I’m not old enough to be a cranky old man but I’m old enough to be just plain cranky, as can be evidenced by my irritation at this passage:
By the early 2000s, Whitestone was again filling up with young families eager to make homes for themselves on its quiet, leafy streets. But prices had soared. In October 2005, the Sheas sold the house, for which they had paid $28,000 nearly 40 years ago, for more than $600,000.
The inflation calculator here reveals that prices have indeed soared, but not quite as much as implied by the gaudy comparison of nominal prices.
If you suppose CPI + a reasonable risk premium equal 8% annual, then the house should be priced at $691,000 give or take a few dollars…
I think that an 8% annual risk premium might be a bit high. Considering the risk-free rate over the period of the article (geometric average is about 7% per annum), barely any risk premium is required ( $529,877.24 at risk free, $602,854.21 with 0.33% annual risk premium). Risk premia are always over the applicable risk-free rate, not over CPI or another inflation index. The latter comparison is real vs. nominal and does not take into account compensation for intertemporal substitution of consumption.
…and houses 'cost' money to own & maintain over 40 years.
The usual rule-of-thumb is '1% of Market-price per Year' to maintain a physical house long term (>5 years); routine stuff like paint, cleaning, repairs, roof-replacement, HVAC, etc.)
Throw in annual property-tax payments for 40 years — and the supposed windfall is much less impressive.