividend yield is 6.5% and UHT has steadily increased their dividend over the years. A similar healthcare REIT is LTC Properties Inc. (LTC), with 200 senior long-term care facilities, a debt/equity ratio of 0.23 and a divident yield of 6.6%. Hospitality Properties Trust (HPT). Owns and leases hotel and motels to various national chains such as Courtyard by Marriott and Candlewood Suites. Debt to equity is 0.49. Has more debt than I'd like but income from operations has been increasing. Good dividend payer at 7.4%. Correctional Properties Trust (CPV). Leases out 12 prison facilites and has no debt, with a dividend yield of 6.5%. The leases are long-term and include rent increases tied to the CPI. Given the latest White House shenanigans this may be a real growth industry. Interestingly, there were no residential REITs that met my low debt criteria. Many of them have debt/equity ratios greater than one. I believe those REITs are to be avoided. Posted by: Jim in Calif at October 31, 2005 11:06 PM Ernest and Young's Steven Friedman told real estate editors at the National Assn. of Realtors annual convention that the best places to buy a condo in today's market are: Jacksonville, FL Austin, TX Boise, ID Friedman said his choices are based on job growth, affordability, and quality of life. Posted by: Frances Flynn Thorsen at November 1, 2005 06:14 AM Is land still a good buy anywhere? Great comment by Boe Clark about land over on the "Land Sales Could Slow" thread (justly accusing me of being vague). Here's what he wrote: The blogger speaks of land (improved and unimproved I assume), as if it were a homogeneous commodity. Prices are going down...in which markets? In Florida, Arizona, and Texas? Or in California and Colorado? In urban, sub urban, ag, commerically zoned, or residentially zoned land? 10 miles, or twenty miles, from population centers? In urban infill areas? With or without utilities/services? Generalities get us nowhere...specifics you can use to make prudent investment decisions with. Posted by: Peter Coy at November 1, 2005 10:36 AM Here's an Idea: Wait on the housing market and slowly move towards equities. There's some bet up stocks that could bought for a song. Posted by: Joe at November 3, 2005 01:27 PM It probably doesn’t bode well for the real estate market that there are not a lot of investment ideas! Posted by: Dustin at November 3, 2005 04:15 PM What about fixing up and renting or selling dilapidated properties in out-of-favor markets? Somebody in that business emailed me with that suggestion. Seems like it could be a good deal for people who don't mind supplementing their cash with elbow grease. Posted by: Peter Coy at November 3, 2005 06:00 PM Forget the US. Japan's real estate market is rip-roaring. Posted by: Taro Akasaka at November 3, 2005 11:15 PM 1. REITs holding a lot of mid level apartment buildings (where the former homeowners in CA will be moving once the number of foreclosures exceeds 100,000 in the state). 2. REITs specializing in self storage facilities. These units rent for the same price per square foot as apartments, but cost a fraction of the cost to build and maintain and are enormously profitable. Again, demand will soar as the number of foreclosures in CA exceeds 100,000. The number of foreclosures in CA WILL exceed 100,000 now that rates are rising and the I/O speculators and such will be driven out of the market as will so many first time buyers who have been sold these disastrous loans (half of buyers in San Diego and 2/3 of buyers statewide for the past 18 months). Posted by: Dave at November 8, 2005 06:58 PM Are we talking about investments (say 5-7% compounding growth over 20 years) or speculation (dreams of 100% inflation over 1 year)? I like the idea of getting a positive cash flow with 20% down and then watching 5-7% appreciation over 20 years. Summit County, Colorado, is 90 miles west of Denver and another mile higher. From 2001 to 2005, prices were flat, since demand equaled supply. Since January of 2005, demand has increased and prices are starting to climb sharply. Summit County has a great location, great weather, and spectacular scenery, yet is much less expensive than Aspen and Vail. To me it looks like a great bet. Posted by: DaveB at November 12, 2005 04:32 PM Bulgaria is the hottest real estate market in Europe. http://www.thepropertyinvestorsclub.co.uk/pic-bulgarian-property-investment.htm http://www.thepropertyinvestorsclub.co.uk/property-investment-tracker.htm http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2005/06/global_real_est.html http://bbtbulgaria.blogspot.com Posted by: Dimitar Vesselinov at November 19, 2005 09:21 PM How about India; bungalos on the beach near major cities. Bocas in Panama? Or, Tibet, near Changdu. Those are my bets. Douglas Posted by: Douglas at December 12, 2005 02:55 AM Post a comment Name: Email Address: URL: Comments: Recent Posts New and Improved In 2006, a Harsher Reality for Realty A Gloomy Christmas for Real Estate? The Reflex Effect Wealthy Americans believe real estate to go up, up, up Recent Comments Cooling in California (6) Housing Numbers Continue to Surprise (9) Neg Am Mortgages (6) Taxpayer-backed mortgages for undocumented immigrants? (5) No mass exodus from the Golden State (12) Short Countrywide? (1) A Gloomy Christmas for Real Estate? (1) Washington DC bubble? (214) Riskiest housing markets (6) Wealthy Americans believe real estate to go up, up, up (2) Recent Trackbacks Wealthy Americans believe real estate to go up, up, up (1) More New Homes for Sale (1) A Fun Website for Checking Affordability (1) Impact of higher mortgage rates? (2) Making Sense of Average Mortgage Rates (1) A Less Curvaceous Yield Curve (2) The Westchester Tease (1) More Option ARMs and Alt-A Loans (1) Real Estate Investment Ideas? (2) Boston housing...on the rise???? (1) Categories Affordability Amey's adventures in real estate Bubbles Cali is Doomed Demographics Economy Estate Planning Foreclosures Home builders Housing Prices Investing in Real Estate Mortgage Rates Mortgages Real Estate Culture Refinancing Regions Remodeling Selling Archives December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 Subscribe RSS Feed

new homes for sale,

New York New Jersey Connecticut Real Estate / homes for sale / mortgage / refinance / home equity ® , requesting a mortgage, apartment locating services and moving resources." Real Estate .com - New York real estate listings, new homes for sale, find a REALTOR ® or request a mortgage, refinance or home equity loan. Find a REALTOR ® in New York and Receive a Gift Card Worth Up To $1,000 or more. OR Find a Builder in New York with iNest and Get 1% Cash Back! You may also want to: Get Pre-Qualified through LendingTree Get Your Credit Report Search Homes in New York You may also want to: Use Our FREE Personal Home Buying Guide Find out what the house in New York isworth, it's FREE. Get a Mortgage through LendingTree Related articles: Negotiating Strategies Understanding Contractsand Contingencies Find a Home Inspector in New York Find a Mover in New York Related article: Understand a Home Appraisal FREE Utilities Setup in New York Receive Competitive Quotes for Homeowners' Insurance in New York Type: Homes, The Real Estate Book Additional Home Listings New Construction Homes Foreclosure Homes State or Province: Please Choose Alberta, AB Alaska, AK Alabama, AL Arkansas, AR Arizona, AZ British Columbia, BC California, CA Colorado, CO Connecticut, CT District of Columbia, DC Delaware, DE Florida, FL Georgia, GA Hawaii, HI Iowa, IA Idaho, ID Illinois, IL Indiana, IN Kansas, KS Kentucky, KY Louisiana, LA Massachusetts, MA Manitoba, MB Maryland, MD Maine, ME Michigan, MI Minnesota, MN Missouri, MO Mississippi, MS Montana, MT New Brunswick, NB North Carolina, NC North Dakota, ND Nebraska, NE New Hampshire, NH New Jersey, NJ New Mexico, NM Nova Scotia, NS Nevada, NV New York, NY Ohio, OH Oklahoma, OK Ontario, ON Oregon, OR Pennsylvania, PA Rhode Island, RI South Carolina, SC South Dakota, SD Tennessee, TN Texas, TX Utah, UT Virginia, VA Vermont, VT Washington, WA Wisconsin, WI West Virginia, WV Wyoming, WY City: Select a State or Zip: Price Range: Any $50,000 $75,000 $100,000 $125,000 $150,000 $175,000 $200,000 $225,000 $250,000 $275,000 $300,000 $325,000 $350,000 $375,000 $400,000 $425,000 $450,000 $475,000 $500,000 $525,000 $550,000 $575,000 $600,000 $625,000 $650,000 $675,000 $700,000 $725,000 $750,000 $775,000 $800,000 $825,000 $850,000 $875,000 $900,000 $925,000 $950,000 $975,000 $1,000,000 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 to Any $50,000 $75,000 $100,000 $125,000 $150,000 $175,000 $200,000 $225,000 $250,000 $275,000 $300,000 $325,000 $350,000 $375,000 $400,000 $425,000 $450,000 $475,000 $500,000 $525,000 $550,000 $575,000 $600,000 $625,000 $650,000 $675,000 $700,000 $725,000 $750,000 $775,000 $800,000 $825,000 $850,000 $875,000 $900,000 $925,000 $950,000 $975,000 $1,000,000 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 Bedrooms: Any 1+ 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ Baths: Any 1+ 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ Please note: Not all real estate professionals participate in the "Find a REALTOR ® " program, which you must use in order to receive The Home Depot ® incentive. Lenders use qualifying ratios to determine how much of a mortgage you can reasonably afford. Read More Loan Amount: Term in Months: Interest Rate: Monthly Payment: How much will your gift card be if you use a REALTOR ® on the Network? How much can you borrow? What will adjustable rate payments be? Which is better: 15 or 30 year term? Find a REALTOR ® in New York and Receive a Gift Card Worth Up To $1,000 or more. You may also want to: Use Our FREE Personal Home Selling Guide Find a Home Inspector in New York Featured articles by Realty Times ® : 20 Ways REALTORS ® Successfully Market Homes Let the Seller Beware? Tips for Home Sellers Find out what the house in New York isworth, it's FREE. Related article: Why Should You Use A Seller's Agent in New York? Negotiating Strategies Understanding Contractsand Contingencies Find a Mover in New York Related article: Understand a Home Appraisal FREE Utilities Setup in New York Buying a Home | Selling a Home | Homes for Sale | Credit Report & Score | House Prices at Domania New Home Construction | Find a Mover | Find a REALTOR ® | Home Financing | Real Estate Learning Center Customer Service | Publications | For the Media | News Releases | Join Our Real Estate Network | Post Home Listings Privacy | Security | Terms of Use | Jobs | Disclosures and Licenses | Sitemap | Loans | Commercial Real Estate Houses for Sale in: Atlanta | Austin | Boston | Charlotte | Chicago | Dallas | Denver | Houston | Las Vegas | Los Angeles Miami | Minneapolis | New York | Philadelphia | Phoenix | San Antonio | San Diego | San Francisco | Seattle Washington, DC | Real Estate in More Cities LendingTree technology and processes are patented under US Patent Nos. 6,385,594 and 6,611,816. © 1998 - Real Estate.com, a service of LendingTree, LLC. All Rights Reserved.This site is directed at, and made available to, persons in the continental U.S., Alaska and Hawaii only. Conversion to LendingTree, LLC We are pledged to the letter and spirit of U.S. policy for the achievement of equal housing opportunity throughout the Nation. We encourage and support an affirmative advertising and marketing program in which there are no barriers to obtaining housing because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. REALTOR ® -- A registered collective membership mark that identifies a real estate professional who is a member of the National Association of REALTORS ® and subscribes to its strict Code of Ethics. Not all of the real estate professionals participating in the "Agent's Competing" program are REALTORS ® , which are members of the National Association of REALTORS ® . The Home Depot ® is not affiliated with LendingTree, LLC. The Home Depot ® is a registered trademark of Homer TLC, Inc. RealEstate.com is not sponsored by or affiliated with the parent franchisor companies of any of the participating members of its network. Partner Sites: Citysearch | Expedia | Hotels.com | Ticketmaster.com | Hotwire.com | Entertainment.com | Match.com Home Shopping Network | ReserveAmerica | LendingTree.com | iNest | ServiceMagic | Ask Jeeves | Gift Ideas Mortgage Calculator | Refinance at GetSmart | LendingTree Mortgage | Free Online Credit Report | Home Equity Loans

New Home

FOXNews.com SEARCH Raging Wildfires Grass fires in Oklahoma, Texas blamed for deaths, destruction of more than 200 homes Photo Essays • Southern Fires AP Soccer fields sit under floodwaters in Marysville, Calif. Heavy rains swell rivers in northern Calif., causing power outages, forcing some residents to evacuate Photos: California Floods Video: Fierce Storm 'Had to Be Done' Bank robber's officer son defends turning in dad Illinois man gets 40 years in prison after sons spot him in surveillance photo, turn him in LATEST HEADLINES ONLY ON FOX Israeli Warning Video: Is Iran much closer to nuclear weapons than many think? Politics of 2005 Rewind: President Bush, war in Iraq, Supreme Court top stories of the year Home of the Homeless Video: Community of rich residents supports ample homeless population Avoid the Yellow Snow Out There: Man busted throwing bottles of urine over fences The No Spin Year? Grrr! Americans are politically obsessed. Can't we all just get along? When a Coma Strikes In Health: Full recoveries much more common on TV soaps than in real life TODAY'S FEATURES BUSINESS HEADLINES & MARKETS • Nov. Existing Home Sales Lowest Since March • GM Shares Touch 20-Year Low • Business Activity in Midwest Grows Strongly • HealthSouth Sues Scrushy for $76M • U.K., U.S. Hilton Reach $5.7B Hotel Sale Deal • Stocks Up Slightly on Energy Prices MORE BUSINESS HEADLINES MARKET UPDATE Stock and Fund Search Sponsored By PORTFOLIO Register now to track and analyze your investments in our free and easy-to-use portfolio tracker. BULLS & BEARS POLL Vote for which Bulls & Bears prediction is most likely to come true ADVERTISEMENTS Advertise Here FOX NEWS 24/7 FOXLIFE In the FOXLight 'Wedding Crashers' cracks Bill McCuddy's top 10 movies of 2005 THE O'REILLY FACTOR A Mother's Nightmare Beth Holloway Twitty on her new campaign to save other children from her daughter's fate • Read "The Factor" transcript YOUR WORLD W/ NEIL CAVUTO Taking Stock If Enron's Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling go down, will stocks go up? SPECIAL REPORT W/ BRIT HUME Brit Hume's Grapevine Is there a Chinese hiring bias for those born in the Year of the Dog? • Read: The Grapevine THE BIG STORY W/ JOHN GIBSON Pre- Sexual Agreement? Inspired by Kobe Bryant? A contract for celebrities to hand out before sex • Read the Transcript ON THE RECORD W/ GRETA Life and Death Fight Is Clarence Ray Allen too old to execute? • Read Greta's Blog OTHER NEWS HEADLINES POLITICS • Rewind: Bush, Iraq Topped Political News of 2005 • Group Gives $100,000 for Disabled Veterans Memorial • New Navy Secretary to Take Over Post Next Week MORE POLITICS HEADLINES TECHNOLOGY • Louderback: Top Stories and Predictions for 2005, 2006 • NSA Caught Placing Cookies on Web Visitors' Computers • Pioneer Rolls Out Blu-Ray DVD Burner MORE TECHNOLOGY HEADLINES SCIENCE • Adult Brain Cells Do Keep Growing • Good-Hearted Women Fail to Deal With Bad Hearts • Fish Mating Preferences Change With Age MORE SCIENCE HEADLINES HEALTH • Bird Flu, Cloning, Katrina: Top Health Stories of 2005 • Surgery Offers Hope to Mutilation Victims • Vitamin D May Lower Some Cancer Risk MORE HEALTH HEADLINES FOXLIFE • Strakalogue: Grrr! 2006 ...The No Spin Year? • Fox411: 'Narnia' Overcomes 'Kong' at Box Office • Holiday Gift Guide MORE FOXLIFE HEADLINES VIEWS • Immigration: A Tool in the Enemies Toolkit • ifeminists: Abuse of Temporary Restraining Orders Endangers Real Victims • Martin Frost: King George W. ? MORE VIEWS HEADLINES NEW! SPORTS • Dungy Returns To Colts After Son's Death • Nicholson Accused Of Sexual Assault • LeBron Celebrates Turning 21 A Few Days Early MORE SPORTS HEADLINES FOX BLOGS GRETAWIRE Quick Change As the G Block approached, would I be forced to recite linking verbs memorized in the 7th grade? Watch 'On the Record with Greta Van Susteren' weeknights at 10 p.m. ET FOX NEWS Ask Dr. Manny Find out why all medical research is NOT created equal. FROM THE HEARTLAND What Makes a Hero? Shining a spotlight on those who do extraordinary things HARRIGAN ON THE HUNT Elections in Bolivia Evo Morales supporters have painted their houses blue RICK'S RAMBLES Plane Down They were heading home for the holidays... WILSON WATCH Soap Box Sunday 'Weekend Live' viewers get their chance to spout off FRIENDS INSIDER Getting Tough At least one governor is taking action against steroid use in high school SEARCH ADVERTISEMENT FOX MEANS BUSINESS POLL Should the U.S. drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? CLICK HERE TO VOTE! This is not a scientific poll. 'Your World w/ Cavuto': Weekdays at 4 p.m. ET 'The Cost of Freedom': Saturdays at 10 a.m. ET GOT A NEWS TIP? LET US KNOW. Send news tips to FOXNews.com Note : Your anonymity is guaranteed. GET YOUR WEATHER Type in your zip code to see your current conditions and five-day forecast. ZIP CODE Other Searches, Click Here ON YOUR LOCAL FOX STATION FOX News Sunday w/ Chris Wallace Check your local listings FOX NEWS RADIO FOX News Radio National news coverage coast-to-coast Tony Snow A radio revolution! Find it now in your area John Gibson The trouble begins...NOW! Find it now in your area Alan Colmes Any opinion — all the time! Find it now in your area