Quote:
Originally Posted by Lauren Ritchie
ed,
are you actually gary morse in disguise writing this? please tell me this is a joke.
what you're saying is that it is equally cheap to: 1. "rent" facilities from the developer on a year-to-year basis and 2.) take out $355 million worth of loans for 30 years of advance amenity fees and pay back the loans with 30 years of interest to buy the same amenities. (thanks for catching my spelling -- that WAS a stupid error)
that's just absurd. that's like saying it's just as cheap to lease one car as it is to take out loans and buy cars that you're going to use over the next 30 years. um, no. that's simply impossible.
i understand your argument in the sense that the homeowner is paying his or $100 or $135 a month, depending on when they bought. your argument is that they'll be paying it no matter whether they "own" or "rent" the facilities.
mine is that you would not be paying $135 a month if you hadn't had to give the developer 30 years worth of advance fees TODAY. and then repay them with interest, which is staggering.
we can argue all day long on the esoteric points, but that's really all that's going on here.
lauren
|
Your just all over the board on this issue. Anything to convince everyone that you're right. A few posts back you challenged my analogy of the amenity fee being similar to a contract with your cable company as being “inappropriate” because it’s a private company. But now you're in here making analogies between the amenity fee and a lease on a car from an automobile dealership.
Now even I’m getting dizzy. Time for me to get off your tilt-a-whirl debate. I’ve said my piece, and I’m done with it.