"if it isn't a crime, it should be" well, we all know the rest of that colloquial crapola.
we should probably be ashamed, hmm?

Ryun is NOT from Oklahoma, so I guess that makes the rest of your 'facts' suspect.

sorry it said a 100000 below market

Most Kansans don't claim Ryun as one of ours anymore. He might as well be from Oklahoma.

Jim Ryun was the world record-holder in the mile run in his younger years. Maybe he can work on his stride again while doing laps around the prison yard, the filthy self-righteous criminal.

" That's an 821% profit. "
Posted by: Dennis Taylor

No, it's not. as Justin wrote " In 2000, Ryun bought the Capitol Hill property from USFN for $100,000 below market ", not for $100,000.

" D.C. property records show that the townhouse was sold to Ryun for $410,000 on December 15, 2000 "
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000197.php

And it has now " been assessed at $920,870, up 125% from when he bought it in 2000. "

The statement that specifies the house was sold to Ryun for $100,000 below market value establishes a point of reference. It needs to be said in this way to convey the idea that something unusual occurred. Reporting that it sold in December of 2000 for $410,000 would have no meaning without a comparative reference to the variation in value at the time of the sale. Saying, $100,000 below, implies that this sum represents a substantial reduction from the market price and needs no qualification. The $410,000 could have been stated so that the reader could then evaluate the degree to which this sale might be suspect. Absent the $410,000 number we must rely upon the journalistic integrity of JR and upon his judgement that the market value of the property and the amount it sold for suggests an irregularity. As it turns out his judgement was accurate. Ryun got about a 20% break on a half million dollar home.

JR accurately informed the reader. End of story.

Sooner or later a quid pro quo will be discovered. Ryan was a reliable Bush voter - and was positioned to become post-DeLay majority leader. There's more connections to the White House that lay in wait. Coincedences?

-- just before the Ryuns bought the house in winter of 2000, the Congressman's young son was working IN THAT SAME HOUSE as an intern at Tom DeLay's PAC. After the intership ended, the house went up for sale, and the Ryuns bought:

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2001/jul/04/jim_ryuns_children/

-- Also from the above story, Jim Ryun's daughter, Catharine was the "office administrator" in the White House Office of Faith-Based initiatives. That office is located across the street from the WH complex. Well, at that time, the SAME Catharine Ryun was busy clearing Jack Abramoff in to visit people in VP Cheney's office.

See the documents here:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/abramoff-july7.shtml

--Jim Ryun's OTHER son "ran" Ryun's PAC. That other son also happened to live in DC, four blocks away from his dad, on Duddington Place. And guess whose name also appears on the deed? Jim Ryun. Did the son get a sweet deal too?

Atlantajan: "No one else seemed to have a problem understanding the math."

Really?

jon: "Isn't 920,870 and 100,000 a 920% increase?"

Dennis Taylor: "That's an 821% profit."

Of course everyone could do the math -- 921k / 2.25 = 409k, which implies that 100k was 20% less than market -- but why should we have to when Justin could have easily included the additional number? I appreciate Justin's reporting, but I think Freepatriot is right that it might have been clearer.

At the time houses on Capitol Hill may have been selling at hihger than appraised price, and they may have been selling at higher than asking price, but barring some outside interference in the market, they weren't selling at above market price. By definition, when the market determines the price of the houses, that is the market price.

That doesn't mean houses can't be sold below (or above) market price, if the buyer or seller agrees to a price above or below market as a favor to the other party. And you can argue that through lack of information, or some other reason, someone may pay more than the market price or sell for less than the market price. You can also have markets where the prices are irrationally high or low, and do not reflect economic reality. But it doesn't make sense to talk of a market where everything is selling at above "market price."

So is this $100,000 a discount from appraised value, or from the market value, i.e. what it would have gone for in an open market (which ideally should be the same as the appraised value, but is often higher in a rising market as appraisals trail actual prices as appraisals can only look backwards in time at sales)? If it's the former, and appraised value is lower than market value the $100,000 discount is an underestimate.

Of course if you take the time to follow the links back a couple stories, you see that discount was from estimated market value, a conservative estimate according to the experts quoted. The only part of the story which makes no sense, and adds nothing, is the claim that at the time houses where selling at above market value.

This is a great Blog!

Very nice. Love this place!
Keep up the good work!

Hey, very nice place you have here.
You've done a good job!