Two new Riverside Listings

Continuing to seek new heights, 17 Hendrie Avenue and 15 Field Road, both in Riverside.

17 Hendrie Avene

17 Hendrie Avene

17 Hendrie was sold new in 2005 for $3,330 in 2005, again in 2007 for $3.775 and is now asking $4.195. Your call.

Screen Shot 2014-01-29 at 4.06.28 PM


15 Field Road

15 Field Road

15 Field Road was built new in 2012 and is on the market for I believe the first time, asking $3.525. Field is a much nicer street (quieter) than Hendrie so all things being equal, I’d prefer it. But I haven’t seen the houses to compare them – open houses are tomorrow.

Screen Shot 2014-01-29 at 4.02.59 PM


Filed under Uncategorized

33 responses to “Two new Riverside Listings

  1. Anonymous

    Nothing says you’ve arrived quite like asphalt shingles on your roof.

  2. NoGolfToday

    Good point!
    Must be a York home
    That foul odor, slimy faced, conniving criminal is going to get his!

  3. Anonymous

    What’s the deal with York on these boards recently? I feel like Chris has mentioned them previously in a positive light. Why the criticism here from NoGolfToday?

    • One critic, but I’ve let him rant because I, too have been sorely let down by them, having recommended them to customers with very bad results. They had an excellent reputation for years – which is why I used to recommend them – but something’s gone wrong.

      • NoGolfToday

        Thankfully I’m not an ex or current investor.
        I have two friends who he’s really hurting
        Both have very young children, and have invested a lot of money in this guys reputation….or should I say intrusted.
        And what has he done. ? Just up and walked away.

        So then I asked a client about York, and he said that Nick, the owner got in way over his head with spec homes.
        Not only is the bank knocking on his own door, but so are his investors.
        And now the tradesman building his projects are doing the same.

        And who gets hurt?
        The homeowners.

        It’s shameful. And I’m saying it because no one else should have to go through it, ever.

        • Do you remember when last year around Christmas a $100,000 excavator got torched on York’s Lockwood Road construction site? At the time I figured it was a local kid home for Christmas break but as Nick’s troubles have grown, I’ve started wondering whether an angry, unpaid sub did the job. Hmmm.

  4. NoGolfToday


  5. NoGolfToday

    And BTW, that’s one of the homes I was referring to.

  6. Riverside Forever

    I went into the Field Rd house on the OGRCC Kitchen tour this past year. It is stunning on the inside and very well done. Is this the one by York Builders? All things being equal though, I think Hendrie Avenue is a more p
    prestigious street than Field.

  7. Patrick

    I don’t believe the house on field was done by York but the house on Hendrie Is a York house.

    What’s so sad about the situation on Lockwood is that the builder lives literally about eight houses down on Hearthstone. Nothing like having a builder that screwed you as your neighbor.

  8. Anonymous

    What is happening at the Lockwood property that York is building? Have been wondering why it is taking so long.

  9. Anonymous

    Can someone recommend a good local firm to handle small multifamily/residential property management?

  10. AJ

    ‘Should the Federal Reserve Stop the Dominoes From Falling? (January 27, 2014)’

    “The forest (the economy) can only remain vibrant and healthy if the dead wood is burned off in bankruptcy and insolvency. Retail commercial real estate is over-built and over-leveraged. If it is allowed to burn off as Nature intended, we can finally move forward.
    Last week I suggested that Retail-CRE (Commercial Real Estate) would be The First Domino to Fall in the domestic U.S. economy. The reason is simple supply and demand: for a variety of structural reasons, there is an enormous oversupply of retail commercial space and an ever-declining demand for bricks-n-mortar commercial space.

    I laid all this out in a three-part series last week:

    Dead Mall Syndrome: The Self-Reinforcing Death Spiral of Retail (January 22, 2014)

    The First Domino to Fall: Retail-CRE (Commercial Real Estate) (January 21, 2014)

    After Seven Lean Years, Part 2: US Commercial Real Estate: The Present Position and Future Prospects (January 20, 2014)

  11. Anonymous

    AJ, the lending that’s getting done now in CRE is getting done with the most conservative DCR in years. It’s almost all balance sheet, as so little of it is hitting the securitized markets. What you see in the latter is often legacy product that’s been repackaged. Are you involved in the market at all, or do you just read doom & gloom stuff? Anything remotely cuspy gets whacked with a 1-2 point premium straight off the bat. Bank lenders are making an absolute fortune on CRE lending right now. Non-bank guys are getting decimated.

    • AJ

      All I know is that I see a lot of empty space that’s not getting rented and a lot of malls with empty parking lots. I don’t have to be into commercial real estate to know that that’s not a sign of a good or even fair economy. As far as doom and gloom, I haven’t looked through a pair of rose colored glasses since Donovan topped the charts (that’s what kids used to do in Greenwich before they discovered pot and LSD). If the banks are making an absolute fortune as you say, then it must be time to end QE to infinity. Of two minds . com is one of the more interesting blogs out there. Here’ some more from that same article:

      “… 5. The Fed may want to add $1 trillion in impaired commercial real estate mortgages to its bloated $4 trillion balance sheet, but the bond market may question yet another open-ended bailout of the Fed’s cronies, i.e. the banks who foolishly lent monumental sums against marginal commercial properties.

      6. The lenders foolish enough to leverage loans against phantom collateral fail as $1+ trillion in CRE loans default.
      The question shouldn’t be could the Fed bail out the imploding retail-commercial real estate (CRE) sector? but should the Fed bail out the imploding retail-CRE sector?

      We may as well ask if the Fed should have bailed out the buggy whip industry in 1914. The retail-CRE sector is imploding for a very good reason: speculators built way too much space with way too much credit and leverage supplied by banks emboldened by the notion that the Fed will never let crony-capitalists suffer the consequences of their insanely risky bets.
      Yes, the Fed can print up another $1 trillion and buy every CRE loan that’s worth $1 for $1 million and bury the defaulted loan away from public view. But should it be allowed to do so? Should the Fed’s role of savior of every crony-capitalist in America who loses a leveraged bet go unchallenged?

      Should the Fed end up owning every dead mall in America so the owners and lenders can be cashed out at a fat profit? Janet Yellen, the Nation’s New Chief Slumlord (January 9, 2014)

      Should the Fed be allowed free rein to bail out its owners (private banks) and crony capitalists with limitless newly created money? Is that what the U.S. is all about now, bailing out failed speculative bets by crony capitalists and banks? ….”

    • AJ

      Here’s an earlier article from the 9th:

      ‘Janet Yellen, the Nation’s New Chief Slumlord (January 9, 2014)’

      “Janet Yellen’s role as the nation’s slumlord is masked by her apparent distance from the Fed’s money spigot and the resulting institutional ownership of the nation’s rental housing stock.
      Please welcome the nation’s new chief slumlord, Janet Yellen. The previous top slumlord, Ben Bernanke, has retired from the position of Chief Slumlord (i.e. chair of the Federal Reserve) to the accolades of those who benefited from his extraordinary transfer of wealth from the many to the few.

      Why is the chairperson of the Fed the nation’s top slumlord? Allow me to explain. We only need to understand two facts to understand the Fed’s role as Slumlord.
      Declining interest rates push real estate prices higher.

      At first glance, this doubling in price doesn’t seem to affect the cost of ownership. But that is deceptive; consider how many households can scrape up $120,000 in cash compared to the number who can scrape up $60,000. The higher the price, the bigger the down payment required. The higher the down payment, the fewer the number of households who can accumulate that much cash.

      To households that live paycheck-to-paycheck, both sums are out of reach. But a significant number of middle class households could accumulate $60,000: such a sum could come from a family house that was sold and divided amongst the offspring, for example, or a Solo 401K that allows the retirement fund to own real estate, or from saving $5,000 a year for 12 years.

      The Federal Reserve’s Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP) was designed to push real estate prices higher. The Fed’s public justification was “the wealth effect”: the idea was that as the family home increased in value, homeowners would begin to borrow and spend more money due to their increased home equity.

      The second Fed goal was to increase home sales by lowering mortgage rates, theoretically enabling more marginal buyers to buy a home. But since prices rise as mortgage rates drop, this goal is mooted unless marginal buyers are also given a free ride on down payments and qualifying income, i.e. offered near-zero down payments and no-document mortgage qualification processes.

      But zero interest rates and unlimited liquidity don’t just push real estate prices higher–they give institutions with access to the Fed’s nearly-free money an unbeatable advantage over Mom and Pop real estate investors.

      Imagine being able to borrow $400,000 at 1% with zero collateral. You can now buy the rental property for cash, and pay only $4,000 in simple annual interest. And you didn’t have to put up a dollar of actual collateral to buy the property.

      Consider the huge advantages you now have over the competing Mom and Pop bidders. Sellers typically prefer cash offers, so your cash offer (of Fed money) is more attractive than Mom and Pop’s loan-based bid.

      If the price jumps to $500,000, Mom and Pop are blown out of the water: they don’t have the additional $30,000 cash required as collateral.

      Thanks to the Fed, you don’t need any collateral. You can borrow $500,000 as easily as $400,000, and the increase in annual interest is trivial: a mere $1,000.

      Now consider the operating costs: you have a $7,000 annual advantage because you have access to the Fed’s nearly-free money. Mom and Pop have to pay $11,200 in simple annual interest, while you pay only $4,000. A property that is break-even to Mom and Pop reaps you a $7,000 annual profit, just because you can borrow money from the Fed for next to nothing.

      Now multiply the $400,000 and the $7,000 by 1,000. Now you can buy $400,000,000 of rental properties and skim $7,000,000 in annual profits, just from the advantage of having access to the Fed’s quantitative easing (QE) nearly-free money. …”

  12. Anonymous

    good grief, those authors need to take off the aluminum foil hats. they probably haven’t spent one day in the operation or activity of a bank. banks borrow money, banks make loans with that money, banks have to hold capital against those loans. banks don’t borrow $400k and go buy a $400k house (or some other widget). banks earn net interest income by lending it to that mom and pop referenced in the article at 3-4x the carry.

    • AJ


      The Federal Reserve itself is amazingly frank about this process. A booklet published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York tells us: “Currency cannot be redeemed, or exchanged, for Treasury gold or any other asset used as backing. The question of just what assets ‘back’ Federal Reserve notes has little but bookkeeping significance.”1

      Elsewhere in the same publication we are told: “Banks are creating money based on a borrower’s promise to pay (the IOU)… Banks create money by ‘monetizing’ the private debts of businesses and individuals.”2 In a booklet entitled Modern Money Mechanics, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago says:

      In the United States neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities. Intrinsically, a dollar bill is just a piece of paper. Deposits are merely book entries. Coins do have some intrinsic value as metal, but generally far less than their face amount.

      What, then, makes these instruments—checks, paper money, and coins—acceptable at face value in payment of all debts and for other monetary uses? Mainly, it is the confidence people have that they will be able to exchange such money for other financial assets and real goods and services whenever they choose to do so. This partly is a matter of law; currency has been designated “legal tender” by the government—that is, it must be accepted.1

      In the fine print of a footnote in a bulletin of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, we find this surprisingly candid explanation:

      Modern monetary systems have a fiat base—literally money by decree—with depository institutions, acting as fiduciaries, creating obligations against themselves with the fiat base acting in part as reserves. The decree appears on the currency notes: “This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.” While no individual could refuse to accept such money for debt repayment, exchange contracts could easily be composed to thwart its use in everyday commerce. However, a forceful explanation as to why money is accepted is that the federal government requires it as payment for tax liabilities. Anticipation of the need to clear this debt creates a demand for the pure fiat dollar.


      It is difficult for Americans to come to grips with the fact that their total money supply is backed by nothing but debt, and it is even more mind boggling to visualize that, if everyone paid back all that was borrowed, there would be no money left in existence. That’s right, there would be not one penny in circulation—all coins and all paper currency would be returned to bank vaults—and there would be not one dollar in any one’s checking account. In short, all money would disappear.

      Marriner Eccles was the Governor of the Federal Reserve Sys- tem in 1941. On September 30 of that year, Eccles was asked to give testimony before the House Committee on Banking and Currency. The purpose of the hearing was to obtain information regarding the role of the Federal Reserve in creating conditions that led to the depression of the 1930s. Congressman Wright Patman, who was Chairman of that committee, asked how the Fed got the money to purchase two billion dollars worth of government bonds in 1933. This is the exchange that followed.
      ECCLES: We created it.
      PATMAN: Out of what?
      ECCLES: Out of the right to issue credit money.
      PATMAN: And there is nothing behind it, is there, except our government’s credit?
      ECCLES: That is what our money system is. If there were no debts in our money system, there wouldn’t be any money.

      It must be realized that, while money may represent an asset to selected individuals, when it is considered as an aggregate of the total money supply, it is not an asset at all. A man who borrows $1,000 may think that he has increased his financial position by that amount but he has not. His $1,000 cash asset is offset by his $1,000 loan liability, and his net position is zero. Bank accounts are exactly the same on a larger scale. Add up all the bank accounts in the nation, and it would be easy to assume that all that money represents a gigantic pool of assets which support the economy. Yet, every bit of this money is owed by someone. Some will owe nothing. Others will owe many times what they possess. All added together, the national balance is zero. What we think is money is but a grand illusion. The reality is debt.

      Robert Hemphill was the Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank in Atlanta. In the foreword to a book by Irving Fisher, entitled 100% Money, Hemphill said this:

      If all the bank loans were paid, no one could have a bank deposit, and there would not be a dollar of coin or currency in circulation. This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash, or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless situation is almost incredible—but there it is.1

      With the knowledge that money in America is based on debt, it should not come as a surprise to learn that the Federal Reserve System is not the least interested in seeing a reduction in debt in this country, regardless of public utterances to the contrary. Here is the bottom line from the System’s own publications. The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia says: “A large and growing number of analysts, on the other hand, now regard the national debt as some- thing useful, if not an actual blessing…. [They believe] the national debt need not be reduced at all.”1

      The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago adds: “Debt—public and private—is here to stay. It plays an essential role in economic processes.. .. What is required is not the abolition of debt, but its prudent use and intelligent management.”2


      There is a kind of fascinating appeal to this theory. It gives those who expound it an aura of intellectualism, the appearance of being able to grasp a complex economic principle that is beyond the comprehension of mere mortals. And, for the less academically minded, it offers the comfort of at least sounding moderate. After all, what’s wrong with a little debt, prudently used and intelligently managed? The answer is nothing, provided the debt is based on an honest trans- action. There is plenty wrong with it if it is based upon fraud.

      An honest transaction is one in which a borrower pays an agreed upon sum in return for the temporary use of a lender’s asset. That asset could be anything of tangible value. If it were an automobile, for example, then the borrower would pay “rent.” If it is money, then the rent is called “interest.” Either way, the concept is the same.

      When we go to a lender—either a bank or a private party—and receive a loan of money, we are willing to pay interest on the loan in recognition of the fact that the money we are borrowing is an asset which we want to use. It seems only fair to pay a rental fee for that asset to the person who owns it. It is not easy to acquire an automobile, and it is not easy to acquire money—real money, that is. If the money we are borrowing was earned by someone’s labor and talent, they are fully entitled to receive interest on it. But what are we to think of money that is created by the mere stroke of a pen or the click of a computer key? Why should anyone collect a rental fee on that?

      When banks place credits into your checking account, they are merely pretending to lend you money. In reality, they have nothing to lend. Even the money that non-indebted depositors have placed with them was originally created out of nothing in response to someone else’s loan. So what entitles the banks to collect rent on nothing? It is immaterial that men everywhere are forced by law to accept these nothing certificates in exchange for real goods and services. We are talking here, not about what is legal, but what is moral. As Thomas Jefferson observed at the time of his protracted battle against central banking in the United States, “No one has a natural right to the trade of money lender, but he who has money to lend.”1

      1. I Bet You Thought, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, p. 11.
      2. Ibid., p. 19.
      1. Modern Money Mechanics, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, revised October 1982, p. 3.
      2. “Money, Credit and Velocity,” Review, May, 1982, Vol. 64, No. 5, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, p. 25.
      1. Irving Fisher, 100% Money (New York: Adelphi, 1936), p. xxii.
      1. The National Debt, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, pp. 2,11.
      2. Two Faces of Debt, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, p. 33.
      1. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Library Edition (Washington: Jefferson Memo- rial Association, 1903), Vol XIII, p. 277-78.

      –from “The Creature of Jekyll Island”

  13. Anonymous

    Much of that is the ranting of a person who thinks a little too much. Somewhere amidst the balance sheet of any bank is actual capital, as in money (paid-in capital) kicked in by its founding members to start the thing. Start a de novo bank and you’ll know what I’m talking about.

    Nobody’s forced by law to bank. They could always try paying for gas in the car with live goats. See how that works out.

    “When banks place credits into your checking account, they are merely pretending to lend you money. In reality, they have nothing to lend. Even the money that non-indebted depositors have placed with them was originally created out of nothing in response to someone else’s loan. So what entitles the banks to collect rent on nothing? It is immaterial that men everywhere are forced by law to accept these nothing certificates in exchange for real goods and services.”

      • Anonymous

        I don’t have time to read 600 pages of rant by someone who critiques from the armchair. I’m busy working in the industry every day. Me and countless others not making millions (or even hundreds of thousands), just doing what we can in the way of doing good business and providing for our families.

        I know a guy who runs his own business and constantly rants about the phantom Fed balance sheet and the real “value” (as it were) of U.S. currency. I finally told him to stfu and stop being a hypocrite since he gets paid in, you know, DOLLARS. Ain’t a damned thing he can do about the Fed, and he should put his actions where his mouth is and accept farm fresh eggs or baked goods in exchange for the goods & services he provides as a business. Funny, but when push comes to shove, he doesn’t seem to adopt that strategy….

        • AJ

          Working class hero, eh? How do you know the critiques from the armchair? Your friend would probably like silver, but that would be illegal. Stay narrow.

  14. OG gal

    Nick Barile at York is not to be trusted. He robs Peter to pay Paul and will say anything to lure more clients into trusting him. He will not finish your house on time and your money will disappear and you will find yourself in litigation. Meanwhile he drives around in a Porsche Cayenne, lives on Hearthstone, is a member of Millbrook Country Club and doesn’t seem to have a care in the world. I am not an investor or a client of his…….

    • That does seem to be the case. I’m mortified because over the years a number of readers have contacted me to ask my opinion of Nick and his company, York Builders, and I always told them what I thought was true: he built a great house and was a great guy. The quality of his houses was accurate – sadly, I seem to have been badly mistaken about his own qualities.

    • AJ

      A Porsche Cayenne? Never trust a builder who doesn’t drive a pickup truck.

  15. Working Class Hero

    AJ, thanks for the advice. I will look to stay obtuse. If you need a new roll of Reynolds Wrap for your hat, let me know where to send it.


    • AJ

      Don’t be tricked into thinking Reynolds Wrap will shield you: it will protect you from nothing. Fashion your hat out of lead foil from old wine bottles — it’s the only foil that offers protection from both Berthold rays and neutrino oscillation.

  16. OG gal

    Most of Nick Barile’s former houses were built by Kramer Lane, York shouldn’t get any credit, they just GC’d it and marked up the price