Faint stirrings

Three transactions worth noting:

3 Woodland Drive

3 Woodland Drive

3 Woodland Drive, 0.08 acre with teardown on a street I didn’t know existed (apparently it’s off the steep hill, Sound View, leading up to Field from Arch – who knew?) sold for $440,000 after starting out at $699,000. One can always dream.

212 Milbank, a condo, started at $2.995 million in February of last year, eventually dropped to $2.700 and today reports an accepted offer. I attribute that to an improving market rather than the rather modest price reduction.

22  Brown House Road, one of the Collins/Electrolux houses, zoomed off the market, coming on at $1.995 January 8th and gone already. Owners paid $1.905 for it in 2005, performed unspecified “renovations” in 2012 and, as I say, it sold immediately. The rest of town may still be stuck at 2003 price levels – Old Greenwich (and Riverside) are not.


Filed under Uncategorized

16 responses to “Faint stirrings

  1. InfoDiva

    So 22 Brownhouse sells for more than 2x its assessed value, and 38 Dairy barely at its assessment.
    Tax man has a lot of ‘splaining to do.

  2. Anonymous

    100% agree with InfoDiva. Shouldn’t assessments be re-set when the house sells? Or is that too logical for this town to wrap its head around?

    • It would indeed seem to make sense, but that’s not how a town-wide appraisal can work – if every sale pushed a particular home’s value up, or down, you’d have a patchwork of different values all across town, some based on real sales, the majority based on estimates of value. That’s how it was explained to me, anyway, and I think I understand the logic.

      • non-sense

        I’d rather have a patchwork based on what the owner paid/constructed/renovated.

        • I don’t think that would be legal, but that’s just my guess – seems to me that an ad hoc tax assessment system wouldn’t meet judicial scrutiny. And what a mess it would be, if instead of a universal reevaluation every five years we had properties whose assessments ranged from five-years-old to two years to three months. Not good – maybe more accurate, but not the uniformity fairness demands.

      • CA Prop 13

        CA real estate taxes based on purchase/construct value, increased annually by a minimal percent. Goal was to provide stability for those wanting to stay in their houses when property prices (FMV) and assessments increased.

  3. Anonymous

    3 Woodland is not a teardown if you love antique houses. Beautiful house – stunning- with a basement apartment all near the train. Problem is the noise outside. No place to escape the heavy traffic and sit outside.

  4. D

    I agree – you can’t tweak it every time there’s a sale, but I’d be interested to talk to whatever group is hired to do the appraisal. Chris – Haven’t you said in the past that you’ve consulted with them in their effort to categorize various pricing levels of waterfront areas?

  5. InfoDiva

    When is the next appraisal due, anyway?

  6. InfoDiva

    I can’t imagine it was done in 2011. If it were, the huge disparity in value between OG/Riverside and mid-and backcountry would have been narrowed. The eastern part of town was already well recovered by 2011, but the appraisals sure don’t reflect current selling prices.

    Can buyers appeal their appraisals after they close?

  7. ANON

    Attention Greenwich Tax Revenue Collector: the homes in Riverside/OG are under assessed. The Town of Greenwich is not collecting the right amount of tax revenues from these homeowners. As our President says: everyone must pay their fair share.