Daily Archives: September 15, 2009

One more sale

We did get a “pending” reported, which is close to a contract: 71 Ricmond Hill Road, asked $4.050 million in 2003, dropped to $2.995 and, presumably, is selling for less than that.

72 Buckfield

72 Buckfield

 

And I’m a little ticked at myself for ignoring this Ogilvy listing on Buckfield. It sold for $4.250 in 2006 and was relisted, unchanged, for $5.2 that same year. It’s been drifting down ever since, but still in the high range so I just figured on giving it another two or three years. My brother Gideon proved more aggressive, it turns out, and his client bought it today for $3.2 million. That’s the trouble with ridiculous prices: you anger most sellers when you offer a reasonable price but you can never tell when someone will come to his senses. Oh well. But if you’re a seller, try not to get too worked up when you get a low bid – we don’t know whther you’re still dreaming and we don’t mean to be rude.

10 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Alabama sex toy case off to the Supremes?

Ow!

Ow!

Alabama’s highest court has upheld, 7-2, a statute criminalizing the distribution for sale of sex toys: dildos, butt pl – hell, you know what they are – and there’s talk that the case may head to Washington. The Professor thinks the court is unlikely to grant certiorari and, if it does, it will find no compelling constitutional right to diddle your privates in private. At first blush, you’d think that, if one has a right of privacy to have a fetus aborted or engage in homosexual sex, then that same right ought to encompass more solitary pleasures, but Professor Vlokoh thinks the Court will be reluctant to rule on what they (or the Professor – Clarence Thomas may differ) considers an inferior, minor right.

Probably so, but how disappointing. I love the story of, I think it was Justice Jackson, screening porno films in the court’s basement and, when he was too blind to catch the action, calling on Justice Douglas for a blow-by-blow description. Can’t you imagine the Nine with a box full of sex toys dumped on the bench, trying to figure out what they were for? Now that’s a hearing I’d want televised.

5 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

It’s 4:00 – do you know where your contract is?

Nothing reported so far, but perhaps the realtors are too busy with today’s Democrat primary for Tax Collector to bother reporting contracts. But 69 Riverdale, those Port Chester/ Byram condos, did sell a unit for $800,000. Down a bit from the ask of $975,000, but a sale’s a sale, right?

Comments Off

Filed under Uncategorized

So drop the price!

5 mead Point Drive

5 mead Point Drive

I really like this house – it’s been recently renovated and is on a nice little street that has beach access of sorts on Mead Point. There’s some highway noise but nothing I’d consider objectionable – your sensitivity may differ, obviously.

It was listed for $4.195 million in 2003 and, when it didn’t sell, was brought back in the mid $4s (I think). It has now dropped to $4.250, pretty close to the pre-renovation 2003 price but I’ll bet that, if the owners were willing to take a hit on that expense and put this at, say, $3.795, it would find a buyer. I don’t know that, of course, and it’s in the hands of a competent broker, but I sense, from my own reaction and those of clients to whom I’ve shown this, that it’s just a bit high. Sometimes, psychology being what it is, “a little too high” keeps a house unsold, especially when there’s a barrier like a 4 in the way. Just my thoughts. This really is a lovely house and if you’re in its approximate price range, you might want to consider breaking that barrier yourself and seeing what happens.

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Somebody please, please explain this to me

Yet another price increase in the face of market indifference to an offering. This time it’s 361 N. Maple Avenue, an antique that was purchased for $1.6 million in 2002, put up for sale, without effect, for $2.3 million in 2002- 2004, tried again in 2009, starting at $2.6 and dropping in August to $2 million even. Today it’s up to $2.1. One hundred thousand dollars removed from a price will probably make no difference in selling a house so I suppose that adding one hundred can’t hurt, much, but why would a seller do such a thing? It can’t possibly make the house more attractive to buyers, can it? Or am I missing something? If this sells next week I will gladly eat crow but I’m pretty sure that’s a safe promise.

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

It’s not happening, folks

The article in today’s Greenwich Time reporting that sales of existing homes are in the toilet includes this quote from Russ Pruner:

Russell Pruner, owner and partner of Riverside-based Shore & Country Properties, which conducted its own, similar sales analysis, said agents have yet to see the fall market get going, though that usually happens in the second or third week of September, lasting until early to mid-November.

“By the end of September, we’re going to have a pretty good idea of how this year is going to end up,” Pruner said.

So here we are in the third week of September and nothing is happening, nor will it. So far, there has been no rush of new listings for the fall “selling” season, and though we certainly don’t need more inventory, I wonder whether sellers are holding off, waiting yet another week to put their house up for sale. My personal opinion is that if you’ve waited until now to try to sell your home, you’ve waited too long; by about 18 months.

What happens the first week of October? Well, if more houses do come on, I’m confident that they’ll all be over-priced, so if your own house is lingering, now might be a good time to whack the bejesus off its price and move it before winter sets in. Otherwise, there’s always the spring market to look forward to in, say, 2013.

6 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

A sale in Old Greenwich

48 Benjamin Street

48 Benjamin Street

Built new for the owners in 2004, listed for $2.3 million in 2007, finally sold yesterday for $1.7.

6 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized