December 28, 2017

Could this 12-year-old Richmond girl be figure skating’s next big thing?

Alysa Liu, who trains at the Oakland Ice Center, is a jumping phenom who is one of five kids reared by a single father


  • Figure skater Alysa Liu ,12, practices at the Oakland Ice Center on Monday, Dec. 11, 2017, in Oakland, Calif.   (Aric Crabb/Bay Area News Group)
1 of 15
Alysa Liu ,12, practices at the Oakland Ice Center to prepare for the upcoming U.S. Figure Skating Championships in San Jose. (Aric Crabb/Bay Area News Group)
(Click here, if you are unable to view this video or photo gallery on your mobile device.)
OAKLAND — Although she stands just 4-feet-7, Alysa Liu is difficult to miss at the Oakland Ice Center where she reels off senior-level triple jumps as casually as if she were talking on a smartphone.
Meet the Bay Area’s next potential figure skating star.
Did we mention she’s only 12?
Liu heads into the U.S. championships Sunday and Tuesday in San Jose as one of the favorites in the women’s junior division although she is the youngest in the competition.
If she wins, Liu won’t be eligible to represent the United States at the 2018 Junior World Championships because she missed the minimum-age cut off by a month. But that’s OK for the oldest of five children being raised by a single father who emigrated to the United States from China in 1989.
Liu is used to the unconventional route. She and her four siblings — a 9-year-old sister and 8-year-old triplets — were conceived through anonymous egg donors and surrogate moms.
Oakland lawyer Arthur Liu, 53, is rearing the children with the help of his partner and a community of friends, he said. But every day is a manic foot race, particularly with a skater on the verge of national attention and his busy law practice.
He rises at 4:30 a.m. to clean and do laundry at the three-bedroom, two-bathroom home in Richmond that Liu recently bought to accommodate his large family. Then it’s preparing breakfast and snacks for the three girls and two boys.
He drops the younger ones at school in Albany, where the family lived until the recent move. Then Liu takes Alysa to the rink to train for two to three hours in the morning. After skating with her coach, the daughter joins her dad at his law office in downtown Oakland. She has a cubicle there to do her classwork. Alysa returns to the rink for two more hours of training in the afternoon.
The outgoing girl attended Chinese school for about three years before her father enrolled her in the Oakland School for the Arts, which has a figure skating emphasis. But Alysa missed too much time because of traveling to competitions.
So two years ago, Liu started homeschooling her through California Connections Academy, an online program used by many elite skaters such as Palo Alto’s Vincent Zhou and Fremont’s Karen Chen.
Alysa likes her setup.
“It’s quiet most of the time,” she said of the law office. “There is nobody trying to disturb me so I can focus on my work. Sometimes it can get a little difficult when I am having trouble and he’s with clients and I really need him.”
The arrangement gives the budding skater a chance to plan her life around the sport she loves.
Laura Lipetsky, her coach, took her protege to the University of Delaware’s ice rinks this year for a biomechanical analysis researchers have created to help elite American skaters improve their jump techniques.
The coach also sent Alysa to Los Angeles to work with famed choreographer Cindy Stuart, who has done the Disney on Ice shows and Lipetsky’s programs when she was little.
“I like how I am different” than other kids, Alysa said.
Arthur Liu recalled how his daughter started asking questions about her familial background at an early age.
“Daddy, why do I look different?” she would ask. “I don’t look Chinese.”
The questions were more detailed two years ago, so Liu finally explained it to her.
“You have a biological mother, you have a surrogate mother,” he said.
Alysa also has a strong female figure in Lipetsky, a former national-level skater who graduated from Cal. The two have been skating together since Alysa was 5½.  
“I care about her so much I give everything that I can to her because she only gets one shot,” Lipetsky said. “She reminds me of someone that I was growing up.”
As a Michelle Kwan fan himself, Liu brought his oldest child to a Saturday public session seven years ago because he thought his active girl might enjoy it.
“She was walking on the ice right away,” said Liu, who at the time worked two blocks from the rink. “Even in the first session, she was chasing adults, talking to them, making friends.”
He enrolled Alysa in a learn-to-skate program right away. Lipetsky saw potential and encouraged Liu to begin private lessons.
Lipetsky felt a strong connection to Alysa as the daughter of Russian immigrants who had to scrape by to pay for a career that included coaching from the renowned Frank Carroll and 1976 Olympian Wendy Burge Dickinson.
She remembered other coaches who would stop as soon as the 30-minute paid session ended. Carroll, on the other hand, created a nurturing environment for a kid who loved skating. She has tried to follow his example.
Liu’s other kids skate on weekends for fun but have no interest in pursuing it competitively. Dad even tried it twice but hurt himself each time. That was that.
The family’s weekends, though, revolve around skating. They spend an hour Saturday at the Oakland rink before Alysa goes to ballet classes. The Lius drive to Vacaville on Sundays for two hours of practice because the Oakland rink isn’t available for freestyle skating.
Liu and Lipetsky try to make it fun for Alysa, who thrives on the challenges. The father makes sure his eldest interacts with kids her own age with playdates and sleepovers.
So far, the formula works.
Two years ago, 10-year-old Alysa became the youngest ever to win an intermediate-level national title. Last year, she placed fourth in the novice division while attempting seven triple jumps.
Alysa won a silver medal in her first international competition in August before she turned 12 at the Asian Open Figure Skating Trophy in Hong Kong. She then won the junior competition at the U.S. Challenge Skate in September and finished first last month at Pacific Sectionals to put her on a trajectory to become as big or bigger than San Jose Olympian Polina Edmunds and Chen, who are competing for 2018 Winter Games berths this week at SAP Center.
“She has advanced beyond my imagination,” her father said. “She wants to compete in the Olympics and the World Championships. She knows what she wants.”
Although skating is an unforgiving sport, the adults are not discouraging Alysa from thinking about the big picture. She will be 16 by the time the 2022 Olympics in Beijing are held.
“I can imagine wanting to go there and be at that level,” Alysa said. “If I ever imagine myself at the Olympics, I imagine myself this size, this face, and the same skating. Just being at a bigger ice rink.”
It’s impossible to predict whether Liu will make it all the way. The sport is littered with stolen dreams.
Growth is one factor that could alter Alysa’s plans. Injuries also have undermined many promising careers. The sport’s scoring system awards big jumpers, forcing athletes to attempt more difficult programs that increase the injury risk.
Liu’s long program, skated to a melody from “Les Miserables,” includes seven triple jumps — two in combinations. She also ends the ambitious performance with a double Axel and double toe combination.
All of these spectacular jumps are executed in the second half of the program because they earn more points. It’s a strategy known as “backloading” that is being advanced by the top Russians. Late jumps score higher because it is more difficult to execute them when tired.
Liu wants to keep pace with the Russians and Japanese who also are mastering triple Axels and quads.
Lipetsky is using a harness to help Alysa learn the Axel, the only triple jump she does not include in competition. The Axel is the most difficult jump in the sport because it is an extra one-half rotation.
“I love that there are endless things to learn,” said Alysa, who skipped first grade. “You can learn every single day something new.”
What she loves the most is jumping. Spinning, she said, takes too long.
“They take a lot of work,” Alysa added. “They’re harder than jumps for me actually because you have to stretch and stretching really isn’t my thing.”
OK, but Liu has been earning maximum points for her mature spins.
Everything about her skating is more sophisticated this season. Liu’s short program is performed to Spanish flamenco music whereas last season she skated to an Addams Family repertoire.
Liu helps his daughter and her coach select the music. They rely on a Sacramento dressmaker to design the costumes.
In a sport populated with moms calling the shots, Liu stands out.
“I’m the mom and the dad — I’m all she has,” he said.
He left China after the unrest highlighted by the Tiananmen Square standoff in the spring of 1989. Liu had studied and taught English in college in China.
He earned a master’s of business administration at Cal State East Bay before getting a degree at UC Hastings College of Law in San Francisco.
Alysa shares her father’s academic sensibility. The eighth-grader studies high school-level Mandarin, which is her favorite subject.
“Ni hao wo huabing,” she said.
How are you? I am a figure skater.
That will work just fine for the Beijing Games.

November 16, 2017

Home Prices Boom 10 Years After Housing Crisis
New report reveals surprising data as prices return to bubble levels

SANTA CLARA, Calif., Nov. 13, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- Home prices have returned to the boom levels of a decade ago -- which foreshadowed the bursting of the real estate "bubble" and the onset of The Great Recession -- but today's housing market is starkly different, according to data released today from realtor.com®, a leading online real estate destination. Backed by tighter lending standards and more solid economic fundamentals, current price appreciation is being driven by strong supply-and-demand dynamics with no signs of boom era flipping or over-construction.
On the surface, today's housing market looks suspiciously similar to the pre-recession years with rising home prices and feverish buyer demand. However, a deeper analytical assessment reveals material differences -- historically low inventory levels, much tighter lending standards and significant job and household growth -- and a strong housing market backed by economic fundamentals.
Home Prices are Soaring
The U.S. median home sales price in 2016 was $236,000, 2 percent higher than in 2006.1 In fact, 31 of the 50 largest U.S. metros are back to pre-recession price levels. Austin, Texas, has seen the largest price growth in the last decade with a 63 percent increase.1 It's followed by Denver, at 54 percent and Dallas at 52 percent. Three markets -- Las Vegas, Tucson, Ariz., and Riverside, Calif., -- remained more than 20 percent below 2006 price levels at the end of 2016, at 25 percent, 22 percent and 22 percent, respectively.1 Additionally, realtor.com®national data shows that listing prices have been up double-digits for the majority of 2017.
"As we compare today's market dynamics to those of a decade ago, it's important to remember rising prices didn't cause the housing crash," said Danielle Hale, chief economist for realtor.com®. "It was rising prices stoked by subprime and low documentation mortgages, as well as people looking for short term gains -- versus today's truer market vitality -- that created the environment for the crash."
Lending Standards are Tight
The largest difference in the last decade is that lending standards are the tightest they have been in almost 20 years. Today, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act requires loan originators to show verified documentation that a borrower is able to repay the loan. As a result, the median 2017 home loan FICO score was 734, significantly up from 700 in 2006, on a scale of 330 – 830.2
The bottom 10 percent of borrowers also have much higher credit scores with a FICO of 649 in 2017, from 602 in 2006.2 While veterans and others with specialized mortgages can still put zero percent down, these mortgages include additional restrictions to ensure they can be paid back.
"Lending standards are critical to the health of the market," added Hale. "Unlike today, the boom's under-regulated lending environment allowed borrowing beyond repayable amounts and atypical mortgage products, which pushed up home prices without the backing of income and equity."
Flipping and Over-Building Are in Check
A decade ago, the widespread belief that prices could never go down spurred rampant home flipping and building. Today, tight lending standards have kept flipping and over-building in check, but are contributing to severely constrained construction levels.
Prior to the crash, flipping became increasingly mainstream with amateur flippers taking on multiple loans. In 2006, the share of flipped homes reached 8.6 percent of all sales, exceeding 20 percent in some metros such as Washington, D.C. and Chicago.3 With today's tight lending environment limiting borrowing power, flipping accounted for 5 percent of sales in 2016, a more restrained level.3
Over-building was another indicator of the unhealthy market conditions in the early 2000s. As prices rose, builders kept building, regardless of demand. In 2006, there were 1.4 single-family housing starts for every household formed, well above the healthy level of one necessary to keep up with the market.4 Today's market is well below normal construction levels at only 0.7 single-family household starts per household formation.4 While the lack of over-building is generally positive for the market, the current environment of under-building is having a material impact on supply and escalating prices.
Today's Home Prices Driven by Economic Fundamentals
Strong employment and demand paired with severely limited supply is driving price escalation today. Employment was also strong in 2006, but years of over-building put an oversupply drag on the market.
In October 2017, unemployment is now at 4.1 percent -- a 17-year low, with more than 150,000 jobs created on average each month in 2017.5 In 30 of the 50 largest U.S. metros, unemployment is less than half of 2010 levels.5 In 2016, there were 8 million more workers on payrolls than in 2006 and 10 million more households.5 At the same time, there are 600,000 fewer total housing starts and nearly 700,000 fewer single-family housing starts.4
Hale added, "The healthy economy is creating more jobs and households, but not giving these people enough places to live. Rapid price increases will not last forever. We expect a gradual tapering as buyers are priced out of the market - not a market correction, but an easing of demand and price growth as renting or adding roommates becomes a more affordable alternative."
Millennial job growth has also contributed to rising demand. In September, employment reached 79 percent in the 25-34 age group, back up to 2006 levels and 5 percent higher than 2010. In fact, millennials made up 52 percent of home shoppers this past spring and with the largest cohort of millennials expected to turn 30 in 2020, their demand for homes is only expected to increase.
On top of escalating demand, the supply of homes available also is significantly constrained. In 2016, single-family inventory reached a 22-year historic low at 1.45 million homes for sale.6 October 2017 marked the 26th consecutive month of year-over-year declines in realtor.com inventory. The market is currently averaging 4.2 months supply, which is significantly faster than 2007's 6.4 months supply.6 Vacancies also are very tight with for-sale vacancies dropping to 1.3 million in 2016, compared to 1.9 million in 2006. Rental vacancies hit 3.2 million in 2016, compared to 3.7 in 2006.7
Economic Factor
2016
2006
Single Family Home Prices
$236,000
$232,000
Unemployment
4.9%
4.6%
Home Sales
5.3 million
6.0 million
Months Supply
4.2 months
6.4 months
Distressed Sales
5.4%
2.6%
Home Flipping
5.0%
8.6%

1.     Single-family home price sales - NAR/Moody's Analytics Estimates
2.     Urban Institute
3.     Corelogic
4.     U.S. Census Bureau - Moody's Analytics Estimates
5.     Bureau of Labor Statistics
6.     National Association of Realtors
7.     Census, Housing Vacancy Survey
Largest 50 Markets Price Appreciation Since 2006
View News Release Full Screen
MSA
Change Home
Prices
2016 vs. 2006*
Year
Median Home Price1
Foreclosure Share of Sales 2017
Unemployment Rate 2017
Austin-Round Rock, Texas
62.9%
2006
$173,510
4.7%
4.1%
2016
$282,625
1.6%
3.3%
Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, Colo.
53.5%
2006
$249,589
8.3%
4.3%
2016
$383,137
1.4%
3.1%
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, Texas
51.6%
2006
$149,003
7.4%
4.8%
2016
$225,914
3.4%
3.9%
San Antonio-New Braunfels, Texas
45.9%
2006
$141,305
3.2%
4.6%
2016
$206,166
3.3%
3.8%
Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, Texas
45.5%
2006
$149,104
4.1%
5.0%
2016
$216,988
3.1%
5.3%
Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, N.C.-S.C.
41.9%
2006
$145,300
4.0%
5.0%
2016
$206,187
4.2%
4.8%
Buffalo-Cheektowaga-Niagara Falls, N.Y.
33.6%
2006
$98,397
7.4%
5.0%
2016
$131,477
7.0%
5.1%
Salt Lake City, Utah
33.6%
2006
$203,766
2.3%
2.9%
2016
$272,136
2.1%
3.2%
Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson, Ind.
33.4%
2006
$118,969
8.5%
4.6%
2016
$158,749
4.0%
4.1%
Raleigh, N.C.
33.2%
2006
$185,182
2.0%
3.7%
2016
$246,614
1.6%
4.4%
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, Calif.
31.5%
2006
$771,633
0.5%
4.6%
2016
$1,014,864
0.7%
3.9%
Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, Tenn.
26.6%
2006
$176,298
4.5%
4.3%
2016
$223,241
4.3%
3.8%
Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, Ore.-Wash.
24.7%
2006
$280,009
0.9%
5.1%
2016
$349,100
4.6%
4.7%
Oklahoma City, Okla.
21.4%
2006
$124,083
3.5%
4.0%
2016
$150,657
6.7%
4.3%
Columbus, Ohio
18.5%
2006
$146,829
9.3%
4.9%
2016
$173,999
6.0%
4.1%
Louisville/Jefferson County, Ky.-Ind.
17.9%
2006
$137,293
6.0%
5.6%
2016
$161,937
7.9%
4.2%
Rochester, N.Y.
16.3%
2006
$113,586
5.4%
4.4%
2016
$132,152
6.5%
4.7%
Kansas City, Mo.-Kan.
16.0%
2006
$154,929
4.7%
5.1%
2016
$179,791
4.7%
4.4%
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, Wash.
13.9%
2006
$361,945
0.4%
4.2%
2016
$412,223
2.7%
4.5%
Birmingham-Hoover, Ala.
12.4%
2006
$164,959
4.1%
3.7%
2016
$185,467
11.7%
5.6%
St. Louis, Mo.-Ill.
10.4%
2006
$147,243
3.6%
5.0%
2016
$162,531
10.0%
4.7%
Pittsburgh, Pa.
10.1%
2006
$129,852
7.5%
4.7%
2016
$142,945
9.3%
5.7%
San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, Calif.
9.6%
2006
$753,048
0.3%
4.2%
2016
$825,370
1.8%
3.8%
New Orleans-Metairie, La.
8.7%
2006
$172,434
0.5%
5.0%
2016
$187,387
6.8%
5.6%
Memphis, Tenn.-Miss.-Ark.
8.4%
2006
$142,196
9.5%
5.7%
2016
$154,209
15.4%
5.3%
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, Ga.
7.3%
2006
$171,165
5.5%
4.7%
2016
$183,600
6.6%
5.2%
Cincinnati, Ohio-Ky-Ind.
6.4%
2006
$142,640
7.9%
5.2%
2016
$151,777
7.7%
4.3%
Richmond, Va.
3.9%
2006
$224,649
0.5%
3.3%
2016
$233,520
9.9%
4.2%
Boston-Cambridge-Newton, Mass.-N.H.
3.3%
2006
$403,119
0.7%
4.5%
2016
$416,569
5.4%
3.3%
Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, Wis.
3.0%
2006
$219,227
1.0%
4.9%
2016
$225,711
6.1%
4.5%
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, Minn.-Wis.
1.1%
2006
$232,529
2.5%
3.8%
2016
234,976
3.5%
3.6%
Jacksonville, Fla.
-1.5%
2006
$213,864
1.8%
3.3%
2016
$210,621
10.5%
4.8%
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, Pa.-N.J.-Del.-Md.
-2.5%
2006
$228,949
1.6%
4.5%
2016
$223,156
10.2%
5.1%
Cleveland-Elyria, Ohio
-2.6%
2006
$133,270
7.3%
4.9%
2016
$129,814
8.9%
5.3%
San Diego-Carlsbad, Calif.
-6.1%
2006
$600,323
0.7%
4.0%
2016
$563,619
3.6%
4.7%
Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, Va.-N.C.
-8.9%
2006
$234,257
0.5%
3.4%
2016
$213,385
9.4%
4.6%
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, D.C.-Va.-Md.-W.V.
-9.7%
2006
$430,205
0.7%
3.1%
2016
$388,429
7.4%
3.9%
Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, Md.
-9.9%
2006
$278,958
0.8%
4.1%
2016
$251,347
11.6%
4.4%
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, Fla.
-11.6%
2006
$223,916
0.5%
3.5%
2016
$198,029
9.7%
4.7%
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, Calif.
-12.2%
2006
$685,432
0.3%
4.5%
2016
$601,874
2.7%
5.0%
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, Ariz.
-13.1%
2006
$267,186
0.7%
3.5%
2016
$232,154
3.7%
4.5%
Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, Ill.-Ind.-Wis.
-14.9%
2006
$272,253
1.9%
4.6%
2016
$231,638
10.2%
5.8%
Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, Mich.
-15.6%
2006
$184,440
8.7%
7.1%
2016
$155,678
14.9%
5.4%
Sacramento--Roseville--Arden-Arcade, Calif.
-15.7%
2006
$374,013
0.7%
4.7%
2016
$315,228
3.3%
5.2%
Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, Fla.
-17.2%
2006
$268,985
0.9%
3.2%
2016
$222,732
10.2%
4.6%
New York-Newark-Jersey City, N.Y.-N.J.-Pa.
-17.4%
2006
$468,732
0.5%
4.6%
2016
$387,092
7.6%
4.8%
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, Fla.
-17.8%
2006
$371,790
0.3%
3.1%
2016
$305,574
8.6%
5.0%
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, Calif.
-22.2%
2006
$401,572
0.4%
4.9%
2016
$312,530
6.4%
5.9%
Tucson, Ariz.
-22.4%
2006
$244,738
0.3%
3.9%
2016
$189,912
6.5%
4.8%
Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, Nev.
-25.2%
2006
$317,075
0.4%
4.0%
2016
$237,271
7.9%
5.8%


SOURCE realtor.com