City of Snorts

|

People who didn't buy L.A. real estate while the buyin' was good logically conclude that there must something wrong with the market. Cathy Seipp, who played her cards right back in the day, now gets to jeer, in her best Rupert Pupkin voice, "Better luck next time, suckers!"

Advertisement

NEXT: Good Pot, Bad Pot Act

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “The anti-gentrification argument” isn’t usually raised by, or on behalf of, people who have the option of buying, Keith. “Didn’t choose to get in.” Sheesh.

    Fun story, but I’m not sure how Priest’s anti-capitalism relates to the story. His reasons for not buying don’t have anything to do with his philosoophy.

    Just gravy for the shadenfreude, or was there a point in all of that?

  2. Great sneering story, though being capitalist or not is pretty irrelevant if you don’t have a choice to buy anything in the first place. Why those who own presume that everyone who rents actually have a choice to buy or not only reflects their myopia.

  3. The anti-gentrification argument that rising property values drive residents out have always driven me absolutely batty. I’m glad to hear solid anecdotes that reinforce the response: if you didn’t choose to get in (and take a risk on your neighborhood), you missed the boat. suck it up and deal, or move on.

  4. But he chose not to take the chance.

    The Achilles tendon of anticapitalist sentiment: it exists to instill the notion that the government should protect people from their own ineptitude and its consequences.

  5. It’s hard to invest when you’re poor. But the courage to do so can liberate you financially. Seipp is saying we shouldn’t whine about the failure of the market to comfort someone who couldn’t muster the stones to take chance.

  6. What I got from her article was the sense of entitlement certain people have about housing; if they can’t afford to live in the hippest, most attractive parts of LA, then they claim they can’t “afford” a house. And that buying a first house or condo shouldn’t involve any temporary struggle or financial sacrifice: that we’re all “owed” a craftsman-style house in the Hollywood Hills no matter how we choose to earn our living..

  7. See, I got that too, Susan. Which is why the “anti-capitalist” theme stuck out like a sore thumb; it didn’t have anything to do with the point of the story.

    Maybe it like a musician yelling “Hello Toledo!” to the crowd.

  8. BTW, Cathy, congratulations on your decision to purchase downscale property, and live in the hood. Doing well by doing good – I’m sure you will end up leaving your little corner of the world better off than when you arrived. You have as much right to the appellation “urban pioneer” as anyone – more than most, because of the commitment you made by purchasing.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.