real estate broker too

Feds probe real estate agents - Apr. 22, 2005 Web CNN/Money Buying & Selling Investment Property Home Improvement Million $ Life Financing Best Places SAVE | EMAIL | PRINT | SUBSCRIBE TO MONEY | Feds probe real estate agents Money magazine investigation shows Justice Dept. looking into anticompetitive practices. April 22, 2005: 5:27 PM EDT By Jon Birger, Money Magazine NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Did you pay your real estate broker too much? The U.S. Department of Justice may be set to turn Tulsa, Okla. into a test-case for ending the stranglehold 6 percent commissions have over the real estate brokerage business. MONEY has learned that Justice's Antitrust Division is gathering information on the bully tactics that full-commission brokers in Tulsa allegedly use against their discount rivals to discourage commission-cutting. The probe follows other recent efforts to spur competition in the real estate industry. According to a copy of a Justice Department subpoena obtained by MONEY, federal investigators are seeking information on "possible anticompetitive conduct in the provision of real estate services in the Tulsa area" as well as "documents related to refusal to cooperate on real estate transactions." An Antitrust Division spokeswoman confirmed the existence of the investigation but declined to provide additional details. Al Unser, executive director of the Greater Tulsa Association of Realtors said: "We received a CID [civil investigative demand] from the Justice Dept. and we have responded." Economists who study real estate, such as the University of Cincinnati's Norm Miller, believe anti-competitive behavior is the primary explanation for the persistence of the 6 percent commission. J.D. Smith and Bob Meyer are two Tulsa discount real estate agents who say they were interviewed by federal investigators. They say the investigators wanted information on full-commission agents' alleged refusal to show home-buying clients properties listed by discount brokers -- a tactic known as boycotting. Boycotting exploits the one major weakness of the multiple listing service. The MLS's upside is that it centralizes all homes for sale in a single electronic marketplace that can be accessed by all agents -- and these days by Web-savvy consumers as well. The downside is that brokers must depend on one another to help sell their homes, and that discourages them from undercutting each other's commissions. While boycotting the listings of discounters is generally considered an antitrust violation -- if undisclosed, it's also a breach of fiduciary duty to clients -- industry insiders are well aware that boycotting goes on, even if they claim not to condone it. For Smith, the Feds' investigation comes a year or so too late. His realty business on the brink of ruin, Smith recently abandoned discount brokerage and went back to charging 6 percent. "In one week," Smith said, "I've had more showings and more offers from other realtors than I had in the previous two months." The Tulsa investigation is part of an ongoing Antitrust Division foray into the sharp-elbowed realty world. In March, the Antitrust Division sued the Kentucky Real Estate Commission over a state law that prohibits real estate brokers from offering commission rebates to consumers. More recently, Assistant Attorney General R. Hewitt Pate sent letters to lawmakers and regulators in Oklahoma and Texas, urging them to reject proposals that would effectively prohibit brokers from engaging in limited-service or fee-for-service realty -- such as listing a home for sale on the multiple listing service for a flat fee of $500. Bruce Hahn, chairman of the American Homeowners Grassroots Alliance, argues that state prohibitions on rebates and fee-for-service discourage competition and inflate commissions paid by consumers. "We've talked to Justice, and we think what they're doing is tremendous," he said. E-mail Jon Birger at jbirger@moneymail.com. The Hot List Most profitable renovations How risky is your 401(k)? Big new tax credits for hybrid cars More Real Estate How to buy and build on rural land Most overvalued housing markets When booms go bust... contact us | magazine customer service | site map | glossary | RSS | press room OTHER NEWS: CNN | SI | Fortune | Business2.0 = Money subscribers = Premium content -- * - Time reflects local markets trading time. † - Intraday data is at least 15-minutes delayed. Disclaimer © 2005 Cable News Network LP, LLLP. A Time Warner Company ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Terms under which this service is provided to you. privacy policy Reprints of site stories are available. Top Stories Most overvalued housing markets Risks to the economy in 2006 Which was the worst ad of all in 2005? After the ride, a rest Hilton brands reunite after 40 years YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS Real Estate Antitrust Division Corporate Governance Oklahoma or Create your own Manage alerts | What is this?

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

Buy Home

Amazon.com: Bob Dylan - No Direction Home: DVD Your Store DVD See All 32 Product Categories Your Account | Cart | Wish List | Help | Advanced Search | Browse Genres | Top Sellers | New & Future Releases | Television Central | Life & Learning | DVD Essentials | Blowout DVDs | Movie Showtimes | Used DVDs Search Amazon.com DVD Web Search Join Amazon Prime and ship Two-Day for free and Overnight for $3.99. Already a member? Sign in . DVD Information Explore this item buying info editorial reviews customer reviews cast and crew fun facts Listmania! ~Here's to My Cup Being Half F... : A list by Cecelia Davidson Add your List Ready to buy? Sign in to turn on 1-Click ordering. A9.com users save 1.57% on Amazon. Learn how . MORE BUYING CHOICES 54 used & new from $16.99 Available for in-store pickup now from: $24.99 Price may vary based on availability Enter your ZIP Code Have one to sell? Bob Dylan - No Direction Home (2005) Starring: Bob Dylan , Joan Baez Director: Martin Scorsese See larger image Share your own customer images List Price: $29.98 Price: $17.99 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. See details You Save: $11.99 (40%) Availability: Usually ships within 24 hours. Ships from and sold by Amazon.com. Want it delivered Friday, December 30? Choose One-Day Shipping at checkout. See details 54 used & new available from $16.99 Edition: Better Together Buy this DVD with No Direction Home: The Soundtrack (The Bootleg... today! Total List Price: $54.96 Buy Together Today: $37.95 Customers who bought this DVD also bought No Direction Home: The Soundtrack (The Bootleg Series Vol. 7) ~ Bob Dylan The Bob Dylan Scrapbook, 1956-1966 by Bob Dylan Chronicles, Vol. 1 by Bob Dylan Bob Dylan - Don't Look Back DVD ~ Bob Dylan Explore Similar Items : in DVD , in Music , and in Books Storyline Genres: Documentary , Music Plot Outline: This is a four hour documentary on Bob Dylan that ends in 1966. Plot Synopsis: Portrait of an artist as a young man. Roughly chronological, using archival footage intercut with recent interviews, a story takes shape of Bob Dylan's (b. 1941) coming of age from 1961 to 1966 as a singer, songwriter, performer, and star. He takes from others: singing styles, chord changes, and rare records. He keeps moving: on stage, around New York City and on tour, from Suze Rotolo to Joan Baez and on, from songs of topical witness to songs of raucous independence, from folk to rock. He drops the past. He refuses, usually with humor and charm, to be simplified, classified, categorized, or finalized: always becoming, we see a shapeshifter on a journey with no direction home. Product Details Actors: Bob Dylan , Joan Baez , Liam Clancy , John Cohen , Allen Ginsberg , See more Directors: Martin Scorsese Format: Box set, Color, Full screen, Ntsc, Academy Region: Region 1 ( U.S. and Canada only. Read more about DVD formats. ) Aspect Ratio: 1.33:1 Number of discs: 2 Studio: Paramount DVD Release Date: September 20, 2005 Average Customer Review: Based on 113 Reviews DVD Features: Available Subtitles: English Available Audio Tracks: English (Dolby Digital 5.1), English (Dolby Digital 2.0 Surround) Bob Dylan Performances: Blowin' in the Wind Girl of the North Country Man of Constant Sorrow Mr. Tambourine Man Love Minus Zero/No Limit Like a Rolling Stone One Too Many Mornings Other Features Unused promotion spot for "Positively 4th Street" "I Can't Leave Her Behind" - Work in progress in hotel room Note on DVD sets: During shipping, discs in multidisc sets occasionally become dislodged without damage. Please examine and play these discs. If you are not completely satisfied, we'll refund or replace your purchase. From IMDb: Quotes & Trivia ASIN: B000A0GP4K Amazon.com Sales Rank: #47 in DVD Theatrical Release Information US Theatrical Release Date: July 21, 2005 Production Company: Box TV, British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), Cappa Production, Grey Water Park Productions, Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), Spitfire Pictures, WNET Channel 13 New York Budget Estimate: $2 Million Also Known As: Bob Dylan Anthology Project Filming Locations: Hibbing, Minnesota, USA| New York, USA Editorial Reviews Amazon.com It's virtually impossible to approach No Direction Home without a cluster of fixed ideas. Who doesn't have their own private Dylan? The true excellence of Martin Scorsese's achievement lies in how his documentary shakes us free of our comfortable assumptions. In the process, it plays out on several levels at once, each taking shape as an unfailingly fascinating narrative. There is, of course, the central story of an individual genius staking out his artistic identity. But along with this Bildungsroman come other threads and contexts: most notably, the role of popular culture in postwar America, art's self-reliance versus its social responsibilities, and fans' complicity with the publicity machine in sustaining myths. All of these threads reinforce each other, together weaving the film's intricate texture. Scorsese's 200-plus-minute focus on Dylan's earliest years allows for a portrayal of unprecedented depth, with multiple angles: a rich composite photo is the result. The main narrative has an epic quality: it moves from Dylan growing up in cold-war Minnesota through Greenwich Village coffeehouses and the Newport Folk Festival, climaxing in the controversial 1966 U.K. tour that crowned a period of unbridled and explosive creativity. In his transition from Robert Allen Zimmerman to Bob Dylan, we observe him concocting his impossible-to-describe, unique combination of the topical with the archaic, like an ancient oracle. Scorsese was able to access previously unseen footage from the Dylan archives, including performances, press conferences, and recording sessions. He also uses interviews with Dylan's friends, ex-friends, and fellow artists, and, intriguingly, with the notoriously reclusive Dylan himself (who looks back to provide glosses on the early years), fusing what could have turned into a tiresome series of digressions and tangents into a powerful whole as enlightening, eccentric, contradictory, and ultimately irreducible as its subject. Some of the deeply personal bits remain unrevealed, but Dylan's preternatural self-assurance acquires a slightly self-deprecating, even comic edge via some of his reflective comments. Alongside the arrogance, we see touching moments of the young artist's reverence for Woody Guthrie and Johnny Cash. Joan Baez, in a poignant confessional mood, comes off well, and the late Allen Ginsberg is so seraphically charming he almost steals the show a few times. A crucial throughline is Dylan's hunger for recognition and ability to shape perceptions so that would be singled out as not just another dime-a-dozen folk singer. It's illuminating--particularly for those familiar with the artist's latter-day aloofness on stage--to see his reactions to audience booing in the wake of his "betrayal" in this fuller context. No Direction Home also makes clear--in a way that wasn't possible in D.A. Pennebaker's iconic Don't Look Back --how Dylan's ability to manipulate his persona always, at its core, protects the urge for expression: Dylan's ultimate mandate, as an artist, is never to be pinned down. As Scorsese masterfully shows, the myth around Dylan only grows bigger the more we discover about him. --Thomas May DVD features : This two-disc set of Scorsese's full two-part documentary includes treats such as Dylan working on a song at his hotel during the UK tour as well as performing several songs as in concert or on TV. More for the Dylanologist No Direction Home: The Soundtrack Chronicles: Volume One (paperback edition) Bob Dylan Scrapbook Don't Look Back The Bob Dylan Bootleg Series The Last Waltz Product Description: The two-part film includes never-seen performance footage and interviews with artists and musicians whose lives intertwined with Dylan’s during that time. For the first time on camera, Dylan talks openly and extensively about this critical period in his career. Customers who viewed this DVD also viewed Bob Dylan World Tours 1966-1974, Through the Camera of Barry Feinstein DVD ~ Bob Dylan The Concert for Bangladesh (Limited Deluxe Edition) DVD ~ George Harrison Cream - Royal Albert Hall - London May 2-3-5-6 2005 DVD ~ Cream Prairie Wind ~ Neil Young Explore Similar Items : in DVD , in Music , and in Books Spotlight Reviews Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers. 139 of 150 people found the following review helpful: Best Dylan documentary ever , September 13, 2005 Reviewer: David L. Minton - See all my reviews Found this at The Rogovoy Report (He is a cultural critic for WAMC Northeast Public Radio) I've seen the complete No Direction Home Martin Scorsese documentary, upcoming on American Masters on PBS in a couple of weeks (9/26-27), and it's really great. I didn't realize that it includes extensive new interview footage with Bob Dylan himself, appearing in his most straightforward, seemingly normal role EVER -- even more than on the 60 Minutes interview with Ed Bradley -- normal enough almost to take him at his word on his extensive comments on particular songs, his background, incidents in his career, etc. The film includes terrific interviews with dozens of key figures from Dylan's life and career, including Izzy Young, Harold Leventhal, Joan Baez, Paul Nelson, Bob Neuwirth, Al Kooper, Bruce Langhorne, Pete Seeger, Mark Spoelstra, Suze Rotolo , and fortunately, Allen Ginsberg and Dave Van Ronk when both of them were still around. The film also includes a tremendous amount of vintage film clips, concert footage, and still photography, a lot of which I've never seen before -- and I think I have had access to most if not all of the unofficial stuff circulating from that era. It even includes footage from postwar Hibbing, as well as early recordings (some of which of course are reflected in the companion CD "soundtrack"). It includes a lot of Newport Folk festivals and "Eat the Document" era concert and incidental footage in the best quality I've ever seen or heard any of it, and a lot that I don't think was included in the original ETD. The home DVD version also includes extensive full-song versions of concert songs that will not be screened on TV. More important than all these parts, the sum total is a fascinating "interpretation" of how Robert Allen Zimmerman became Bob Dylan up through and including summer 1966, weaved subtly by master filmmaker Scorsese simply through vintage clips, interviews, and really smart editing. The way Scorsese handles the combination of interviews and songs reminds me of The Last Waltz, but he does an even better, more subtle (and more complex) job here. I think it's as valuable a document that has ever been made about Bob Dylan -- as valuable as any book or biography, including Chronicles itself. Now, if only Scorsese spent equal time and effort on 1966-2006, but I imagine that's not likely to happen..... I've gotten some feedback already that Scorsese didn't originate this project and had nothing to do with the original footage, but of course that doesn't matter -- the point is he and/or his team organized it in a way that makes it a coherent narrative, and one with a particular point of view that has the imprimatur of Bob Dylan himself. For those who take issue with that, I suggest, as Dylan himself said all those years ago, eat the document. Was this review helpful to you? ( Report this ) 163 of 172 people found the following review helpful: Not my review, but that of a UK viewer , September 9, 2005 Reviewer: J. Morrison (Texas) - See all my reviews I was very frustrated by the lack of credible reviews, so I hunted down a review from the UK Observer newspaper: "Bob Dylan is a private man who is notoriously camera shy. The TV interview he gave around the publication of his autobiography, Chronicles, last year was his first in two decades, so there was some surprise when Martin Scorsese announced he was making the definitive TV biopic with the man's full co-operation. It seems that in his sixties, Dylan - who has spent so much of his career laying false trails and telling downright lies about himself - has decided it's time to set the record straight and get his version of his life and times on the record, both in print and on film. And Scorsese, who directed The Last Waltz, the 1977 film about Dylan's former backing group, the Band, was the obvious man to do it. Almost four hours long, No Direction Home deals only with the early part of Dylan's career, ending in 1966 and the tumultuous world tour on which he was booed by folk purists unable to accept his new-found rock'n'roll ways. It airs on BBC2 next month and is a riveting piece of film-making that draws on wonderful contemporary footage, much of it previously unseen, as well as revelatory new interviews. Scorsese and his team also turned up a treasure trove of unreleased music, which constitutes the latest volume in the 'official bootleg series' Dylan launched in 1991 to combat the pirates who have conferred on him the dubious honour of being the most bootlegged artist in history." Was this review helpful to you? ( Report this ) Customer Reviews Average Customer Review: Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers. 1 of 3 people found the following review helpful: Great Documentary, but beware... , December 20, 2005 Reviewer: Piers Montague - See all my reviews This documentary was fantastic. I have no qualms with it. Rather, my problem lies with the extra DVD of 'performances.' I thought, when I bought it, that I'd be able to watch entire filmed performances. This is not the case - the 'performances' are simply the same clips from the documentary, not full performances. So, this is false advertising. Beware. Was this review helpful to you? ( Report this ) 1 of 1 people found the following review helpful: For the newcomer into Dylan as well as the longtime fanatics , December 19, 2005 Reviewer: MANUEL J HERNANDEZ "http://askmanny.com" (Orlando, FL) - See all my reviews I consider myself to be somewhere in between newcomers into Bob Dylan's work and his longtime fans. I first started paying close attention to his legacy of work around the turn of the century, and each step of the way I feel more and more respect for what he accomplished and his willingness to take risks and navigate against the current many times. The documentary "No Direction Home - Bob Dylan" by Martin Scorsese, only underscores further what a fantastic artist Dylan is. It follows him from his early days until the time right before his motorcycle accident in 1966, jumping between footage of interviews with the artist, friends, colleagues and people that knew him along the way, and live performances from his 1963-1966 period. Granted that the special features in the DVD set are not particularly special, the 207 minutes the 2-part documentary lasts feel like a short time, when you realize the transcendence of Dylan's work and how he broke new musical ground along the way. "No Direction Home" (a title taken from the lyrics to his classic "Like a Rolling Stone") will entertain and inform newcomers into his music and die-hard Bob Dylan fans alike, as it sheds new light on a fascinating era in our contemporary history. Was this review helpful to you? ( Report this ) 1 of 1 people found the following review helpful: Bob Dylan as we have never seen him before , December 17, 2005 Reviewer: Michael Wheeler "Stratocaster" (Las Vegas, Nevada United States) - See all my reviews Every so often something comes out that is extraordinary. Martin Scorsese took the time to put together a documentary of possibly the finest writer of the 20th Century. This shows Dylan from his growing up years in Hibbing Minnesota to his coffee house years in Greenwich Village. For any Dylan fan this documentary is a must. It goes into his rise in detail and has unreleased footage of several performances. Among the performances are This Land is Your Land, which shows Dylan paying tribute to Woody Guthrie. You also hear a rare recording of Song to Woody from his very first album. You hear a Demo of his classic, Dont Think Twice Its Alright. This recording pre-dates the version from the Freewheelin Bob Dylan. The lyrics are the same as the way Peter, Paul and Mary recorded them on their album. Masters of War is live and sounds like the version on the album. I Am A Man of Constant Sorrow is certainly worth the listen.. When the Ship Comes in and Mr Tambourine Man are also very well done. The version of Blowin in the Wind is a disappointment. The second CD is loaded with electric tunes he later did. Dylan himself is interviewed as well as contemporarites such as Joan Baez and others who knew him at the time. Dylan has always been a very private individual so we finally see the man for what he really is, and what he meant to America in the 60's I would not only recommend this to Dylan fans but to any historian who wants to know about Bob Dylan. Martin Scorsese as he did with his blues series has really put a gem together Was this review helpful to you? ( Report this ) 2 of 3 people found the following review helpful: A Portrait of the Artist as An Angry Young Man , December 14, 2005 Reviewer: Trevor Seigler (South Carolina) - See all my reviews In "No Direction Home", Martin Scorsese gives us a rare look at Bob Dylan's pivotal and volatile evolution from a Woody Guthrie copycat to arguably the single most important solo artist in rock history. And he does so with enigmatic clips of the man himself, old and withered, looking back on a time when everything changed not only for himself but for the world of pop music at large. The film, which uses Dylan's 1966 British tour as a frame of reference, looks at Dylan's beginnings in the cold wilds of Minnesota, his move to New York and rise to fame in the folk circles, and the moment that he "plugged in" and revolutionized music forever. Through it all, there is the music, which really gets a better treatment than in most "musician bios". After all, it's the music that made Dylan a landmark cultural icon, and coupled with the various images he adopted over the course of the years (here seen first as a Guthrie acolyte, then a roving folkie, and finally a stoned-out rock god), it is a fitting testament to his aura and appeal. Much like "The Beatles Anthology" some ten years ago, "No Direction Home" uses archival footage and modern interviews blended together to present a seamless look at what was, and what is. Scorsese narrows his focus to the years of 1958 to 1966, during Dylan's groundbreaking debut and transformation from the darling of the folk scene to something much more. He intersperses accounts from contemporaries like Dave Van Ronk, Joan Baez, and Allen Ginsburg with footage of Dylan's performances to make a compelling portrait of an American enigma. That being said, you won't come away from the movie feeling as if you "know" Bob Dylan. Such would be impossible, because in some ways it is his mysterious aura that keeps him in the public eye. But whatever you may feel is lacking in your knowledge of the man, you will come to understand the drive behind his music all that much more. When Dylan first appeared, of course, he was taken up as the second coming of his idol, Woody Guthrie. As he relates in the film, Dylan became disenchanted with the movement and soon began looking for ways out of what he considered a barrier on his artistic growth. What you come away with is the sense not only of how he felt about his transformation to a rock sound, but also how his peers in the folk scene (many of whom praised his early work) felt and why both sides had a right to do so. Bob Dylan's life and work will always be a source of endless fascination for those continuing generations that discover him. In "No Direction Home", Martin Scorsese has given the world a fine look into his most revolutionary period, a time that saw him rise from the Boy-King of the New York folk scene to a pop icon with a poetic license unlike the groups that came before him. And in the middle of the film, Dylan shares the great secret of what fueled all these changes: "A real artist is never satisfied with what he's doing. Once you get comfortable, that's when you die artistically" (or words to that effect). And that, in the end, is the message to take away from "No Direction Home", quite possibly the finest musical biography committed to celuloid. It's a must not just for Dylan fans, but for anyone seeking to make a living as an artist. When you have a guide like Bob Dylan to lead the way, it will always be interesting. Was this review helpful to you? ( Report this ) See all 113 customer reviews... Listmania! Mr. D in the Movies : by Demonic Floyd "Seamus" DVDs Under Under My Bed : by Digifilm-Sales ~Here's to My Cup Being Half F... : by Cecelia Davidson So You'd Like to... Become Familiar with Bob Dylan and His Music : by maxx-mccann , no qualifications Have A Fundamental Bob Dylan Collection : by Mike Vegas King , A Dylan Devotee ~Enjoy These with Snickerdoodles & a Cup of Coffee~ : by Helen Meredith , art teacher Fun Facts from IMDb.com: Nominations Click here to see more Nominations Grammy Awards: Grammy for Best Compilation Soundtrack Album for Motion Picture, Television or Other Visual Media, Best Long Form Music Video Satellite Awards: Satellite Award for Outstanding Documentary DVD Trivia Click here to see more Trivia Martin Scorsese never met Bob Dylan. Columbia/SME Records, Sony Music, and Bob Dylan's management gave Martin Scorsese access to its vaults, something Dylan has never given to any documentary filmmaker. Quotes Click here to see more Quotes Reporter : How many people who major in the same musical vineyard in which you toil, how many are protest singers? That is, people who use their music, and use the songs to protest the uh, social state in which we live today, the matter of war, the matter of crime, or whatever it might be. Bob Dylan : Um... how many? Reporter : Yes. How many? Bob Dylan : Uh, I think there's about uh, 136. [People around him giggle. The reporter doesn't laugh] Reporter : You say ABOUT 136, or you mean exactly 136? Bob Dylan : Uh, it's either 136 or 142. For more information about "Bob Dylan - No Direction Home" visit the Internet Movie Database (IMDb) Look for similar items by category Browse similar items in: DVD > Actors & Actresses > ( B ) > Baez, Joan DVD > Actors & Actresses > ( D ) > Dylan, Bob DVD > Actors & Actresses > ( G ) > Ginsberg, Allen DVD > Actors & Actresses > ( S ) > Scorsese, Martin DVD > Directors > ( S ) > Scorsese, Martin DVD > Formats > Boxed Sets > Documentary DVD > Genres > Documentary > General DVD > Genres > Music Video & Concerts > Artists > Dylan, Bob DVD > Genres > Music Video & Concerts > Classic Rock > General DVD > Genres > Musicals & Performing Arts > Documentary Suggestion Box Your comments can help make our site better for everyone. If you've found something incorrect, broken, or frustrating on this page, let us know so that we can improve it. Please note that we are unable to respond directly to suggestions made via this form. If you need help with an order, please contact Customer Service . Please mark as many of the following boxes that apply: Product information is missing important details. Product information is incorrect. Propose corrections using our Online Catalog Update Form . The page contains typographical errors. The page takes too long to load. The page has a software bug in it. Content violates Amazon.com's policy on offensive language . Product offered violates Amazon.com's policy on items that can be listed for sale. Comments or Examples: Examples: Missing information such as dimensions and model number, typos, inaccuracies, etc. Where's My Stuff? • Track your recent orders . • View or change your orders in Your Account . Shipping & Returns • See our shipping rates & policies . • Return an item (here's our Returns Policy ). Need Help? • Forgot your password? Click here . • Redeem or buy a gift certificate. • Visit our Help department . Search Amazon.com Books Popular Music Music Downloads Classical Music DVD VHS Apparel Yellow Pages Movie Showtimes Toys Baby Computers Video Games Electronics Camera & Photo Software Tools & Hardware Office Products Magazines Sports & Outdoors Outdoor Living Kitchen Jewelry & Watches Beauty Gourmet Food Musical Instruments Health/Personal Care Pet Supplies Travel Cell Phones & Service Outlet Auctions zShops Everything Else Automotive for Amazon.com Home | Directory of All Stores Our International Sites: Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | Japan | France | China Help | Shopping Cart | Your Account | Sell Items | 1-Click Settings Investor Relations | Press Room | Careers Conditions of Use | Privacy Notice © 1996-2005, Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates

Real Estate Prices

Find Your Home Value, House Values and Prices on Yahoo! Real Estate Find Your Home Value, House Values and Prices Choose Location Home Homes for Sale Apartments for Rent Home Loans Moving & Insurance Tools My Real Estate Real Estate > Resources & Tools > Home Values and Prices Features Classifieds • Sell Your Home • Rent Your Apartment Home Search • Find Homes for Sale • Find Properties for Rent REALTORS • Find & Compare REALTORS Mortgages & Financing • Find a Lender • Today's Mortgage Rates • Loan Calculators • Credit Reports • Refinance Loans Resources • Moving Services • Foreclosure Center Neighborhood Research • What's My Home Worth? • School Profiles • Neighborhood Profiles Specialty Property • Foreclosures • New Homes • Commercial Real Estate • List Commercial Real Estate Home Improvement & Services • Home Services • Home Improvement Library • House Facts Get Home Values and Prices Sponsored by Get Home Values and Prices Access millions of public real estate records instantly! This comparable sales data helps you analyze the value of your home or other homes in seconds. Results include price, square footage, bedrooms, and year built (where available). You can also get a custom home valuation from a top-performing local REALTOR! Street Address: City & State or Zip: Sponsored Links Find a Real Estate Appraiser Find a real estate appraiser anywhere throughout the USA. Licensed, pre-screened, searchable by city and zip. www.appraiserwho.com Instant Real Estate Appraisals Instant and accurate home valuations. Buying or selling? Our multi-page reports give an accurate viewpoint of your property value. Comprehensive reports, including tax data. Nationwide. www.electronicappraiser.com Free Real Estate Appraisal Visit Homescape.com now to sign up for a free, no-obligation real estate appraisal and find local real estate agents to help you sell. www.homescape.com Find Real Estate Appraisers Search our free nationwide database of real estate appraisers. Fast searches and precise coverage areas. Come and see the difference. www.appraisermatch.com (Become a Sponsor) Homes For Sale - Apartments For Rent - Current Mortgage Rates - Real Estate Agents - Local - Yellow Pages

Foreclosure Property Listings •

Tax Administration Durham County Government Advanced Search Terrorist Threat Level Home Services Departments News Jobs Public Records Where Can I Find...? Calendar Links Feedback Durham Neighborhood College "Enlightening and empowering citizens to build a better Durham" UPDATED: December 15, 2005 > Tax Administration : Foreclosure Auction New Office Hours to 8:30AM - 5:00PM effective February 2, 2004 Durham County Tax Office to accept electronic check payments Department Home General Information • About the Tax Administrator • About the Tax Office • Frequently Asked Questions • Tax Valuation Appeal Process • Tax Rates Public Information • Record Searches • On-line Business Listing System • On-line Tax Payments • Tax Foreclosure Property Listings • GIS Maps • Property Tax Forms and Publications • Impact Fee Information Information For... • Owners of Real Estate • Business Personal Property Owner • Business Privilege License/ Beer/Wine License • Motor Vehicle & Personal Property Taxation • Revaluation 2008 • Revaluación 2008 Property Tax Foreclosure Auction The tax information provided here is for informational purposes only, does not constitute any certification of taxes and should not be relied upon for actual payment or collection of taxes. The information, pictures, maps, or any other data contained on this website contains no warranties or guarantees. Anyone interested in participating in the bidding process should conduct his or her own research for each individual property. The Durham County Tax Collector, at the direction of the Durham County Commissioners and the Durham City Council, is aggressively pursuing the collection of delinquent real and personal property taxes. One of the collection tools used by the Tax Collector is the employment of private attorneys to commence formal foreclosure proceedings under North Carolina General Statutes 105-374 against real property on which there are delinquent unpaid property taxes. IMPORTANT INFORMATION Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) about the tax foreclosure process in Durham and in North Carolina AuctionContent PropertyTax Foreclosure Sale Date: December 13, 2005 Location: Durham County Judicial Bldg.(lobby area) Time: 12:00 noon [All Parcel Listings for Auctions are in PDF Format] Parcel Listing for Auction Last Updated Parcel113326 for December 13, 2005 Sale (Sold for $10,500.00) December 13, 2005 Parcel132661 for December 13, 2005 Sale (Redeemed) December 13, 2005 Parcel161494 for December 13, 2005 Sale (Redeemed) December 8, 2005 Parcel114945 for December 13, 2005 Sale (Sold for $5,725.00) December 13, 2005 All Durham County foreclosure sales are made subject to all outstanding City and County taxes and all local improvement assessments against the properties offered for sale that are not included in the judgment of each entitled cause herewith. A deposit of ten percent (10%) of the successful bid will be required the day of the sale. Minimum bid sheets and general foreclosure sale information is located at the Customer Service Counter. Adobe's free PDF Reader is required to view documents in PDF format. DOWNLOAD ADOBE PDF READER HERE! The tax information provided here is for informational purposes only, does not constitute any certification of taxes and should not be relied upon for actual payment or collection of taxes. The information, pictures, maps, or any other data contained on this website contains no warranties or guarantees. Anyone interested in participating in the bidding process should conduct his or her own research for each individual property. top of page Last updated: September 9, 2004 © 2005, Durham County Government, North Carolina. All rights reserved. 200 E Main Street, Durham, NC 27701 webmaster@durhamcountync.gov Website Disclaimer & Policies