Daily Archives: January 17, 2013

Best Greenwich Time headline ever?

Naughty boy!

Naughty boy!

So says a friend of mine who sent along the link: “Cross-Dressing Meth Priest liked Sex in Rectory”. I’ll admit that’s pretty good, but I’d dress it up a bit: “sex in the rectumry”.

But that’s just me.

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Cuomo on gun law: “you’ll have to pass it to find out what’s in it.”

Felonious possession of a banned weapon - book'em, Danno

Felonious possession of a banned weapon – book’em, Danno

As of midnight last night, New York police are barred from using weapons with more than a seven bullet magazine - that would be the entire state’s police force. But the lives of our children were at stake and there simply wasn’t time to follow state law requiring a three day review period for the legislation.

5 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Dom Devito’s back!

Just got a call from Dom – he’s home from El Paso way and he’ll be building again. Mr. Devito is one of our more colorful characters here in Greenwich and a really nice guy, though I don’t think I’d go out of my way to cross him. I do look forward to (cautiously) writing of his exploits once again, so welcome home, Dom, and I’ll stop by with coffee. Glad to have you back.

10 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Open house results

Not too much of note, but I thought 33 Ballwood in Old Greenwich stood out. $4.2 million, which puts it just out of my reach but having spent much of the fall working with a client sifting through this price range’s inventory, I think $4.2 is justified. Value in these situations is relative, and comparing 33 Ballwood to other Old Greenwich/Riverside homes, this is a decent price.

It was built for these owners in 2002 so it’s custom, not a spec, and the quality is exceptional. Great use of space, lots of expensive touches and solid. The yard is tiny, which rules it from consideration for those who want, you know, an actual yard, but if you’re willing to trade land for neighborhood, here you go. And many people are indeed willing to make that exchange, as evidenced by the strong recovery in prices down here. Plus, this house stayed dry during Sandy’s floods – that sets it apart from many older homes in the area.

A steal? Not on your life, but I think this is well priced. It’s Ellen Mosher’s listing, and Ellen almost always gets these things right.

33 Ballwood

33 Ballwood

14 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

And every one of them will sport a “Save the Polar Bears” sticker on its tail fin

Dulles Airport to shut down runway to accommodate the 300-600 private jets anticipated for the coronation.

Fanjet for the Common Man

Fanjets for the Common Man

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Journal News strikes another blow for crime

For the second time in a week, a home identified by Gannet’s Journal News has been ransacked by burglars and guns stolen.

Two handguns and two pistol permits were stolen from the New City home of a man whose name and address are listed on the website of a local newspaper as possessing gun permits, police said.

The thieves ransacked the house Wednesday night, breaking into two safes on the home’s third floor and stealing a third safe. The guns were in the stolen safe, police said.

While Clarkstown police said that, as of this stage in the investigation they had no evidence the burglary was connected to the controversial map, Gannet’s Janet Hasson (3 Gate House Lane, Mamaroneck, NY) was not so reticent to claim credit. “This is exactly why we published that map”, she crowed excitedly. “Only criminals and sickos have guns, and we’ve now proved that by placing these weapons into their hands. Oooh, I just know there’s a Pulitzer here!”

"We're sooo proud of ourselves!"

“We’re so proud.”

23 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

New prices, but will it matter?

398 Stanwich

398 Stanwich

398 Stanwich has dropped its price to $5.495 and I suppose its owners think that’s a concession, but I’m not so sure. This Jordan Saper house sold new for $5.5 million in 2004, tried for $6.345 in 2009 and finally sold to these owners for $5.350 in 2010. They, in turn, listed it last February for $5.695 but as they’ve discovered, we aren’t back to 2004 prices yet, let alone above them.

As an aside, if based on this listing’s description you expect to find an “Exceptional Gated Stone Georgian Estate” behind this home’s rather modest driveway fence, you may be disappointed.  Many people, if not New Yorkers, don’t associate “estate” with two-acres, even if that land does include a colonial era graveyard.

918 North Street

918 North Street

And speaking of wannabe estates, 918 North Street, 4 acres, is back again, now asking $13.999 million – that represents a $1 million reduction for each of the past three years this has been for sale but I’m not convinced it’s there yet. In fact, I wonder if there is still a market for 10,000 sq.ft. (above ground -there’s also a 4,000 sq.ft. basement) back country homes these days. The back country used to be aspirational – a young family would move into Greenwich in a more affordable neighborhood and when the breadwinner rose to the top of the heap he’d drag his brood north, where his peers and the serfs could note his accomplishment.

But that was when there were real estates in the Back Country – 50 acres, 100 acres, and even larger. Ownership of a dark, gloomy 1920’s pile of stone and timber signaled an important person inside. Now that those estates have been chopped into mere estatelets, four-acre patches of marginal swampland with, maybe, an acre of grass, what’s the point of living in such an inconvenient location?

Apparently none, which explains why the back country is so dead these days. I don’t think it’s coming back, either, until the really rich show up and reassemble the ranchettes into large parcels again. When that happens, when it’s again possible to impress the lesser classes with an estate, the truly rich will spend their money on big mansions. A big mansion on an insignificant scrap of dirt will remain, I predict, what it is now:  bulldozer fodder.

35 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Oooh, I know one FWIW reader who isn’t gonna like this

Supporting the right to arm bears with AR-15s

Supporting the right to arm bears (with AR-15s)

Al Franken “undecided” on assault weapon ban. “He’s been listening to Minnesota”, a spokesman said, “trying to be thoughtful on this and trying to get input from people from a wide spectrum of views.” If I really believed that he was trying to be thoughtful and ignore the hysteria loosening the bowels of his fellow liberals, my respect for this clown would go up considerably. But I’ll settle for him counting votes among his rural constituents and figuring out that he can ban weapons or be reelected, but not both.

14 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

I’ve been wondering why I see so few of my fellow agents these days

 

GAR Evil Princess?

GAR Evil Princess?

Strippers in North Dakota can earn $350K a year. 

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

But enough about me, let’s talk about you: what do YOU think of me?

The Grand PooBah will celebrate his coronation by displaying people he has saved from degradation and despair. Barry has many flaws, but false modesty is not among them.

Lord Barry the Munificent

Lord Barry the Munificent

6 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

It’s open house Thursday!

A couple of new ones to see but otherwise, repeats. Martin Luther Kingdom Day comes this Monday, I think, and in the past that has marked the kickoff for the spring season. I’m hopeful that this year will prove no exception and that we’ll begin to see new inventory next week.

One house that’s not on the tour but does report a price cut to $1.395 million today is 90 Buckfield Lane, a 1987 home that sold new back then for $845,000 and five years later for $735,000. This time it started at $1.995, with the result we see today. I’m not criticizing this house: by all appearances it seems like a perfectly nice example of 1987 construction and if it were somewhere closer to town would probably have sold by now. But Buckfield is in nosebleed territory, and homes up there aren’t moving with alacrity.  At some price, someone will be willing to make that commute: I’ll be curious to see what that price is.

90 Buckfield

90 Buckfield

6 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Constitutional experts: No right of free speech for television, movies or cable

In a radical rethinking of their interpretation of the Constitution, liberals have determined that the First Amendment was written when people communicated by voice or through the marvel of moveable type, period: new media weren’t contemplated and thus are not included in the protection afforded by that Amendment. Greenwich Democrat’s Designated Intellectual, Dollar Bill, tells us why:

“Like the rest of our  prescriptions for society,” he explained, “our policies were ill thought out and, frankly, just plain wrong. The Newtown massacre forced us to realize that: rights bestowed on us by a beneficent government are limited to the technology existing at the time they were granted: citizens are thus permitted muskets and bows and arrows, period. And having discovered that limitation, it was of course blindingly obvious that the same interpretation must be applied to the rest of our supposed rights. As the result, we Democrats have immediately cancelled all television advertising and will restrict ourselves to handbills and indignant letters to the editor in future elections.”

Immigration and naturalization control, Reno style

Immigration and naturalization control, Reno style (note high capacity magazine)

Encouraged by his self-criticism, we read Dollar Bill these further comments from Dr. Milton Wolf and asked if he agreed:

Law-abiding, free people should have the right to arm themselves with whatever weapons their government would use against them.If the world is sufficiently dangerous that the police require semi-automatic rifles with large-capacity magazines, then do not the free citizens who are sovereign over the police and who also live in the same dangerous world deserve to similarly protect themselves from it? In fact, are not the citizens — not the police — always the first ones who are forced to face those dangers?

Bill was unswayed, his reeducation still incomplete: “the point of a massively armed police force is to control the populace,” he insisted. “Do we want anarchy in our streets? Resistance to lawful orders from authority? I think not – the majority rules, under our progressive theory of government, and the majority want to be ruled. You old farts are past your expiration date. Get with it or get run over; your choice.”

22 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized