Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC Washington)   Attention citizen. Your home is in the path of an interstate that must be widened for it to be more profitable to the private company who's making money on its tolls. We will compensate you what we believe is a fair value for your home. Now move   ( nbcwashington.com) divider line
    More: Sick, Real estate appraisal, VDOT, Interstate Highway System, functionally equivalent home, fair market, Del. Mark Keam, new home, market value homes  
•       •       •

9478 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Aug 2018 at 12:52 AM (9 days ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



145 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2018-08-10 10:22:03 AM  
My house is on the median strip of a highway. You don't really notice, except I have to leave the driveway doing 60 MPH.  - Steven Wright
 
2018-08-10 10:32:41 AM  

steklo: This text is now purple: That's not the fault of cars.

I see your point. Correct.

What's the reasoning people are moving? To get to and from work. I would gather a good oh, 99% during rush hour, wouldn't you agree?

So therefore, if we got rid of the jobs, people wouldn't have to move so much during rush hour, right?

/ I kid, but I do see your point.


In general.

But put it this way: How many more people would live in the DC Metro, or the NYC metro, or the LA metro, or the SF metro, if travel within and across the metro wasn't such an ordeal? That people actually give up and leave tells me that there's a huge amount of induced demand. They could double their infrastructure and still be congested. These are 5M people areas that want to be 20M people areas, but don't have the room.

The Northeast Megalopolis has 50M people. You also need to account for their movement.
 
2018-08-10 10:36:32 AM  

Warlordtrooper: Justin Beaver: But with eminent domain, they are not required to pay you market share. They only have to offer what THEY believe it's worth

And believe me, it's not even enough to put a down payment on a new house

In a free country eminent domain should be illegal. Make me an offer I feel is fair considering the cost of the property the stress and hassle of the whole thing or GFY.

Property rights are the single most important rights a person can have


You spelled personal autonomy wrong
 
2018-08-10 10:38:01 AM  

Warlordtrooper: In a free country eminent domain should be illegal.


No, there are times when it's appropriate.  However, it should only be used as a last resort, never to benefit a private company, and compensation should be well beyond its assessed value.

I don't want to see American "nail houses" start popping up everywhere.
 
2018-08-10 10:42:59 AM  

steklo: If we want to alleviate traffic and congestion? The logical thing is to remove the cars from the road. How we do that? I don't know. Metro, telecommuting from home, public rail, buses, monorails, transporter beams?


Except they have plenty of mass transit in the DC area.

The problem is that people of a certain socioeconomic class don't ride mass transit because it's "beneath" them.  And the DC area is surrounded by people who will never, *EVER* ride a bus or the Metro to get to work.

And for many of them, telecommuting is not an option.  For a significant fraction of the government workers in the DC area, they work in a SCIF, so telecommuting isn't an option.  And if you're a janitor or a hardware-oriented IT guy, telecommuting ain't gonna work either.

BTW, I telecommute 2 days a week, and I'm a big believer in the concept for certain workers, but it's simply not practical for all.

But to the larger point, making things as difficult and as unsafe as possible in order to discourage people is a strategy that's obviously failing when it comes to traffic congestion.  You're fighting a losing battle here.  In 1990, the number of registered motor vehicles in the US was 193 million.  As of 2016, it was nearly 269 million.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1​8​3505/number-of-vehicles-in-the-united-​states-since-1990/

But yeah, let's stay with highway capacities from the 1960's and 1970's.  For great justice!
 
2018-08-10 10:53:35 AM  

indy_kid: Warlordtrooper: In a free country eminent domain should be illegal.

No, there are times when it's appropriate.  However, it should only be used as a last resort, never to benefit a private company, and compensation should be well beyond its assessed value.

I don't want to see American "nail houses" start popping up everywhere.


1.  Yes.  It should be last resort.
2.  Yes, it should be for a public good.  Widening a highway is a public good.
3.  Well, no.  It should be fair market value, whatever that may be.

Why do I disagree with "well beyond its assessed value"?  Because then that opens up the possibility of corruption through "property farming".  Someone with inside knowledge of future government plans to build something offers a really good price to land owners, they sell to the speculator, and then the speculator gets an even better price when government takes it by eminent domain.

And who is going to have that kind of inside knowledge?  Elected officials, government employees, and their relatives.

Only way to prevent that is to only compensate for fair market value.
 
2018-08-10 10:54:34 AM  

dittybopper: Except they have plenty of mass transit in the DC area.


Not in the I-66 direction.

Metro ends at Vienna, which is barely outside the Beltway. It doesn't go to Dulles.

So if you live west of town, you basically need to drive all the way to DC to hop a train. It's just not practical.
 
2018-08-10 10:58:47 AM  

steklo: This text is now purple: That's not the fault of cars.

I see your point. Correct.

What's the reasoning people are moving? To get to and from work. I would gather a good oh, 99% during rush hour, wouldn't you agree?

So therefore, if we got rid of the jobs, people wouldn't have to move so much during rush hour, right?

/ I kid, but I do see your point.


Tax cuts for companies that offer employees the ability to work from home (if they have such a job).
 
2018-08-10 11:06:48 AM  

Dork Gently: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: [img.fark.net image 480x360]
/Don't Panic

Oh, and I'm getting a real kick out of these call-outs to Douglas Adams.


As am I.
 
2018-08-10 11:12:34 AM  

This text is now purple: You also need to account for their movement.


I've been working since the age of 13. I'm 53 now. If I added up all the hours I've spent in traffic in my life time, I would be highly depressed.

I've lived in several communities in and around large cities like New York, Washington DC, Raleigh, NC and I'm no stranger to traffic or commuting via rail or bus.

I can't see how people can spend X amount of dollars on commuter trains that take 90 + minutes to get from the suburbs to NYC, that is if the train is running on time.

Bad weather? Trains stop. A train derails? The train stops...etc.

For me, its not being in control of the train or bus and I would rather sit in my car.
 
2018-08-10 11:13:29 AM  

VogonPoet: Dork Gently: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: [img.fark.net image 480x360]
/Don't Panic

Oh, and I'm getting a real kick out of these call-outs to Douglas Adams.

As am I.


I'm waiting for the Vogan poetry to start any time now....
 
2018-08-10 11:13:41 AM  

dittybopper: steklo: pkjun: you build new capacity on your roads, that means your roads will...

(let me expend upon his for a moment, thanks...)

You build new capacity on your roads, that means your roads will only bring more cars on the road.

Thanks.

And this is inherently bad because.....  why?

Unless you propose to use dictatorial powers to enforce your mandates, people gonna do what they wanna do, and the smart thing from a safety standpoint is to accommodate that.  Otherwise, you end up with situations like The Beltway in the DC area that is basically a parking lot during the increasingly inaccurately named "rush hours".


Because you really can't get less energy efficient, more polluting, more expensive, or a bigger waste of space in the city than building for cars.  Why keep subsidizing that instead of focusing more on mass and active transportation instead of subsidizing luxury transportation?
 
2018-08-10 11:19:32 AM  

thrillbilly1967: They decided to dam a river and create huge lake with 600 miles of shoreline and use it for hydroelectric. My family had over 2000 acres that had been in the family for close to 150 years. They forced my great grandfather to sell it under eminent domain. This was in mid 1950s. At that time land nearby was running 250 to 350 an acre and they forced him to take 84 dollars an acre of theyd take it for free.
He fought it best he could but was forced to sell. Fast forward 6 years and they change where they plan to build the dam. It would be half a mile to the north of his old property boundary. He tried to get the land back. He was told because it would be on both sides of the river below the dam it wasnt safe for habitation. It was all crop fields and he lived on the mountain nearby. Didnt matter. They kept it. They completed the dam and the next thing you know they sold it to a man who just happened to be one of the higher ups in the electric company that built the dam for 24 dollars an acre.

After the lake filled it turned out somehow thousands of land above the high water mark ended up in the hands of the power company due to eminent domain. Land that now was worth a 100 times more than they paid for it because now it was lakeside. The last large tract of this stolen land was sold this last year. Waterfront acreage went for 100k to 250k...per acre. A good investment for the power company. Pay 30 bucks an acre average in 1958 wait til 2018 sell same for 100k and up per acre.


My grandfather in Texas owned a large pasture for his cows. This wasn't "owning land to own land" this was fully utilized land. Then the state wanted to build a highway through the middle of it. He understood that roads were necessary, and wanted them to compensate for the loss of value for the land. Nope, they paid only for the exact square footage of the road itself, not the loss of value from the best pastured now being located on the far side of the highway from the barns, and with no practical way to get cows from one side to the other.

Nearly bankrupted the family because they couldn't get to half their pastures.

Heck, even in recent times my hometown had a whole city block eminent domained by a greedy city council who thought a Whole Foods Market was going to move in if they gave it to a certain developer. This wasn't "Build a school" or "build a road" this was "We think someone else will put something on it with more tax revenue, so we're giving it to them." Only when one of the city council contacted whole foods to welcome them to the neighborhood did they learn Whole Foods had no plans to move there. Further investigation of the contract showed that the developer would have just "gotten the land" with no conditions on how they use it, including if they just resold it. That city block, on the main road in town, sat empty for ten years because no developer would touch it.

People suck.
 
2018-08-10 11:19:36 AM  

steklo: This text is now purple: That's not the fault of cars.

I see your point. Correct.

What's the reasoning people are moving? To get to and from work. I would gather a good oh, 99% during rush hour, wouldn't you agree?

So therefore, if we got rid of the jobs, people wouldn't have to move so much during rush hour, right?

/ I kid, but I do see your point.


Now put each of those people in their own car, and you got your average American city, sadly.  We do a good job subsidizing luxury but for the basics? "fark off, quit being poor"
 
2018-08-10 11:22:45 AM  

Weaver95: sounds like a perfect time for some homeowners to do some illegal dumping of toxic waste in their backyards.

if they're gonna lose their land anyways, might as well spike it on the way out.


No..more clever you must be...
Indian pot shards you must bury.
Nothing stops a construction project faster than possible Indian remains or artifacts.
 
2018-08-10 11:28:20 AM  

nytmare: Fark I hate toll roads. That ain't freedom.


I concur.

They're trying to toll the freeways through PDX.

I'm going out of my way to vote against each and every motherfarker who supports this in that issue alone.

Float a bond, raise income tax, find another way to raise the money. Don't put a farking regressive toll on just getting around town.
 
2018-08-10 11:38:37 AM  
Often imminent domain is used after all other negotiations have failed.

1) warm everyone
2) initial offer (lowball)
3) better offfer
4) lawsuit
5) best settlement offer
6) injunction
7) lawsuit
8) imminent domain

Homeowners: The trick is to stop someplace between 3 and 5....

If it gets to imminent domain, you are screwed.
 
2018-08-10 11:41:21 AM  

buserror: Between this cul-de-sac and the rail station (how about extending that instead, and congestion charging the entire freeway (like they do on I-66 inside the beltway) so that people use it?), there's already 5 lanes (plus an offramp) in one direction.  They're proposing (http://outside.transform66.org/learn_​more/maps_and_interactive_map.asp) to increase that to 8 lanes (6 regular, 2 express) plus that offramp.  Even given the freeway-to-freeway interchange, it seems excessive.

Plus, it seems like some of these houses wouldn't need to be taken if not for the plan to also widen and realign Gallows Rd, including what appears to be a dedicated right turn lane into what's left of the cul-de-sac.  It seems that a longer bridge is required to get across the new I-66 (https://transform66wisely.org/resourc​es/letter-to-vdot-remaining-impacts-of​-the-proposed-changes-to-the-i-66i-495​-interchange/) but why is the rest needed?


Agree, it is not clear from the map exactly why they are shifting the Gallows bridge location.  Maybe the on/off ramps from 495?  At one point there was a hang up about a power supply station for Metro that was near (at?) Dunn Loring.  Maybe that's what we are seeing.

This is the first time I've looked at the map.  I don't understand why they don't allow direct access to the toll lanes from Nutley.  Instead, they make people join the regular lanes and then split off after the Cedar Ln bridge.  Why not design it nor like the 495 lanes with entrances coming from the bridge.  I get that the rail line is there, but they are going to have flyovers anyway.
 
2018-08-10 11:44:31 AM  
Oh, sure.  Everyone likes eminent domain when the housing market is down.  But when its up, people will walk down the hall and pretend they don't even know who eminent domain even is.
 
2018-08-10 11:53:18 AM  

RodneyToady: That's what eminent domain is supposed to be used for, submitter.  It sucks for these five families, but it's not exactly Robert Moses-esque in overall impact.


Eminent domain should be rarely used, and the value of compensation should be much higher.
 
2018-08-10 11:55:31 AM  

angryjd: These people are hardly getting screwed.


They could still be sort of screwed.

Their houses are right next to a freeway, that lowers property value (due to noise). A comparable house further away from the freeway would cost a bit more.

// but if they were offered enough to cover that 'bit more' then no, take the offer and go.
 
2018-08-10 11:55:52 AM  

Warlordtrooper: Justin Beaver: But with eminent domain, they are not required to pay you market share. They only have to offer what THEY believe it's worth

And believe me, it's not even enough to put a down payment on a new house

In a free country eminent domain should be illegal. Make me an offer I feel is fair considering the cost of the property the stress and hassle of the whole thing or GFY.

Property rights are the single most important rights a person can have


Property rights have been consistently shat on by both sides of the political spectrum. Unless there's a major United front, it's not going to change.
 
2018-08-10 11:59:26 AM  

Xai: Sorry submitter but this is exactly the point of eminent domain and it's entirely right. It certainly does suck, but roads etc have to go somewhere.


ED shouldn't be used for profit nor should the compensation be paltry.
 
2018-08-10 12:01:17 PM  

Relatively Obscure: pkjun: So, first, you're right: it is 100% true that building and expanding roads does not alleviate road congestion.

It's interesting when I'm right on a point I didn't even argue, but you might let the people behind the project in on that secret.


No, I AM RIGHT!  Do not pay attention to my left.
 
2018-08-10 12:01:22 PM  

Dork Gently: DarkVader: Animatronik: Without knowing what they were offered, there's no way to know the validity of their beef .  This is what ED is for.

No it isn't.  It would be what ED is for, IF the government was going to own, maintain, and operate the extra lanes.  As it is, it's for private profit.  And it won't help anyway, you can't widen your way out of gridlock.

There was literally a Supreme Court case over that question.  Note who approved ED for the benefit of private developers, and who opposed it.


Wow. Wasnt expecting that.  Ginsberg can die in a fire.
 
2018-08-10 12:08:23 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size

What the home owners may look like.

The Castle (1997) Official Trailer - Rob Sitch, Eric Bana Movie HD
Youtube ki-Aw9PZFIQ
 
2018-08-10 12:23:11 PM  

steklo: VogonPoet: Dork Gently: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: [img.fark.net image 480x360]
/Don't Panic

Oh, and I'm getting a real kick out of these call-outs to Douglas Adams.

As am I.

I'm waiting for the Vogan poetry to start any time now....


On Fark you're more likely to get vegan poetry, which may be even worse.

Shall I compare thee to a quinoa stew?
Thou are more lovely and more tempeh-rate.
Rough winds do shake the darling buds of Maize,
And sorghum's leaves art all too small for dates.
 
2018-08-10 12:44:49 PM  
Cause big enough of a stink. They will cough up more money.
 
2018-08-10 01:16:24 PM  

HanShotFirst: This bypass has got to built and it's going to be built.


Why does it have to be built ?
 
2018-08-10 01:22:30 PM  
Trouble with ED?

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.comView Full Size
 
2018-08-10 01:31:14 PM  

Gordon Bennett: Abuse of eminent domain to benefit private developers is one of those rare issues when both the left and the right are against it. The left hate it because of crony capitalism and the right hate it because it's using government power to deprive people of their property. The last time we had a thread on this I noticed Farkers from both sides agreeing it was wrong.

So naturally the practise continues unabated.


AS long as bribe money continues to flow into the pockets of politicians, nothing will be done about.  You will only hear lip service from congress as long as they get their sweet sweet "campaign contributions" from private investors.
 
2018-08-10 01:38:12 PM  

zbtop: nytmare: Fark I hate toll roads. That ain't freedom.

I concur.

They're trying to toll the freeways through PDX.

I'm going out of my way to vote against each and every motherfarker who supports this in that issue alone.

Float a bond, raise income tax, find another way to raise the money. Don't put a farking regressive toll on just getting around town.


No tolls if you walk or bike, and you already have regressive tolling in TriMet.  Why not toll the luxury mode?
 
2018-08-10 01:57:33 PM  

Baloo Uriza: Because you really can't get less energy efficient, more polluting, more expensive, or a bigger waste of space in the city than building for cars.  Why keep subsidizing that instead of focusing more on mass and active transportation instead of subsidizing luxury transportation?


Again, how are you going to enforce it?

And i would argue that cars aren't inherently polluting.  Internal combustion engines are, but not all cars use ICE.  So what would you say if all or most of the cars were electric?
 
2018-08-10 02:06:17 PM  

dittybopper: Baloo Uriza: Because you really can't get less energy efficient, more polluting, more expensive, or a bigger waste of space in the city than building for cars.  Why keep subsidizing that instead of focusing more on mass and active transportation instead of subsidizing luxury transportation?

Again, how are you going to enforce it?

And i would argue that cars aren't inherently polluting.  Internal combustion engines are, but not all cars use ICE.  So what would you say if all or most of the cars were electric?


They're still an urban waste of space.  Just stop dedicating public space to storage of private vehicles, get rid of parking minimums, and let the market sort it out.  Street designs that put people first and treat cars as an afterthought also tend to be safer.

Cars for every trip make more sense if you live on a ranch 30km outside Bumfark, Nebrahoma, population 90.  Cars don't make sense when you live pretty much anywhere with at least a five figure population.  If you can't just as easily get around without a car as you can with a car someplace that size or larger, your city has fundamentally screwed the pooch on basic transportation.
 
2018-08-10 02:23:22 PM  
Don't buy a house that is :
close to a highway or major thoroughfare.
close to apartments.
close to shopping centers.

Expansion will bite you in the ass.
 
2018-08-10 02:39:21 PM  

Loreweaver: Gordon Bennett: Abuse of eminent domain to benefit private developers is one of those rare issues when both the left and the right are against it. The left hate it because of crony capitalism and the right hate it because it's using government power to deprive people of their property. The last time we had a thread on this I noticed Farkers from both sides agreeing it was wrong.

So naturally the practise continues unabated.

AS long as bribe money continues to flow into the pockets of politicians, nothing will be done about.  You will only hear lip service from congress as long as they get their sweet sweet "campaign contributions" from private investors.


The second amendment was made for cases like this.
 
2018-08-10 03:21:19 PM  

dittybopper: And i would argue that cars aren't inherently polluting.  Internal combustion engines are, but not all cars use ICE.  So what would you say if all or most of the cars were electric?


Maximum capacity of one 60-mph lane (i.e. under dense, highly congested) traffic conditions: 2,000 cars per hour.

Average number of passengers per car: 1.5.

Maximum throughput of a new freeway lane: 3,000 pax/hour/direction, under a slow and painful crawl.

-----

Average capacity of a light commuter rail line: 8000 pax/hour/direction. Approaching capacity does not decrease speed.

-----

Average capacity of an urban subway/overground rail line: 30,000 pax/hour/direction. Approaching capacity does not decrease speed.


I would say that if I were planning a city, investing in rail would be the better bet even in Elon Musk's Fantasyland where everyone owns a Tesla. I would need three to ten lanes of traffic to meet the capacity of one rail line, rail would have a lower energy drain on the electric grid, and people would get where they were going quicker by train.
 
2018-08-10 03:42:22 PM  

steklo: dittybopper: And this is inherently bad because..... why?

I've lived in Northern VA. I suffered and lost so many hours in traffic in and out of the beltway. I've been on I-66. It's a hell hole of a long parking lot during rush hours.

Putting new lanes on a highway, only brings more cars to the same highway and we're right back where we started from but now there's even more cars...

If we want to alleviate traffic and congestion? The logical thing is to remove the cars from the road. How we do that? I don't know. Metro, telecommuting from home, public rail, buses, monorails, transporter beams?

It's been a problem for a long time. I'm not privy to the answers, just pointing out, we need to somehow get rid of cars.


They could start by not building houses on every square inch of undeveloped land. =P
 
2018-08-10 04:14:13 PM  

MechaPyx: steklo: dittybopper: And this is inherently bad because..... why?

I've lived in Northern VA. I suffered and lost so many hours in traffic in and out of the beltway. I've been on I-66. It's a hell hole of a long parking lot during rush hours.

Putting new lanes on a highway, only brings more cars to the same highway and we're right back where we started from but now there's even more cars...

If we want to alleviate traffic and congestion? The logical thing is to remove the cars from the road. How we do that? I don't know. Metro, telecommuting from home, public rail, buses, monorails, transporter beams?

It's been a problem for a long time. I'm not privy to the answers, just pointing out, we need to somehow get rid of cars.

They could start by not building houses on every square inch of undeveloped land. =P


Homeownership rates have decreased with every generation since the post-WWII building boom. The housing supply is reaching crisis levels, and unless things change the future of the homeowning middle class -- the foundation of an electorate with a stake in property rights -- is under serious threat.

If you want a democracy where voters care about property rights, you need to build enough houses that every voter can own one.

And if you want people to buy those houses and live in them, you need to build enough transportation infrastructure that they can get from those houses to their jobs.
 
2018-08-10 04:40:19 PM  

dwlah: Fair market value is determined by what houses have sold for in the area not what they will be worth after the government buys it
The 5 need to find houses in the neighborhood and tell them this house is for sale we want this house and some extra for moving expenses

/Have spent the last year going thru the same thing with the city I used to live in
//Was actually surprised with the city and the offer (way more than I expected)
/// More to the story but I got to clock in


Fair market value is whatever the buyer and seller agree on, In this case the seller does not agree to the price and is being forced at gunpoint by the government to sell for less than they are willing too.

this is literally armed robbery by the government.
 
2018-08-10 04:40:33 PM  
On the one hand, subby, you have no clue what you're talking about. I-66 is very much Not Good - in fact, during rush hour, it's one way *only*, it's that crowded.

And people live way the hell out, because real estate flippers "LOCATIONLOCATIONLOCATION" have driven housing prices up in the DC area to compete with Manhattan and Silicon Valley. (Real Estate fluppers would look lovely... decorating streetlights, by the neck.)

On the other hand, about those prices, for folks to move and stay in Arlington, it's going to *cost*. Not sure there's anything under $400k....
 
2018-08-10 04:43:24 PM  

Baloo Uriza: Warlordtrooper: Justin Beaver: But with eminent domain, they are not required to pay you market share. They only have to offer what THEY believe it's worth

And believe me, it's not even enough to put a down payment on a new house

In a free country eminent domain should be illegal. Make me an offer I feel is fair considering the cost of the property the stress and hassle of the whole thing or GFY.

Property rights are the single most important rights a person can have

You spelled personal autonomy wrong


They are the same thing.  In essence every single person is property of themselves.  Therefore personal autonomy is simply the property rights of yourself.
 
2018-08-10 08:02:03 PM  

DON.MAC: Courts all over the world have pointed out that fair compensation involves buying a replacement place and costs of moving and extra for people's wasted time.


THIS. I understand eminent domain, and why it is sometimes nessecary...but the government damn well has a responsibility too. Yes, you need to be able to get everyone to work at a reasonable time, but you also need to be sure that people have replacement homes and compensation. And you can, in fact, do both, so you are expected to.
 
2018-08-10 10:28:28 PM  

Gordon Bennett: Abuse of eminent domain to benefit private developers is one of those rare issues when both the left and the right are against it. The left hate it because of crony capitalism and the right hate it because it's using government power to deprive people of their property. The last time we had a thread on this I noticed Farkers from both sides agreeing it was wrong.

So naturally the practise continues unabated.


In one of the most egregious examples of government taking and giving to a developer (Kelo v. New London, 2005), it was a 5-4 decision on the Supreme Court in favor of the taking. Interestingly, it was the liberal bloc of the court (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer) + the swing voter (Kennedy) who voted for, with the conservatives (Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, O'Connor) voting against. With O'Connor issuing a blistering dissent.
 
2018-08-10 10:30:25 PM  

whitroth: On the other hand, about those prices, for folks to move and stay in Arlington, it's going to *cost*. Not sure there's anything under $400k....


Median house price in Arlington is 672K.
 
Displayed 45 of 145 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report