Daily Archives: January 10, 2012

Achieve the impossible: pass a law

The feds will be collecting millions of dollars from oil refiners this year because they failed to use the amount of cellulosic biofuel specified by Congress. Of course, no such biofuel exists, even though the Clean Air Act demands it. Congress doesn’t worry about such petty things. It wants the country to be energy independent of hostile countries and, having ruled out oil from Canada and ourselves, that leaves the imaginary as the alternative.  Hey, it works for them.



Filed under Uncategorized

Now we KNOW the world is doomed

 Twinkies going belly – up. I blame Bush.

UPDATE: Reader and fellow blogger Peg asks, “what’s going to happen to the Twinkie defense?” Law professors are probably drafting review articles right now on that very subject.


Filed under Uncategorized

Oh please, learn to write

Don't blame me, I don't do copy

From a realtor who seems to have confused the Donald with a card trick

23 Acres located at one of the most prestigious addresses in Greenwich & trumped by its location in exclusive Conyers Farm,

In any event, this place at 44 Upper Cross Road has the distinction of being the oldest listing in Greenwich, having been on and off the market since something like 1988. Down to $5 million plus now, which is interesting.


Filed under Uncategorized

Nice when you don’t have to sell in a down market

11 Winding Lane

I drove by 11 Winding Lane today on my way to an open house down the street (which dropped a million off its ridiculous price of $3.2 million but which still leaves me luke warm) and, once again, admired the land. The property includes a house that will probably be torn down which leaves the land itself, three acres in the two – acre zone. The seller tried $9.975 million in 2007 and has slowly, ever so slowly dropped her price to where it is now, $7.450. Oversized lots in this area are worth maybe $4 million, tops, so I’m not sure where the seller’s number comes from but, as noted, when you don’t have to sell, you don’t have to be reasonable.

I did see that 144 Zaccheus Mead Lane’s seller attempted at least a stab at reason today, lowering his price to $1.925 from its 2009 ask of $2.795. I think he should keep going.


Filed under Uncategorized

Have the felons of Round Hill cost the street its cachet?

47 Round Hill Road sold new for $8.175 million back in 2005. It came back up for sale last year asking $8.995 and today dropped to $7.995. No pool, what do you expect? But maybe no one wants to live next to Walt Noel, the Raj, Rick Bourke, Dom Devito, etc., etc.


Filed under Uncategorized

Back from open houses

Slim pickings out there – the spring market traditionally starts the week after MLK’s birthday, so maybe it will this year, too.

29 Pecksland

I did like 29 Pecksland Road, a 1730 (?) home beautifully restored and expanded. It’s a great house and its price tag of $4.650 million isn’t absolutely crazy but here’s the problem: it has an adjoining 2 acre lot and the owners are asking $7.3 million for the house and the lot. I don’t think 29 needs additional land to make it a desirable place to live – it sits on its own 2 acres, and how much work do you want your Mexicans to do?, but I don’t think the land next door is worth $2.675 and I know that most buyers don’t want a building lot next door.

If I were the seller, I’d keep the price of the existing house where it is and lop the heck out of the price of the second lot. A buyer might then see the package as an affordable deal with the separate lot serving as a long-term land bank, so to speak.


Filed under Uncategorized

Price reduction in Harbor Point

One Highgate Rd, in Riverside’s Harbor Point development, just dropped from $3.495 to $2.995 today. I never thought much of this house but Harbor Point’s one of the best neighborhoods in Riverside, to my taste, and the town assesses the place (70%) at $2.478 million. Owner paid $3.225 for it in 2005 and tried getting $3.895 last spring – that didn’t work out so well.


Filed under Uncategorized