Shelly, for the math, I was using guestimates looking at my charts, which is why I used the words, "about $25,000 per year" when referring to the growth rate of median price from 1993 at $85,000 to the end of 2003 when median price was $337,000. That equates to a median price growth of $252,000, in non-bubble/collapse years. That spans over 11 years and equates to $22,900 per year of growth during those years. "IF," as I prefaced my entire article, we remove the bubble/collapse growth from 2004-2009, and we pick back up at the beginning of 2010, we continue on the path that ended at the end of 2003.
We ended 2003 with median sold price of $337,000. We closed Sept 2010 with median price of $367,500, which is a difference of $30,000.
Yes, I know you cannot change the past and pick and choose what you want to include and want to dismiss. I thought I clearly stated that I was elliminating the bubble/collapse years from 2003-2009 for the sake of discussion. I guess you can focus on whatever you want. I'm not tyring to pretend that the bubble/collapse didn't occur. I'm simply showing that the we are back in line with similar growth that we had for ten years leading up to the boom of the market, which most people considered to be "normal" growth.
If you don't feel that is enough disclosure, how about I add that including all 18 years, from 2003-Sept 2010, we have seen median sold price increase of $15,700 per year on average?
While I'm at it, as a bonus just for you, Shelly, I'll even throw in a graph including the bubble/collapse period from 2003-2009, with the linear progression line.