Land sale in Riverside

59 Gilliam

59 Gilliam Lane

59 Gilliam Lane, one acre, sold for $2.850 million, from its original asking price of $3.9 million back in May, 2014. The house that sits on the land was built in 1998 and perfectly suited the needs of its downsizing owners, but 3,200 sq. feet is too small for most Riverside buyers these days, and the property was eventually listed as land, which it probably should have been all along – I think the owners and their broker set that first price where they did because they were attributing some substantial value to the house itself.

Views of a brackish pond across the street, but the pond’s actually quite pretty, and Gilliam’s a great spot.


Filed under Uncategorized

23 responses to “Land sale in Riverside

  1. Anonymous

    This seems like a great deal. Great location and one acre is a nice size lot.The area certainly does not need more new construction and the house looks perfectly nice. What do I know and you are probably right that this will become an empty lot for a spec builder. Did n’t the Fountains live on Gilliam ? As a kid (very young) it confused me as to Gideon and Gilliam and thought that it was just Fountain’s Road

  2. Anonymous

    What’s the max FAR in this zone on 1 acre?

    • What, 5,800? Something like that, and given its topography, there’s probably another 2000 or so of walk out basement space available.
      But FAR shifts as quickly as the wind, so consult a land engineer or local architect – certainly don’t take mine as the final word.

  3. Anonymous

    Sounds too expensive for a spec builder. Probably an end-user sale.

    • Anonymous

      Agreed. Sounds high for land value. Sounds high for end-user too though. Put in $300k and you can fix a lot of the issues.

  4. Anonymous

    Corner of lot is in AE flood zone so a new house has to be compliant

  5. Cos Cobber

    Another lefty terrorist embarrassment per the WSJ link below. Quell the movement and viola, the invisible hand of capitalism improves lives. Why is no one at the university level studying the benefits of capitalism anymore?

    • Anonymous

      I do not think the micro aggression fearing college students of today are quite at Shining Path levels yet.

  6. TradkmanPro

    18 year house goes in the dumpster. Wow.
    So if 1 acre on Gilliam will allow 5800….
    How does .35 acres on chapel lane stuff 5400 above grade and 2000 more below?

  7. Walt

    Dude –

    Off topic. Sorry, but have you been following the Freddie Gray case?

    They just started picking jurors on Monday, finished that this morning, started the trial already, and the judge expects a VERDICT by December 17? Do you think it’s a coincidence the trial ends a week before Christmas? Or is this just a really courteous Judge, who wants all the fine citizens of Baltimore to get their free Christmas looting done in time?

    And how does the MSM make this about race, when half of the cops charged are black? The only one charged with murder is black. The Mayor is black. The prosecutor is black. The police chief was black – he got fired, but not because he was black. THE ENTIRE CITY IS BLACK!! AND DEMOCRATIC! Forever. But somehow this turns into the white man’s fault? I really can’t figure this stuff out.

    Your Pal,

  8. REgardless

    I heard the new buyers are going to live in the house while they build a new home in front of the existing one, then demolish the current structure …

  9. Anonymous

    Don’t worry. Land prices will continue to drop. No need to rush into the market. Better deals to follow. A message from a Republican Senator.

    In a recent interview, one of the Democrat leaders in the Connecticut legislature suggested that a new “mansion tax” be considered.

    The Connecticut “mansion tax” would add a statewide property tax on high-end homes above and beyond the municipal property taxes already paid by property owners.

    After reading that, I thought, “You can’t be serious.”

    Unfortunately, it’s true.

    The idea of a Connecticut “mansion tax” is being seriously considered as a future solution to balance Connecticut’s budget.

    But, consider the following:
    • Majority Democrats in the legislature and the Governor have already reached deep into the pockets of Connecticut’s most successful residents over the past five years.
    • The highest marginal income tax rate has been hiked to 6.99 %.
    • The sales and use tax rate on “luxury items” has been increased from 7 % to 7.75 % with respect to motor vehicles costing $50,000 or more, jewelry costing $5,000 or more and clothing, footwear and accessories costing $1,000 or more.
    • The income tax rate for trusts and estates has been hiked to 6.99 %.
    • The 20% corporation income tax surcharge, which had been slated to sunset, has been extended.
    • Since 2011, the decision-makers in Hartford have passed the two largest tax hikes in state history along with over 70 new taxes.
    As if that were not enough, they are now eyeing people’s homes.

    Republicans and I have argued that punishing the successful is not the answer to Connecticut’s budget woes. It only drives them and the jobs they create out of state and results in even lower revenues. We continue to stress that long-term structural changes to the way our state spends your tax dollars is the best way to put Connecticut back on a sustainable path. Our Republican budget alternatives provide those solutions in detail and contain no new taxes and no tolls while protecting services for our most vulnerable residents.

    You may recall a few months ago a “mileage tax” was being considered in Hartford. I quickly shined a light on this poor policy idea, which would have taxed you by the mile using a GPS device in your vehicle. At my urging, many of you spoke out and the notion of a mileage tax quickly faded away.

    You can be sure I’ll also be shining a very bright light on the idea of a “mansion tax”. Our home builders and realtors are especially sensitive to proposals that further provide disincentives to living, working and raising a family in Connecticut.

    Proposals such as the unitary tax, mileage tax, and now a mansion tax cast a dark shadow on our state’s economy. Even debating these new potential taxes sends the wrong message to taxpayers and those who are looking to grow jobs here. There is a reason General Electric is weighing options to move its headquarters and hundreds of great jobs out of Connecticut. They and other businesses have watched negative policies such as these increasingly passed in Hartford and feel they are unfair and burdensome. Who can blame them for looking at more attractive options?

    It would seem inconceivable that anyone would seriously bring up the idea of a “mansion tax” after all the recent tax hikes that have made Connecticut the nation’s most expensive state, yet they have.

    Please feel free to contact me at or at 800-842-1421 on this issue or with other concerns you may have. I welcome your feedback.

  10. Anonymous

    I heard Gilliam home owners association is a pain to deal with. They give everyone the run around. Good luck building a house on that lot!

    • Unless things have changed (and what hasn’t, in this world), the Association is a toothless board charged with arranging for snowplowing and arguing about speed bumps (which, like barrier islands, appear and disappear over the decades, depending on whether the majority of home owners have young children or not). If there are new rules, then that’s different, but I’d review the Association documents before deciding that there’s a problem.