You write:

Perhaps the biggest issue I have with The Press is I spend a huge chunk of what I earn paying them to advertise the properties I am marketing, which is spent basically to satisfy clients as 90% of today's buyers are coming from the internet. It irritates me that I pay the most money to an entity which least benefits my clients and creates fear and doubt in those who should be running, not walking to invest NOW. As an investor I am delighted with today's interest rates and my ability to neggotiate in this wonderful arena of real estate investment I play in.

It is a common criticism of the media that they are reporting favorably on events concerning their paid advertisers - not the other way around. The media will habitually fight this claim of favoritism as it ruins their credibility as a reporting agency - their very livelihood. Would you really have it any other way? I say three cheers for the press. Do you really think it a good idea that our source of news be beholden to its advertisers? Furthermore, if you are not getting results from the newspapers and you are only advertising in this manner to appease your clients, whose fault is that? I find it hard to believe that you are a buyer of properties NOW for the sole reason that it is a good investment. Perhaps you could pound out of few numbers for us.

You write:

The press does not talk about the fact that when interest is 6.25%, the payment on a hundred thousand dollar mortgage is $616, instead of $665. at 7%, which allows one to borrow $108,000 for the same payment one would pay for $100,000 at .75% more interest. The press doesn't talk about how in a softer market those who qualify for loans can buy more for the same amount of money

Homes have more than doubled on average in the past 6 years. This works out to an average appreciation of about 12% per year. According to Bill Conerly's interpretation of the Case-Shiller index, one would have had to purchase property in Portland prior to April of 2006 in order not to be upside down. I do not think current prices are sustainable. Where are the jobs coming from to support that heftier mortgage? Current housing prices are too high to justify it as investment property. Rents have NOT kept up with housing prices. I can rent a home valued at 260k for 1000 a month. This would make for a bad investment, not counting the opportunity cost of the 20% down ($52,000) the loan alone would cost me $1297 a month. We won't even go into taxes, insurance, upkeep etc., etc., I have read that in order for a home to make sense as an investment, one should pay 11 times monthly rent. If that is true, the currently valued home is worth about half of its current asking price. I am not looking to purchase a house to flip. This will be my home. I do not want to be taken either. I feel that people are putting ludicrously high prices on their homes because in the past, they may have sold. I believe those times have changed.

Lastly, you write:

The young man at my open house had heard the builder say to me, "we will all be okay if we simply don't read the papers or listen to the news as we are insulated here in Oregon, in large part from the market most of the nation is experiencing. How do we get this message out?" I decided to BLOG it.

Again, I am aghast. Oregon is insular? Gas prices haven't affected rural properties? Banks here are robust with lots of cash to lend? Jobs have kept pace with inflation? Californians are still beating a path North? Your arguments are self-serving at best.