Isn’t that my whole point? I wasn’t a controversial statement, I never intended it to have great import, it was a response to a response to a relatively non-contorversial and non-absolute statement, and the whole thing wasn’t really worth much debate. My position throughout has been “No, not really, I didn’t say or mean what you’re taking issue with”. Like I say, you could have just asked “Are you actually saying….?”

Spin, I think, needs a goal. If you say “this will be a plus, but the net effect is unknown” you’re really saying Ï don’t know what will happen” I think calling that spin is over worked.

I do not put forth such “logical positions” because it’s obvious to anyone with a quarter (not even half) of a brain that they are pretty much of the “Well, duhhh” variety. So when someone whom I think has quite a bit more than a quarter of brain makes such statements, should I not expect that his intention is to convey just a bit more meat? (If it’s nothing more, some people would label it ’spin’.)

We don’t “finally” agree that its about degree of impact. That kind of implies that I said that I took some sort of contorversial position on that. I never did. I said it would have an unknown impact – it would be positive, but had to netted against everything else. The question of degree was and is unknown to me, and I was pretty clear about that from the start.

I didn’t bring up the notion – Aaron did, and I simply pointed out (consistently) that the Olympics will be a positive that has to be netted against everything else. Saying I brought it up is just inaccurate. (“I have a feeling that there will be a lot of very positive news and marketing as we approach the Olympics. The party atmosphere in the city will be undeniable

(Aaron wrote on December 12: “…even though I’m planning on going somewhere hot while the Olympics are here). I think there is a chance we may see another spike in the market. How long it will last is the question I’m not too sure about”).

RJ then asked “are you being sarcastic or serious?”

That’s where it started. I was just putting a little (very little) meat on the bones. The Olympics won’t be a saviour to the market, but they won’t be irrelevant. I never said it would have a material impact. I said the net impact was unknown.

If you said “For example, I’m pretty confident that *some* people will move away because ….”and then said that the negatives had to be netted out against al other inputs, and you didn’t think that alone would cause a crash in the local market, I’d have to accept it as a reasonable, non-controversial and logical position.

Remember, I didn’t bring up the numbers because I think they’re material. I didn’t claim they’d maintain the market. You could have saved yourself a lot of typing by just asking “Are you saying…..? “

Its not a selective quote. I said foreign buying won’t maintain prices, and although it will be an upward pressure on prices the effect has to be netted out against all other price pressures. You can’t take “won’t maintain” and “the positive pressure has to be netted against all other pressures” and come up with “foreign buyers will be saviours”. It just doesn’t work, no matter hwo many times you say it. It doesn’t even work if you say it slowly and raise your voice. You have to willfully ignore what I’ve said and give inordinate weight to your your unsupported conclusion to suggest tht I meant that foreign buyers will have a material impact on future values. A more reasonable position, I think, is to say that foreign buyers (like all buyers) will have a positive impact on prices, but the net effect is unknown at this point, and that I’ve made no specific claim that the net effect will be positive. Again, changing that to “they’ll be our saviours” stretches the very meaning of “stretching the meaning”.

You can dispute the conclusion as much as you like, but you should dispute it with someone who actually advanced the position. I didn’t do that initially, and haven’t done it subsequently.

“Of course if you throw a thousand darts at a dart board rather than no darts at all, you necessarily have a higher chance of getting a bulls-eye; that is not the crux. ”

I think we agree on that, and I think if you go back you’ll see that it was my original position (Olympic visitors will not save our market, if enough visit some will like the place, and a subset of them are likely to buy, that will be a positive that has to be netted against all other things). Its not that controversial a statement, and it never was. It was hardly worth disputing. I haven’t tried to prove the opposite. I’ve only tried to deny that I said something different. You’re the one claiming that Aaron and I said something different.

“The question is whether you hit enough bulls-eyes for it to be meaningful. We will have to agree to disagree since you pooh-pooh my perception…”

We disagree less now, actually. I agree that how many bull’s eyes get hit is a more important question, but I maintain that I never claimed that enough would be hit for foreign buyers to be “saviours”. If I had said that you’d have a point. Its a more disputable position, without question.

I don’t pooh pooh your perception so much as point out that if you accept your perception as fact, and disregard actual facts, (you don’t think foriegners buy RE in nice places they visit, although I and many of my clients actually, as a matter of fact, have done exactly that) you paint yourself into an absolutist corner.

As far as I can see I’ve said “some people will do something that will be a positive for prices, but the net effect will be unknown” and you’ve said either “Wrong, nobody will ever do anything” (too absolutist to be reasonable) or “No, you said something completely different, and that thing is wrong”. If the former, well, I’m more reaosnable and you’re too absolutist. If the latter, well, sorry, I didn’t say or mean what you think I said or meant.

Selectively quoting yourself? That very sentence continues with

“but I think that they will be an contributing factor to price increases (and you’ll have to net that out against all the other pricing inputs). ”

which I think any reader would interpret as suggesting that these visitors will have a material impact on prices. It is this general conclusion I’m disputing. Of course if you throw a thousand darts at a dart board rather than no darts at all, you necessarily have a higher chance of getting a bulls-eye; that is not the crux. The question is whether you hit enough bulls-eyes for it to be meaningful. We will have to agree to disagree since you pooh-pooh my perception of how other people think/act (again, nothing to do with my preferences) and you have provided no evidence for your position other than your own perception.

” but it was you who suggested that they’ll be the saviours of Van RE. ”

I actually said exactly the opposite. You can find me saying that in your comment #281 on December 14 at 10:59: ” I’m not saying that these rich visitors will maintain property values”.

I don’t even think Aaron suggested that Olympic visitors would “save” our real estate market. That would pretty much be suicide around here, no?

Anyway, “not maintain” does not equal suggesting that rich foreigners will be saviours. You’re arguing with your own thoughts, not my statements.

Are you saying there’s nothing attractive about Vancouver in February? As in, absolutely never attractive to anyone? Based simply on your experience? If so then you’re fine in maintaining that you think that nobody who visits here in February will ever get a good enough impression of the city to buy anything, anytime. 1000 people visit, none like it enough to ever buy. Olympics are not positive in that respect for the city. Fair opinion, but not a proven, nor even a reasonable position. Its just too absolute.

I just disagree with you, and frankly, you haven’t proven me wrong, or even likely to be wrong. You’re basing your position on your experiences (I haven’t bought in foreign places I like, so nobody else will, or if they do, they’ll already have done so; I don’t like winter in Vancouver and I can’t believe that anyone who likes winter sports enough to travel to winter Olympics will like winter in Vancouver; etc). You’re expressing your preference, and that’s all. I’m saying that, odds are, enough people visit, some of them will like it, and some of them will buy, and that’s a positive, but the positive has to be netted out against all other inputs. I think my position is more reasonable in that a) its not a very grand claim and b) it recognizes that not everyone thinks like you, and there are different tastes and c) it conforms with my experiences with offshore clients (do you really think a guy who’s worked in the Gulf for 20 years searches the earth for more sun? C’mon).

I pointed out a whole bunch of things that people have expressed as reasons why Van is attractive (water, snow, climate, economy) and quite bluntly (sarcastically) explained why they were red herrings. Apart from one or two cautious comments, no one (particularly YOU) rebutted my reasoning so who’s not debating in good faith here? I don’t know why you keep fixating on what my personal feelings are about the place — they are irrelevant which is why I’ve purposely avoided expressing them; what matters is what visitors will see when they come to Van *in February*. (And I’m open to admitting that a lot of people have told me that they thought Van was a beautiful place when visited here in the summer but I’ve never met anyone who said that after having visited here in Feb).

Re: the argument about buying in a place you visited. Sure there are a few people who do that but it was you who suggested that they’ll be the saviours of Van RE. I was merely putting in my two bits as a counterexample. Can’t I do that and not be labeled as saying *no one* will?

There is nothing contradictory about my position or in what I’ve written; if you perceive that’s the case, then you’ve misread what I’ve said.

(If there’s anyone else still following this thread who agrees with Rob, tell me and I’ll be the more than willing to concede.)

Yup, its me who says its not up for debate. Here’s why: First, many people, including me, think its attractive. There’s independent evidence of that in response to your posts.

Second, you seem to think its not attractive, but you deny that you dislike it. You haven’t even taken the position that the place isn’t likeable, but seem to be saying that it can be likeable while being unattractive. I can’t debate someone who’s that confused.

Third, unless we have common ground on the quality of Vancouver (attractive or not attractive) we can’t debate the second proposition (its dependent on Vancouver being attractive). If Vancouver isn’t attractive, period, then it follows that no matter how many rich foreigners visit the place nobody will ever buy. Therefore, if you come out and take a stand (Vancouver isn’t attractive) instead of trolling for material (What do you think is attractive about the place?) we can simply agree to disagree (I can’t convince you that some quantity greater than zero will like something if you maintain that nobody, ever, will like the thing).

Conversely, if you admit that there is anything at all redeeming about this hell hole that you live in because you a) like it and b) because it has nothing attractive about it, we can then debate whether any number of vvisitors greater than zero will be favourably impressed enough to one day buy something here.

As for explaining your position, it seems that you feel that because you ahven’t bought RE in nice foreign locales that you’ve visited, nobody else ever does (I have, as have many of my clients, so that part of your argument is refuted unless you take the position that I’m a liar).

It also seems that you feel that we were arguing that an Olympic visitor would feel compelled to buy here. We never said anything of the kind.

You maintain that if a rich visitor comes here he won’t be inclined to buy because he’ll have been here before and would have bought already if he wanted to (that’s in conflict with one of your other positions, so you refute yourself one way or another).

Bottom line: I’m not interested in debating with you whether Vancouver is an attractive city, and I’m not interested in defending the position that if a large number of visitors like a place a certain number will buy, and that buying wil be upward presure on prices, with that individual pressure acting in concert with all other positive and negative pressures to arrive at the net effect. It seems pretty reasonable to me. If you don;t buy it, fine. You haven’t haven’t taken reasonable position either way as far as I can see.