Daily Archives: January 12, 2012

Do you smoke after sex?

Muleburro Man strikes again?

I believe the punchline to that one is, “I don’t know, I’ve never peeked!” But here’s a sad story on the general subject, concerning recidivism:

Horse whisperer returns for more just before his probation ends.

9 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Old Greenwich had a cow parade long before Stamford did

From AJ, courtesy of Greenwich Library

Nowadays the bullshit is stored IN the school

6 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

“Yeah I could do that, but I never would.”

Obama signs indefinite detention bill

SOPA will grant almost anyone, including Obumpkus, the power to shut down internet sites like Amazon and (ahem) blogs. No advance notice, no effective appeal. Why does Congress love this law so? Dollars from Hollywood. Plus, of course, the opportunity to shut down dissent – icing on the cake.

6 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

The Gables

These Old Greenwich condos have sold well over the years despite their awful construction because they have a nifty walk way to the station and offer a pretty nice location for not a whole lot of money. While no single sale says anything useful regarding prices, I see that a one-bedroom there sold yesterday for $490,000 – it sold for $514,000 in 2002. The prices here used to move in the opposite direction.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Do we really want a Starbucks in Old Greenwich?

Just wait til Bill gets here with his security detail!

No one asked me, and I wouldn’t care, so long as it wasn’t going in where it’s rumored to be headed for, the new construction next to Feinsods (Sterling Watts to you and me, Grand Pa). But at the risk of sounding like a Cos Cob resident, what about the traffic and parking at this site? There’s already limited parking there, what with Old Greenwich School, the hardware store, the bank, dry cleaners etc., and there’s already beach traffic, so what happens when Mommy, her four towheads and her Navigator decide to stop in for Frappy Crappies on their way to Tod’s?

Up the street, Dunkin Donuts patrons can park illegally in the private/municipal/train spaces behind the store but there’s no such relief available at the other end. From what I hear, DD and Starbucks are slugging it out around the country to see who can install the most locations. I hate to be a pawn in a corporate battle but hey, if there’s no parking, business will suck and the place will close down. I hope so, anyway.

19 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Fresh from the court house, a teardown on Bedford Rd

209 Bedford Road now asking $1.495. It sold for $1.525 million in 1998.

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Since there’s no real estate news to report, let’s look at numbers

Prices that asked (not got) more than $9 million and finally sold

2011: 9   (DOM 493, if curious)

2010: 15

2009: 19

2008: 15

2007: 24

Active listings, $9 million + : 59

$5 -$8.999 million

2011: 42

2010: 26

2009:31

2008: 36

2007: 79

$4 – $5 million

2011: 38

2010: 37

2009: 17

2008: 25

2007: 42

$3 – $4 million

2011: 44

2010: 50

2009: 34

2008: 49

2007: 77

$2 -3 million

2011: 103

2010: 96

2009: 58

2008: 85

2007: 131

$1 – $2 million

2011: 166

2010: 145

2009:  81

2008: 112

2007: 182

 

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Realtors – got to love ’em

Here’s a description for 85 Indian Head Road in Riverside.  Asking $2.875 million

ONE OF THE LARGEST PROPERTIES IN “THE” MOST PRESTIGIOUS AREA OF RIVERSIDE BOASTING AN IMPRESSIVE 1.68 FLAT, BUILDABLE ACRES WITH FAR OF OVER 8000+ SF.  SWEEPING LAWNS, OPEN VIEWS, MATURE TREES AND SPECIMEN PLANTINGS. THE CURRENT HOUSE WAS COMPLETELY RENOVATED IN 2007 TO PERFECTION AND ABSOLUTELY EXUDES CHARM AND TRANQUILITY. LOCATED JUST OFF A PRIVATE ROAD YOU CAN ENJOY THIS GEM AS IS, EXPAND OR CREATE A NEW CONSTRUCTION DREAM HOME! THERE IS ALSO A 1600 SF BARN THAT COULD EASILY BE MADE INTO A FABULOUS POOL/ENTERTAINMENT HOUSE. THIS EXTRAORDINARY PROPERTY IS A MUST SEE!

Just a few points: 1.68 “flat, buildable acres” includes mostly unbuildable swamp and wetlands; the claim that the house has been  “renovated to perfection” is undercut by the separate listing as land; one acre lots across the street, entirely buildable with no wetlands, sold for just under $2 million last year; no mention is made that this house is served by a cesspool.

10 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

An observation on this rainy grey day

There’s more crappy land in Greenwich than I’d ever noticed before. Swamps and rocks. If you find a bad house on great land, buy it – houses can be built, land cannot. And no, EOS, I didn’t see any great land while touring today.

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Open house day

I’ve been resisting, but I suppose I’m off to do the Thursday agent tour. Nothing of note to see, based on what I can discern from the list. Retreads coming back at the same stupid price that failed last time, a couple of new ones priced according, one presumes, to meet their owners’ needs rather than the market and … that’s it. Maybe four out of twenty-seven are worth the gas, and that’s subject to revision if I grow dispirited.

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Price reported

I mentioned that 1109 Lake Avenue (“in” Conyers Farm but not behind the gates) had a contract and it closed yesterday for $9.25 million. That’s not too bad for the seller because it was a direct sale – no commission. It last was up for sale in 2005 asking $12.950 million and sold in 2007 for $10.3. This time it asked for $11.9 and, as noted, sold for a $1 million loss (1.050, actually, but what’s $50,000 at this price range?). It does suggest, however, that the market is not rebounding as strongly as some of my readers hoped it would. In fact, I’d say exactly the opposite was occurring.

6 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Downtown condos

I just had a condominium sale collapse because of what I’d consider bizarre demands of the builder/seller but these things happen, even in a down market. Not that I’d be tempted, but do remind me never to waste time on this man or his projects again.

Regardless, that leaves me with some buyers looking for a reasonably priced condominium downtown and about the only one I found of interest was this one at 77 Indian Harbor Drive. The trouble I have with it is its price – the seller is asking $2.179 for a unit he paid $2.250 for in 2007 and prices have been falling, not rising since. Having just spent weeks with one nut job, I’m not inclined to engage in conversation with another seller disassociated from reality.

So what should Indian Harbor’s price be? Obviously, whatever price will find a buyer, but I calculate that the seller is demanding 1.68 X assessed value. I checked on the seven condos (built 2004 or later) sold in the immediate surrounding area in 2011 and here’s what they sold for:

Assessment           Sales Price                      Ratio

$805,000             $1.040                             1.29

$1.073                    $ 1.200                             1.1

$1.050                    $1.190                              1.1

$1.339                     $1.371                              1.02

$1.853                     $2.200                            1.19

$1.922                     $2.900                            1.5  (Arbor Rose)

The Arbor Rose project has held its value well – the unit sold last year fetched $2.7 million in 2005- but not so anything else. I won’t tell the owner of Indian Harbor how to price his house but an assessment to asking price ratio of 1.68 seems … aggressive.

By the way, those condos up the hill on Sound View Drive are offering a relative bargain these days, maybe. 44 Sound View is assessed at $2.62 million and asking “only” $2.295 – that’s a ratio of 0.876.

10 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Seven Minute Abs

A best seller until someone comes out with “Six Minute Abs”.  Casino gambling coming to Massachusetts, just over the border from Connecticut.

Seven Minute Abs

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Mainstream media: rights are given by the state

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Press coverage of the United States Supreme Court’s ruling on the separation of church and state yesterday revealed exactly how the New York Times and its ilk view human and constitutional rights: they are bestowed by the government and not God – given, a natural right or even something demanded by our constitution.

New York Times: Religious groups given exception (emphasis added)

Indianapolis Star (Associated Press): Supreme Court Gives Churches Freedom on Jobs

And so on. What the state gives, it can take away. Liberals like that. That, and indefinite detention. Guantanamo celebrates its tenth anniversary today, by the way. How’s that hopey/change thing going for ya?

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized