Dick Pace, did you see this?

Smart agent: she borrowed the Greenwich zebra skin and sold the floor she laid it on for zillions

Smart agent: she borrowed the Greenwich zebra skin and sold the floor she laid it on for zillions

Dick's a friend of mine (and at least once upon a time a reader of this blog) who fled Riverside after selling 8 Chapel Lane for $1.469. That buyer built a spec house on the lot and has just sold it for $3.820 million, which has got to be a record for Chapel. Two lessons here, I suppose: (1) you just never know what the current ceiling is in Riverside these days and (2) the old rule of thumb about paying for land to build on: 1/3 for land, 1/3 for cost of construction, and 1/3 for overhead and profit, is no longer operative. 

$3.8 for Chapel? Wow.

When dreams smash into reality

175 Cat Rock.jpg

175 Cat Rock Road, which 700 days ago started at $3.295 million, has sold for $2.2 million. The tax card shows a 2001 sale for this property of $3.9 million, but because the Greenwich Association of Realtors has eliminated prior sales going back that far, I have no way of readily knowing whether there was, perhaps, more property involved in that sale, with a subsequent lot split, or just an incidence of irrational exuberance on the part of a buyer.

Either way, $2.2 seems like a decent price, today. 

Foreclosure auction on Stanwich

339 Stanwich Road, scheduled for this Saturday, the 25th, at noon. These things are often postponed, so beware. Court appraisal is $1.820 million, Citi is owed $2,253, 741, and the debtor paid $2.550 for it in January, 2005. The usual procedure here is for the creditor to bid up to what it's owed, and if someone wants to pay more than that, fine: it's theirs.

I wouldn't pay $2.253 + for this, and neither should you, but its always possible that Citi knows that, and will let it go for far less than it's owed, just to get it off its books.

But that's unlikely. What's more likely is that Citi will take title, put it back on the market a few months from now at a silly price and, 18 months later take the hit, and sell it for what it's worth. Which, depending on whether the property's been maintained these past three years while the foreclosure process unfolded (probably not), should be substantially below the debt.

So should you travel up to Stanwich this Saturday? It's not how I would spend my day, but if you're bored, what the hell. Contact the lawyer (in the link above) to see what sort of certified check is required. Be aware that these houses are sold "as is", so you'll be bidding on a pig in a poke. 

Screen Shot 2017-03-23 at 11.55.34 AM.png

Good looking house

57 Indian Field Rd

57 Indian Field Rd

57 Indian Field Road, asking $2.295 million. I haven't seen it - it just came on - but I like its looks from the pictures, because the owners appear to have done a very nice job expanding and renovating this 1900 house.

Indian Field's a busy street, but the lots there are surprisingly deep, offering shelter from the noise. And this one exits onto Cross Lane, which should mean you won't have to fight that traffic coming and going.

Is the price right? I haven't run any comps, so I have no idea. Off the top of my head, it seems high for Indian Field, but really: I haven't run prices yet. It is, however, an attractive house, and if you're in the general area of this price range, probably worth looking at.

Good Lord

US intelligence [sic] agencies "accidentally" intercepted phone calls of Trump team, then leaked it its friends and Trump's enemies".

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said Wednesday that information on the Trump campaign — including Donald Trump himself — was “incidentally collected” by the intelligence community during the Obama administration.
“I recently confirmed that on numerous occasions the intelligence community incidentally collected information about US citizens involved in the Trump transition,” Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) said at a press conference on Capitol Hill.
“Details about US persons associated with the incoming administration, details with little or no apparent foreign intelligence value, were widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting,” he added.
The high-ranking Republican congressman called the effort both “normal” and “alarming.”
“This is a normal, incidental collection, based on what I could collect,” he said. “This appears to be all legally collected foreign intelligence [under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act].”
He also said, “I’m actually alarmed by it. … Details with little or no apparent foreign intelligence value were widely disseminated in an intelligence community report.”
Nunes insisted that “None of this surveillance was related to Russia.”

Illegal and a true danger to the country. Just this morning the WSJ editorialized that Trump was "clinging to his wiretap theory like a drunk to his gin bottle". Will they now change their tune?

In January, Chuck Schumer warned Trump not to taunt the agencies, "because they have a dozen ways from Sunday to get back at you". 

You'd think a Senator of the United States would find that outrageous, rather than something to boast about. In fact, that's scarier than the revelation that our intelligence agencies and the IRS have targeted opponents of their fiefdoms; we kind of knew that, but the lack of resistance to those agencies by our highest elected officials is a really, really bad thing.

UPDATE: No change at the Wall Street Journal - it's reporting it as just another Trump machination and stresses that the interceptions were legal, while making no reference whatsoever to the real crime here, the leaking of those intercepts.