http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/7312007_Real_Estate_Fees.aspThe National Association of Home Builders sponsors an economic publication for the housing industry which publishes at HousingEconomics.com. In mid-July it released a study on Metropolitan Area House Prices and Affordability written by Elliot F. EisenbergenCommunityServer 2008 SP2 (Build: 31106.96)http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/7312007_Real_Estate_Fees.asp#8510Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:00:00 GMT2bb7a989-b681-446d-a7f2-bd5f0562f228:8510John BeyersIf you read the article again you can see that it is .8% not .008%. Rather amusing comment from a CPA. <div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=8510" width="1" height="1">http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/7312007_Real_Estate_Fees.asp#8513Fri, 03 Aug 2007 11:00:00 GMT2bb7a989-b681-446d-a7f2-bd5f0562f228:8513David Purdy, CRSAt any rate I do have to say the point of this article eludes me. I&#39;m shocked to find out that if you add $1,000 to the price of a home fewer people can afford it. Even more amazing is that if you break that $1,000 down into it&#39;s various parts, they add up to $1,000. Wow. And this discovery means real estate agents, government agencies, lenders and construction workers should all earn less so builders can make more and this will somehow increase home affordability?<div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=8513" width="1" height="1">http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/7312007_Real_Estate_Fees.asp#8512Fri, 03 Aug 2007 11:00:00 GMT2bb7a989-b681-446d-a7f2-bd5f0562f228:8512David Purdy, CRSSurprise a CPA wouldn&#39;t be aware of this, but the majority of homeowners in the US bought their first homes when their values were WELL below the current median and transferred their equities as they moved up. My father&#39;s mortgage payment on his home that is now worth over $600,000 was less than $300 per month until he paid it off in 1999. Most first time buyers are in a world of hurt by comparison. <div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=8512" width="1" height="1">http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/7312007_Real_Estate_Fees.asp#8511Wed, 01 Aug 2007 11:00:00 GMT2bb7a989-b681-446d-a7f2-bd5f0562f228:8511KevinI&#39;m not sure how this is really a problem. If the builder pays the fees, then it gets rolled into the price of the house. The costs incurred by the local government still need to be covered, except now by taxes, transfer fees, etc. I would submit that the potential homeowner not qualifying upfront is better than losing the house from inability to pay taxes later.<div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=8511" width="1" height="1">http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/7312007_Real_Estate_Fees.asp#8509Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:00:00 GMT2bb7a989-b681-446d-a7f2-bd5f0562f228:8509Jon gutek JD/CPAElliott Eisenberg, Ph.D., established affordability criteria and then determined that in the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA only .008% of the households can afford to purchase the median house. If virtually no one can afford to purchase the median house then who is living in the half of the houses above the median? Or is the foreclosure rate above 50%? I suggest Dr. Eisenberg reconsider his affordability criteria before his reputation is completely ruined.<div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=8509" width="1" height="1">