]
Tom Butt Header E-Forum
 
  E-Mail Forum – 2014  
  < RETURN  
  "Poor Marks for Richmond" Debunked
August 19, 2014
 
 

I have to thank my lawyer son Daniel for taking the first potshot debunking this erstwhile negative portrayal of Richmond.

Daniel writes:

The top trending article about Richmond on Google News right now is an article by Robert Rogers: "Nationwide rankings for first-time homebuyers gives poor marks to Richmond", with Rogers reporting that "of the 300 largest U.S. cities measured by WalletHub.com, Richmond came in dead last." He claims the study used 17 key metrics to reach this conclusion, using data from various sources. See: http://wallethub.com/edu/best-and-worst-...

What Rogers doesn't mention is the "study" is a non-scientific, non-peer reviewed analysis by a single unemployed blogger who has no background in statistics, and provides no data or methodology for the rankings. When interviewed by Rogers, the author of the "study" responded "It’s how the math turned out"; But, the "study" does not describe what "math" was used. The website the "study" is posted on is essentially a pay-per-click pulp commercial "best-of" website that screams for clicks on the ad banners on your screen. It lists the top city for new homebuyers as Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, a suburb of Tulsa. Vacaville and Fremont both scored high in "Community Environment", while Richmond scored near to last (Detroit, Vallejo, and Modesto also beat Richmond for "Community Environment"). San Francisco had significantly higher marks for "Affordability" than Richmond.

The article was carried in the Contra Costa Times, San Jose Mercury News, and Oakland Tribune. I submit that Richmond, and journalism is general, deserves better than pulp hit pieces like this. Next thing we know, they'll be reporting on the content of pop-up ads: "New Rule....Skinny Pill." Let's stand for Richmond and express our distaste with pop-journalism hit pieces on our city.

As the Butt Family stalwartly defends Richmond, Andrew Butt weighs in:

Hard to give this much credit considering that that top locations are among the least desirable areas I'd ever consider living. North Texas and Oklahoma? Seriously? You can't drive through those places fast enough. I think one huge problem with this analysis (if you want to call it that) is that they completely ignore the surrounding area, so Richmond may look bad because the medium income is low and jobs are limited, but for a first time home buyer who has a decent job in San Francisco or Berkeley, Richmond offers a great deal in a culturally rich neighborhood on the SF Bay, with arguably the best weather in the world, and you can Bart, bike, or boat to work relatively easily. Seems this study is best ignored. It's completely full of holes.

Councilmember Jim Rogers wrote:

There was a full and articulate rebuttal from the "experts" you quoted.

I appreciate that.

However, who does the reader believe: the independent expert or the self-interested real estate agents who lose big bucks on sales if the independent expert is believed?

And, even in a best case scenario, it is a "battle of the experts."

Which brings us to Daniel Butt's comments. Is it really true that the "expert" said SF is more affordable than Richmond? And, are even some of the other critiques true?

BTW, does Daniel now rate a special recognition in Eye on the Bay, for being a "trenchant media critic" similar to his Dad's recognition? :)

If Daniel is wrong, it seems you might explain why he is wrong.

If he is right, what reason (other than shock value/controversy) is there for not including some of his critiques in the story?

Or , better yet, finding an "expert" who is not an idiot.

Ain’t Richmond fun?

 

Nationwide rankings for first-time homebuyers give poor marks to Richmond, Oakland
By Robert Rogers
Contra Costa Times
Posted:   08/19/2014 07:07:56 AM PDT2 Comments
Updated:   08/19/2014 08:24:06 AM PDT

RICHMOND -- A personal finance website released a list Monday ranking the best markets for first-time homebuyers, and some Bay Area cities found themselves at or near the bottom of the list.
Of the 300 largest U.S. cities measured by WalletHub.com, Richmond came in dead last, Oakland clocked in at 295th, and Berkeley and Vallejo were ranked at 282 and 283, respectively.
In its report, WalletHub said it used 17 key metrics, including real estate taxes, crime, median home prices in comparison with median income adjusted for cost of living, and average home-energy costs.
High prices, high crime rates and small homes make Oakland and Richmond rank low on a new list of best cities for first-time homebuyers.
High prices, high crime rates and small homes make Oakland and Richmond rank low on a new list of best cities for first-time homebuyers. ( (LiPo Ching/Staff file photo))
"It's how the math turns out," WalletHub financial writer Richie Bernardo said of the low rankings of Richmond and Oakland. "In those cities, you have home values that are too high for the income of the average resident, high crime rates and relatively small houses, which are all challenges to first-time homebuyers."
Bernardo said Oakland ranked slightly higher than Richmond in part because of better recreation scores and job growth numbers; both cities joined Vallejo and Berkeley in enjoying low home-energy costs thanks to the mild Bay Area weather.
Cities in Oklahoma, Texas and Colorado dominated the top 10, thanks to growing economies, low-but-rising housing prices and good community environment scores.
"The top cities generally share excellent affordability scores," Bernardo said.
Bernardo said Richmond's adjusted household median income of $36,417 and median housing price of about $264,000 was among the worst imbalances of cities studied.
Berkeley, which has seen real estate values soar, owed its poor ranking mostly to low affordability scores. Vallejo was hurt by low community environment measurements, which take crime and recreation into account.
The source data for the report came mostly from the U.S. Census, the FBI and the Council for Community and Economic Research.
Some local real estate agents contacted Monday said the report failed to take into account other metrics that help make Richmond and Oakland good long-term investments for homebuyers.
"The report is contrary to what I'm seeing because the market has been robust, as an influx of buyers priced out of San Francisco and other areas has poured in," said Jeffrey Wright, managing broker of Wright Realtors in El Cerrito. "Oakland, especially, has become a culinary mecca and a dynamic cultural community that's attracted a wave of buyers who wouldn't have considered living there just a few years ago."
"I'm a little surprised at the ranking," said Steve Kendall of Security Pacific Real Estate in Richmond. "The prices are very good in comparison to the surrounding areas, and you have a waterfront community with access to transportation."
Kendall said Richmond is a large city with significant differences among neighborhoods -- something not taken into account by the new survey -- but continues to be dogged by negative media attention and perception.
"People often say they hear nothing but bad things about Richmond but then are surprised at all the good things going on once they look closer," Kendall said. "It's a good long-term investment to buy here."
To review the report, go to wallethub.com/edu.
Contact Robert Rogers at 510-262-2726. Follow him at Twitter.com/sfbaynewsrogers.

Want to receive TOM BUTT E-FORUM and other action alerts on Richmond political and community issues delivered to your email address? Email your name and email address and/or the names and email addresses of others who would like to be placed on the mailing list and the message "subscribe" to tom.butt@intres.com. Comments, arguments and corrections are welcome.  Tom Butt is a member of the Richmond City Council   when opinions and views expressed, without other attribution, in TOM BUTT E-FORUM, they are those of Tom Butt and do not reflect official views or positions of the City of Richmond or the Richmond City Council unless otherwise noted. Visit the Tom Butt website for additional information about Tom Butt's activities on the Richmond City Council: http://www.tombutt.com.  Phone 510/236-7435 or 510/237-2084. Subscription to this service is at the personal discretion of the recipient and may be terminated by responding with “unsubscribe.” It may take a few days to remove addresses from the distribution list.

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

To the extent that content is excerpted under the fair use doctrine from other media, I urge readers to subscribe to the print versions of these media to help support professional journalism and the businesses that publish news, and I urge readers to log in to the online versions to access additional content, related content and unrelated news. I especially appreciate local sources of news that include the Contra Costa Times , the San Francisco Chronicle, Richmond Confidential and the East Bay Express.

 


 

 
  < RETURN