This CNN headline and story are unbelievably stupid.

[cali]

Here's the headline:

13% of all U.S. homes are vacant

Alarming, right? They then list the highest "vacant" home states: Maine is number 1.... but it's really not- and neither is Vermont.



NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- High residential vacancies are killing many housing markets, as foreclosed homes sit on the market and depress sale prices and property values.

And it's only getting worse: The national vacancy rate crept up to just over 13% according to last week's decennial census report. That's up from 12.1% in 2007.



"More vacant homes equal more downward pressure on home prices," said Brad Hunter, chief economist for Metrostudy, a real estate information provider.

Maine had the highest proportion of empty housing stock, at 22.8%. Other states with gluts of empty houses included Vermont (20.5%), Florida (17.5%), Arizona (16.3%) and Alaska (15.9%).

The way the census calculates the vacancy rates, however, is problematic. It includes properties such as ski lodges, beach houses and pied-à-terres that many real estate statisticians would not.

<snip>

http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/28/real_estate/us_housing_vacancy_rates/index.htm

[Shagbark Hickory]

1. Then why share it? -1 for sharing stupid story.

[cali]

2. because I think it highlights how piss poor the MSM is

[Shagbark Hickory]

3. But we already know how piss poor they are. Lets get some quality up in here, please.

[JuniperLea]

12. I agree...

And that is exactly what I'm going to do by putting you on ignore.

[blunderbuss]

16. we know that rush and sara the talibunny say asinine things but

they still get posted here.

[keith the dem]

8. Wow, I thought this was a great post

As an architect, I work, though indirectly, in the housing business. This is an important insight for some of us.

[Shagbark Hickory]

9. It wasn't about the story, it was about CNN making stupid mistakes which they do frequently.

[JuniperLea]

11. Ok, I've really had enough of you...

It's not a mistake. They pull this crap on purpose.

If you are going to slam someone for their OP, you should at least have the decency to show how much smarter you are...

[Shagbark Hickory]

14. I never said I was smarter. All I did was comment on this thread being of low quality. And I unrec'd

it.
It's much like how for 6 hours a day on msnBS, they repeat everything they say on the fox network or on the AM band. Well, I didn't want to listen to that garbage then and I don't want to listen to that garbage now.
It's that sorta thing.
I've come to expect better quality out of Cali. I'm providing valuable feedback.

[drm604]

10. Because it's important to point out when and how statistics are manipulated.

I think there's an interesting and possibly important discussion to be had about why these statistics are being reported in this manner. Who is "Metrostudy", how did they gather these statistics, and do they have anything to gain by slanting them in this manner?

There may also be another interesting discussion to be had about why some people seem to want to squelch that first discussion, but I won't do that.

[gkhouston]

4. I wrote a lot of "vacants" for the Census last year.

They weren't vacation homes.

[cali]

6. I'm not saying that this isn't a huge problem or an important story

just that the reporting here is of terrible quality.

[KamaAina]

5. I got burned by that a couple of weeks ago

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=708971&mesg_id=708971

:dunce:

[tinymontgomery]

7. Thanks

I appreciated the story. There is always something worth reading in an article, right or wrong.

[NutmegYankee]

13. It helps explain what is keeping the prices are fairly stable in Conn,

We have less supply. Thanks for the article.

from article - "Compare them with Connecticut, which has a vacancy rate of just 7.9%, the lowest of all the states. If you back out the vacation properties from the statistics, the states have very similar vacancy rates: 6.1% for Connecticut and 7% for Maine. "

[Gormy Cuss]

15. It's stupid on several levels.

The way census calculates vacancy rates isn't "problematic" because it includes seasonal rentals. That's only problematic when the end user of the data doesn't understand the way the number is constructed and uses it inappropriately, say by comparing it to real estate industry data that nets out this type of dwelling.

The article is also stupid in that it doesn't point out that census included such housing in prior estimates and therefore the increase from 2007 to 2010 is a consistent measure.