Prices

957 Lake Avenue, that 1740’s house on four acres at corner of Lake and Lower Cross, is reported as pending. The sellers paid $1.335 for it in ’02, priced it at $2.8 in ’07 and after a series of grudging price reductions, hit $1.149,after 1,202 days on market. Assessment is $1.366.

Another antique (1770?), 66 Cat Rock Road, has been returned to the market after failing to sell in 2006 and 2007 for $2.195. Today’s new price is $1.495 which is far more reasonable – in fact, I’d buy this house if I could afford to. It’s a neat old house, nicely renovated.

22 Indian Head Road, on the other hand, has been removed from the market (again) after failing to fetch the owners’ desired price of $3.399 (again). They couldn’t get that price in ’08 and ’09, and now it seems they couldn’t get it in 2010. The market speaks, but you don’t have to listen. The owners, by the way, bought this place for $2.4 in 2004 and did nothing to it. Why they thought it should be worth a $ million more baffles me.

Update: I can’t help but think of all the other, lesser houses in this area that are still holding out for prices in the high $1s and low $2s. They’re screwed.

8 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

8 responses to “Prices

  1. CatRocker

    Hmmm, that bump on the head must have affected you more than you thought – I must have read that wrong but it looked to me that you said you would buy a house in Cos Cob…….

  2. Humor in Riverside

    Wondering what your take is on the new listing on Hendrie. Looks like the seller/broker have a pretty good sense of humor or maybe just a lot of time to waste.

  3. atticus

    OT, but too good to pass up”

    Democrats Vote Down 5 Percent Rule

    In a bid to stem taxpayer losses for bad loans guaranteed by federal housing agencies Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn) proposed that borrowers be required to make a 5% down payment in order to qualify.

    His proposal was rejected 57-42 on a party-line vote because, as Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn) explained, “passage of such a requirement would restrict home ownership to only those who can afford it.”

    I can’t add anything to this.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704853404575322604214582736.html?mod=djemalertNEWS#articleTabs%3Dcomments

  4. Cos Cobber

    I did it! and I would do it again! Darn you CF and your blasted real estate/credit crisis meltdown. You did this to us…..YOU!!!!

    🙂

  5. Priapus

    As much as I wanted to believe the Dodd quote, it is not true. It was written by a satirical blogger in Az.

  6. DebtVulture

    Atticus,

    “In a bid to stem taxpayer losses for bad loans guaranteed by federal housing agencies Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) proposed that borrowers be required to make a 5% down payment in order to qualify.

    His proposal was rejected 57-42 on a party-line vote because, as Senator Chris Dodd (D-CONN) explained, “passage of such a requirement would restrict home ownership to only those who can afford it.”

    I immediately wrote a scathing blog calling Dodd a dunderhead and urged the immediate departure of every elected official in Washington, but something told me to check the validity of the information first. Upon checking factcheck.org, I learned that the real author of this was satirist John Semmens who wrote a blog called “Semi-News.” Apparently this inaccurate quotation has flooded the internet…even on Forbes.com. Thus it is a valuable lesson that your Commander has learned again to check before he shoots from the hip.

    For the record, Dodd and the Democrat Party did oppose Corker’s amendment to the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010. Dodd said, “One reason I opposed the measure is that it would have disadvantaged homebuyers with good credit and income, but without the cash to make a 5% down payment.” I find Dodd’s correct statement almost as troubling and irresponsible, because it is Washington double-speak.”

    Dodd is still a moron.

  7. Waters

    Pricing has always been way off in Greenwich for one simple reason: 95% of brokers don’t have a clue about how to evaluate real estate. The proof is in the pudding; you have hundreds of houses on the market that sit for months and months while receiving no offers.

    Another problem that the local boards of realtors and the national and state associations don’t want to address is how inflationary the armies of brokers across the US in the prices as well as the ultimate selling prices of properties. Are brokers out there actually going to contend that the hoary practice of “buying the listing” by telling the owner what they want to hear, and making all kinds of promises about what the owner can get for the property, doesn’t inflate real estate?