Notorious R.O.B.

The Real Estate Journal is reporting that the largest landlord in San Francisco is putting apartment properties up for sale, and raising some questions:

After five years as the most aggressive buyer of apartment buildings in San Francisco, the Lembi family has — for now — become the city’s biggest seller.

The 18 buildings up for sale are a pittance of the family’s 307-building holding in one of the country’s hottest rental markets. But the listings have aroused speculation about this most-watched but little-understood local empire: Is the move portfolio-shaping to take advantage of a run-up in prices that the Lembis largely created or is it a sign they are overextended?

“We’re not under any pressure to sell,” said Walter Lembi, managing director of Lembi Group. He said the closely held group, whose main units are Skyline Realty Inc. and CitiApartments Inc., is seeking to take profits on buildings that it “successfully turned around, fixed up and earned higher rents.”

But Mr. Lembi acknowledged that the tight commercial-mortgage market has crimped the group’s ability to fund acquisitions and refinance highly leveraged properties.

“We’ve been through many tough markets before, and from a financing standpoint, this is one of the toughest,” he said. “All the lenders I have are working with us, giving us extensions on loans that are coming due.” He said the discussions involve refinancing, not restructuring, loans that are due “in a year or two” as the group looks to “reduce short-term debt.” Mr. Lembi declined to comment on the amount or composition of the group’s debt and whether rental income covers debt obligations.

That’s… interesting.

As the article itself mentions, San Francisco is projected to be the most attractive market for multifamily in the nation, with rents expected to increase 7.4% in 2008.  And that fits in with the conventional wisdom about rents in a tough residential housing market.

Lost amidst all the doom and gloom about the sub-prime meltdown and its impact on the residential housing market, with stories of homeowners just walking away from their over-levered homes, etc. is the fact that people have to live somewhere.  If people can’t buy a house, or walk away from the one they already own, they still have to hang their hat somewhere.  That means a recovery in the rental market, as demand for rental units increase.

So one would think that 2008, 2009, and possibly beyond would be a great time to be in multifamily rental properties.

Why is Lembi group selling now?

If it’s simply the case of one company facing cashflow issues and needing to sell some buildings to deal with it, then no big deal.  If the Lembi Group is just acting in concert with their investment plan, and this is the time to maximize portfolio gains by selling the properties, then no big deal.  If it’s indicative of something else in the underlying economy, that the Lembi group sees as the largest landlord in San Fran but others do not, then possibly a big deal.

One possible clue is the notion of domestic outflow.  Michael Barone wrote in middle of 2007 that San Francisco experienced a domestic outflow of 10% between 2000 and 2006 (with an immigrant inflow of 7%, for a net loss of 3% of the population).  That’s a lot of people to lose in six years’ time.  If the San Francisco market has been experiencing net outflow — particularly of higher-income tech industry workers — then that could explain why smart multifamily operators want to cash out some gains now, even as the home sales market goes into the tank.

Fewer renters = lower rent.  The iron law of economics.

This story bears some watching.

-rsh

Speaking of Dustin Luther, he has posted a fantastic interview with Marty Frame of Cyberhomes.  Read the whole thing.  It’s filled with interesting observations and thoughts.

None more interesting than the conclusion:

What do you see as some of the biggest changes coming to online real estate in the next two years?

The herd will thin again based on two primary factors: performance and the degree to which each of the competitors unyokes itself from having to “monetize” by charging its content providers for traffic. Lagging the actual real estate market by just a little bit, we’ll see this turn from boom to street-fight pretty quickly, and only the insanely disciplined will come out the other side. The current cycle has given us a lot of good innovation to play with, however; so the survivors will have put the best of it together.

By the talk of “unyoking” and charging content providers for traffic, it seems clear that Frame is referring to the various ad-supported sites such as Trulia and Zillow, as well as referral-based sites such as HouseValues.com and LendingTree.

His idea that the survivors will have put the best of the innovations together is interesting if you think about it.  Is the idea that first, there will be a street-fight, and based on depth of pockets, on efficiency of operations, etc., there will be two or three survivors who will then pick up the pieces and put together the best of innovations?  Or that whoever survives will be those who can put all of the best pieces together?

And what is the business model for Cyberhomes anyhow?  They have banner advertising on their site, but that hardly seems worth the trouble considering the size of Fidelity, the corporate parent to Cyberhomes.  They’re giving away the content for free, but presumably, not out of the kindness of their hearts.  It must lead to some sort of a sustainable business plan, even if it is simply as a lead-generator for its title insurance business, or as a way to gather more traffic information, or a way to sell the AVM products.

In any case, this is a great interview.  Kudos to Dustin Luther for landing it, and for the job he does with the interview.

-rsh

And the drama has escalated once again.  The brouhaha was sort of dying down, but the flames have roared into life once again, with this from Dustin Luther (obviously a great and influential blogger), then this, and this, and I’m sure others I’m missing.

The comments in the Luther post are fascinating.

As a brand newbie into the RE.net, it’s fairly obvious that I have no dog in this fight, bloodhound or otherwise.  I like them all.  And Marc Davison’s original rock star post, despite my puzzling over it, hardly seems like the likely candidate for igniting such controversy.  He seems like a very smart guy — and apparently he held my current position before I got onboard (hey, a pun!), so I feel some strange connection to the man.  Seth Godin is a really smart guy too, but sometimes, he says crap that makes me scratch my head too.

I am a veteran in the political blogosphere (and even more vicious, the video gaming world), so this whole kerfuffle strikes me as a whole lot of much ado about nothing.  So some blogger was a prick to some other blogger.  Happens every hour of every day.  Far harsher things are said in that world than in this one, and I get that.  At least RE.net shares a common worldview, and a common reality, even if people disagree on what should be done within that reality.

If I might make a small suggestion — and I realize this may be presumptuous coming from a brand newbian — that everyone put away his or her outrage at one or the other side, internalize it, and move on?  Unsubscribe, bash each other, etc. etc. but I’m thinking it’s time to get back to business.  Maybe apologies all around and kumbayahs and joining hands might be good too.  I just don’t see the point in getting all personal about frikkin’ blog posts on either side of this controversy.

I figure, the blogosphere isn’t really about personality at the end of the day.  It’s about intelligence and insight.  Either someone says something worth hearing, or he doesn’t.  The nicest guy in the world could have nothing to contribute to the conversation, while the meanest son of a bitch might have insights that are useful to the various participants.  Or vice versa.

There is a valuable lesson here somewhere, however.  And I think it is this: On the Internet, it’s not who you are, but what you say, that matters.  These are just words on a screen — there’s no way to capture the tone of voice, the force of personality, the relationships, etc. that make up a person.  Some agents and companies love to blog about “personal” topics — for example, this post from Zillow.  In small doses, that kind of content can help humanize what would otherwise be a faceless corporation.  And that’s good.  But you have to have something worth reading, some insight, some viewpoint, some information as the rest of your content.  Otherwise, you’re just a nice guy with nothing to say.

As one might imagine, I’m trying to fit this into the official OnBoard blog strategy in my day job.  It’s actually a lot harder than it looks, so my hat is off to the people at Zillow, Trulia, Redfin, Bloodhound, 4realz, 1000watts, and elsewhere that keep a lively blog going with useful information, thoughts and viewpoints worth checking out.

As for me, I’ll read any blogger, any blog post, that has interesting things in it — even if I disagree, flame the post, flame the poster, whatever.  Because it isn’t about them, but about me — what am I learning, what thoughts am I provoked to have, what assumptions am I having to question, etc.?

Having said all that, seems to me it would be a simple thing for Mr. Swann to just apologize, Mr. Davison to accept the apology, and there can be a nice happy ending to this drama.

-rsh

Michael Arrington at TechCrunch takes note of a new startup called GenieTown that is aiming at the local services space.  From his post:

The company says they are addressing the long tail of local services. The GenieTown site allows local service providers (plumbers, dentists, whatever) to put up a web presence. Users looking for providers can find them, based on their location and user rating.

Arrington thinks GenieTown is in for a pretty rough time, with competitors like Google Local, Yahoo Local, and Yelp, as well as the venerable Yellow Pages.  That’s mostly techie talk.

Here’s my question: Why has the real estate community ceded local services to the various webbies?

I remember my first day in my new suburban house a few years back.  The real estate agent we worked with was very nice — she sent us dinner for our first day in our new home from the local Italian place.  It was delicious.  She left us a couple of magazines — I think Modern Living maybe.  But ultimately, neither was particularly useful to us as newcomers to town.

Why didn’t she leave us a personalized, branded directory of local service providers?  Why doesn’t her company’s website offer a list of providers who have passed some sort of certification as a Trusted Partner or some such?  We trusted her enough to have her be involved in the biggest financial decision we’ve ever made.  She could very easily have leveraged that relationship to tell us about the best health clubs in town and nearby, which diners have the best brunches, where to take your kids on a rainy Saturday afternoon, etc. etc.  But she didn’t.  Why not?

When someone is new in town, and hasn’t yet met any neighbors, the only person he is likely to know is the agent who arranged the home purchase.  That homebuyer is also very likely to be facing a variety of needs to make the house into a home.  Which plumber is trustworthy and responsive?  Which handyman is good, and which one is to be avoided?  Who should I call to get my yardwork done?  Which auto mechanic should I use?

I’m sure there are agents out there who step in and become a trusted advisor to their clients’ local service needs.  I’m just curious why no major brokerage has managed to do this successfully.  I know Coldwell Banker used to have (still has) a program called Concierge, but apparently, it wasn’t hugely successful. 

Just seems to me that local services is one of those areas that real estate people should simply dominate based on their initial trust relationship with the consumer.  Maybe someone should look into it… because venture capitalists apparently have….

-rsh

If you care about legal issues, this is a must read post from Real Estate, Real Competition, and The Law. Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law (CLC) sued Craigslist for violating the Fair Housing Act and got pretty much slapped around by the trial court. CLC appealed, and the Seventh Circuit heard the appeal.

The blogger, Michael Erdman, spent a great deal of time and energy reporting on the actual oral arguments. Having been to a court hearing or two myself, I know just how incredibly boring that can be. He deserves a great deal of thanks for the work he’s done here.  Seriously, read the whole thing.

This case is important not just for real estate, but for the internet industry as well.  If Craigslist is found guilty of violating FHA because its members posted ads that are, that creates all kinds of problems for all web-based advertising businesses, social networks, and the like.  At issue is whether a web-based message board has a duty to filter content — or at least attempt to filter content — to keep objectionable ads off its system.

Again, forcing companies like Craigslist and eBay to filter content proactively is going to have immense implications for companies like Facebook, MySpace, and others.  In real estate, such a rule would have enormous implications for FSBO sites, as well as non-FSBO listing sites in terms of proving some sort of an affirmative filtering mechanism.

In concluding, Mr. Erdman expects to see a unanimous affirmance of the trial court’s ruling to dismiss the case against Craigslist.  I hope so.

-rsh

I know I take contrarian views to much of the received wisdom on the RE.net, but… well, I can’t help it.  Since I’m not flogging any product, or trying to get leads from this blog, or any such thing, but just write on topics that interest me, I suppose I find it more fun to disagree or to take a different angle on a story.

Which might explain why I am mystified about this story:

Does the NAR “get” blogging and other aspects of social media? I believe the answer is clearly no.

So why should the NAR hire a “Social Media Director”? (Director, Guru, Advocate, Manager – pick a title, any title.)

To help bring them into the 21^st century.
To improve their brand recognition.
To improve their brand reputation.
To accelerate their learning curve on the implementation of all aspects of social media.
To take advantage of all social media has to offer.
To engage the “RE.net” to help turn some into advocates for the NAR.
To develop and provide training and systems for the NAR membership to take advantage of social media.
To provide an active conduit between the membership and leadership.

You tell me, what else could a NAR Social Media director do? I’ve been racking my brains trying to come up with a disadvantage. No can do.

The Internet and social media can be incredibly powerful tools if they are used properly. With a good Social Media Director, the NAR could trim hundreds of labor hours from the learning curve and use the power of social media marketing and networking to reach out to not just its membership, but the general public as well.

Basically, the author (Jay T.) of NARWisdom blog, made a public appeal for a Social Media director position at NAR.  That sounds like a good idea, except… well, let me get to the exceptions in a bit.

Read the rest of this entry »

I had a feeling I would not be disappointed in entertainment value of this little kerfuffle.  And I was right.

Joseph Ferrara from Sellsius lets Greg Swann have both barrels, for Greg letting Marc Davison have both barrels.

Ah, a grand melee.  I’m happy to be a voyeur in these little dustups.

-rsh

After my… ahem… tirade against Movesmart.org, I felt kinda bad.  I mean, they seem like such sweet, nice people with such good intentions.  Granted, I still stand by everything I wrote in that post, but… in the spirit of wishing them well, I offer the following suggestions.  I base them on this page on Netsquared.org that lists what Movesmart wants to do, and what sort of help it needs.  Specifically, this passage:

What information will people interact with to make this change?

Housing seekers, and the professionals that support them, will interact with three distinct data sets (and eventually four in later iterations of the site). Single point amenities will expose the convenience a neighborhood offers – financial institutions, schools, libraries, public transportation options, healthcare, government services, etc. Affordable housing opportunities, culled from the government agencies that fund them, will offer opportunities for housing seekers of limited means to take advantage of neighborhoods previously closed to them. Finally, a database of “neighborhood opportunities” – the programs and activities of community based organizations uploaded by said organizations, will connect new residents with new communities and put them on a path to true integration.

Okay, so a couple of actual suggestions made in the spirit of being constructive.

1.  Include employment opportunities data.

Assuming for the time being that Movesmart really does want to help low income families, a top priority has to be distance of the housing to employment.  Since Movesmart assumes that its audience has some income, some financial ability to make choices, I have to assume that its target audience is employed and not just waiting for welfare payments.

In that case, the distance to the major job centers will be critical.  Will you have to take two trains and a bus to get to downtown, where the jobs are?  Or is there a major office complex within walking distance?

There are commercial databases that list businesses by SIC code, including the number of employees.  These can be geocoded and then plotted on a map.  I think this information would be a real boon to anyone actually looking for low income housing, and is thinking about proximity to employment opportunities.

In addition, perhaps Movesmart can work with various job sites to have them send job listings over, geocode them, and plot those on a map.  If I’m a poor housing-seeker, I’m more likely to look at a place that’s closer to a place where tons of job listings are than a place 25 miles away.

2.  Get real crime data.  Don’t be afraid to display them.  Include policing information.

The thing about living in crappy neighborhoods is that your physical security becomes absolutely paramount.  Gang violence, shootings, property crime, sexual assault, drug-related crimes – these things may be extreme rarities in the nice suburbs, but they are realities in poor neighborhoods.  This is particularly true if we’re talking about public housing projects and their environs.

It would be an enormous disservice if Movesmart, in the name of helping lower income families find affordable housing, neglected to inform them about the true reality of crime in that neighborhood.  Real estate agents and companies are very, very hesitant to include this info because of possible repercussions with the seller who is listing the home for sale.  Not to mention legal ramifications under the Fair Housing Act.  Movesmart, as a nonprofit dedicated to poor people, may be able to present accurate crime data, in detail, without worrying overmuch about whether the homeseller would pitch a fit.

I further suggest including policing data.  For example, boundaries of police precincts, number of officers, any public reports/grades of the precinct and its police, and analytical data.  For example, the ratio of cops to residents might be a very interesting statistic for someone looking to choose between two rough neighborhoods to know.  Information on whether the police department engages in community policing, whether there have been a large number of police brutality complaints filed against a particular precinct or not, etc.

In some neighborhoods and cities, I believe it is imperative to talk about gang culture that may exist in that neighborhood.  I know that if I moved into some public housing project, relying on information on Movesmart, only to have my son gunned down by local Crips or Latin Kings, I’m going to be looking to sue somebody.  Since this data is someone difficult to get, nevermind make geographic into map overlays, perhaps you start by having community residents post on message boards/forums about gang activity in their neighborhoods, and what is or is not being done about it.  Anonymity is, of course, absolutely paramount to protect the residents.

3.  Include detailed demographic trends information of not just the target neighborhood, but surrounding neighborhoods as well.

This information will help someone assess whether the particular neighborhood is on its way up, or on its way down, or just stagnating.  Even if the median household income in a particular neighborhood is half of the state average, if for the past six years, it’s been showing 10% annual growth, I would feel more comfortable that the neighborhood is headed in the right direction.

Furthermore, the surrounding neighborhood information is important as well.  If my neighborhood is shady, but it’s bordered by real up-and-comers that are getting gentrified and made safer, it’s not a bad bet to think that some positive spillover effect will take place over time.  On the flipside, even if my neighborhood is looking okay, if the surrounding areas are becoming lawless gangland jungles, then I’d best be looking to move elsewhere.

Anyhow, just a couple of thoughts on how Movesmart can actually try to help poor people find places to live… assuming good faith on their part, and genuine willingness to help.

-rsh

Looks like the latest CoStar blog post takes the rivalry between CoStar and Loopnet to a new level.  It’s exciting — almost as if we’re in a Presidential Election season.  Oh yeah…. 

Anyhow, CoStar basically pimpslapped Loopnet’s membership claims and alleges false advertising:

If the impressive-sounding number LoopNet claims as its “registered users” is really the cumulative number of times someone ever registered to use their web site over the past decade, why would LoopNet say that it can “immediately expose” listings to 2.5 million people?

We think the answer is clear: LoopNet doesn’t have extensive research facilities. It doesn’t spend millions of dollars on trained researchers to track down listings all over the country the way CoStar does. Which is why CoStar has a higher quality, more comprehensive database, with the information you can’t find anywhere else. 

Granted, the two of them have been going at it for some time now, including various lawsuits enriching various corporate litigators from coast to coast.  And I gather that they’re tussling with each other over who will be the National Commercial MLS when it’s all said and done, since the commercial real estate world doesn’t have domination-by-MLS that the residential side does.

I personally can’t wait to see the response by Loopnet.  It’s going to be an interesting time in the tiny, arcane world of online commercial real estate.

Here’s the thing, however, for those who don’t follow the Inside Baseball stuff about commercial real estate websites.

There is little doubt that CoStar is right.  Loopnet does make silly claims.  2.5 million registered users just doesn’t fly considering the size and scope of the entire commercial real estate market.  Not to mention aging of users, as CoStar brings up.  At the same time, CoStar shows its character with not only the blog post but the lawsuit that inspired it.

CoStar is extremely good at what they do.  Really, they are.  Their technology is very good, and their research capabilities (which CoStar has spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing and maintaining) are second to none.  CoStar singlehandedly changed the way that commercial real estate firms conduct business.  But they’re evil.  If you look into their business practices, you realize that you are seeing the wielding of monopoly power the likes of which you haven’t seen since the pre-Google Microsoft days.  That CoStar looks upon litigation as a good competitive weapon says much about how they compete: to win, and to win in Conan-like ways.  Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of their women.  Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but that sort of competitiveness isn’t going to make you a lot of friends.

Loopnet may not be as evil as CoStar, but they’re incompetent.  This is not the place to go into the details of their incompetence, but suffice to say that they remain in business because (1) how much the industry despises CoStar, and (2) their competitors are even more incompetent than they are.  Going out with a 2.5 million registered users claim when even a cursory examination of the numbers based on public records (as CoStar did) shows that claim to be… how shall we put this… marketing fluff is not the height of competence, especially when you’re locked in a death match struggle with the Death Star CoStar.

Looking at this particular little fight, I feel like I did when (as a Jets fan) the 2007 Patriots played the Dolphins.  Do you root for the evil empire?  Or the utter incompetence of the Fish?  Eeek.

I will point out one thing, however.

CoStar says it plays straight with its subscriber numbers.  Curiously, I haven’t been able to find those numbers.  I’m sure they publish their subscriber numbers somewhere in their voluminous marketing materials, since that is the substance of their lawsuit against Loopnet: false advertising.  I just can’t find them.

But beyond that, the way that CoStar defines ‘subscriber’ isn’t necessarily what one might think when one thinks of the term “Subscriber”.  Subscriber typically implies some sort of voluntary act, coupled with payment, by an individual to a publication.  In CoStar’s case, that ain’t necessarily so.

CoStar agreements tend to be at the enterprise level, not at the individual level.  For example, Cushman & Wakefield has a single agreement with CoStar covering all of its agents (some part of the 11,000 employees it claims worldwide).  Let’s say for the sake of discussion that 5,000 of the 11,000 are actual commercial agents & brokers, with the remainder support staff.  That means that all 5,000 Cushman brokers are ‘subscribers’ to CoStar, under the enterprise agreement — even if they have never used CoStar, never will, and don’t even know how to use the Internet.  As long as you have a listing in your name, or an administrative assistant could conduct a property search in your name, you may be covered under the agreement as a ‘subscriber’.  In fact, word is that CoStar fairly insists on having some pretty stringent definitions to ensure that the maximum number of ‘subscribers’ are covered (since the fees a compay pays to CoStar is closely tied to the number of licenses, aka, subscribers).

Let me give one example I happen to have personal knowledge of.  A firm with 35 brokers wanted CoStar, but only for the 5 brokers who are full-time commercial agents.  The other 30 are what one might call “resumercial” agents who dabble in commercial now and again.  The firm was planning on having an admin conduct property searches for its agents, and putting listings up for agents — a common arrangement.  How many subscribers would you imagine were covered in the agreement between said firm and CoStar?  If you guessed 35, you get a gold star.

And technically, that’s true — because the firm was paying CoStar the fees for having 35 licenses, and each of the 35 agents had his/her individual login and password.  The admin would login under an agent’s login/password to do the work for that agent.  But 35 people in that firm were not looking at CoStar day in and day out.  One person was, with perhaps another five checking the site once in a while.

Nonetheless, one cannot deny that CoStar’s numbers are ‘more straight’ than Loopnet’s.  Which is why CoStar’s pimp hand is so strong.  I can’t wait to see Loopnet’s response, beyond the generic “Allegation is ridiculous” pooh-poohing that isn’t going to convince anyone.

-rsh

Glenn Kelman at Redfin posted a great article yesterday about working at a technology company in Seattle.  I’ve spent a bit of time in Seattle working at a game company out there, and I remember it fondly.  A great city in so many ways.

He contrasts the Seattle tech culture with that of the Valley’s, and draws the conclusion that

Because if it turns out that Zillow, iLike or Redfin are on to something good, it may be easier to build a long-term business in Seattle. Ten years on at Microsoft, engineers deep in Redmond’s rain forests are still writing the next version of Office. Meanwhile the engineers at Google are, as Zillow’s Rich Barton points out, plotting their next startup on the company dime.

I’m not sure which engineers one would rather have, but it is true that there is a blue-collar dedication in Seattle that you don’t find in the ADD-addled Valley. “You work hard here because it’s gray,” Rich writes. “Then you go hiking or fishing or skiing.”

Then Drew Meyers over at Zillow blog comments that:

I can attest to the fact that we definitely follow the work hard, play hard motto here at Zillow. I’ve heard those in the valley sometimes forget the 2nd half of that motto.

He then asks: “Which environment/culture do you prefer?”

Well, speaking from a tech/data company in New York City, I guess I feel like I’m witnessing a competition between a daycare center and a kindergarten about who’s more hardcore, and who can be more productive.

I think New York firms have the “work hard, then work hard some more” philosophy.  It’s just in the air in this place.  Dominated as we are by investment banking, global finance, and corporate law, it’s just way too easy to get into conversations like this one at the rare cocktail party:

“Man, I pulled an all-nighter on Tuesday to get the XYZ deal done.”

“Yeah?  I had to pull TWO all-nighters in a row to get my deal done.”

“You guys are pussies — I haven’t been home in two weeks working on my gazillion-dollar merger.”

It’s difficult to think that you’re working all that hard when you know that as you’re leaving the office at 8pm, the working day just got going for those Harvard and Wharton MBA’s in the huge skyscraper across the street from you.  You see the dozens of food delivery guys scuttling through their doors carrying dinners for people likely hunched over documents in conference rooms, and you feel vaguely guilty that you only worked twelve hours that day knowing those boys and girls are likely to be greeting the dawn still in their suits.

A lawyer friend of mine told me that he got home once after a particularly brutal week of drafting some ginormous loan agreement and found a strange woman asleep in his bed.  So he woke her up, wondering if his roommate had let a friend sleep in his room or something.  She goes, “I’m your wife, you bastard.”

I happen to be fortunate that OnBoard cares about things like… oh, I don’t know… employee sanity.  But I get these incredulous stares from friends in law or finance when I tell them that no, I don’t routinely work Saturdays and Sundays, and that I do tend to leave the office around 6 or 7.

So which environment/culture do I prefer?

Well, the blue-collar laid-backness of Seattle seems awfully nice.  But then the hyper-connected innovation of Silicon Valley also seems nice.  They both seem so… nice.  And innovative.  And productive for developing technology.

And yes, you may view this entire post as a giant sour grapes “I hate you all” screed motivated by enormous envy.   One day, maybe, New York will have a tech culture worth talking about at all.

-rsh

Update: Michael Arrington of TechCrunch takes down Glenn.

Update #2: Glenn responds.  I remain envious of both Seattle and Silicon Valley.