Probably not a home run here

 82 Cat Rock Road

82 Cat Rock Road

82 Cat Rock Road, asking $3.3 million, reports a contract after 963 days. In fact, its developer/ builder has been trying to unload it for far longer that that. He paid $2.825 for two lots here back in 2006 ($3.5 in inflation-adjusted dollars), and two months later, tried to resell them for $3.8 (in those old 2006 dollars) because, according to the listing broker, he'd scored such a coup. I've never understood the ignorance of people like this: what they pay for property is the market value — if no one else was willing to pay more, then its value has just been set, by you. It's exactly what the old adage says: if you're sitting around a poker table and can't figure out who the chump is, you're the chump.

Regardless, the buyer eventually gave up on finding a greater fool and built two spec houses, number 80 (simply dreadful), on the back lot, and this one in front of it, number 82. The back lot is still hanging around, unsold. It started, and who among us doesn't enjoy a good chuckle, at $4.450 million, dropped to $3.995 and then last month — here's that chuckle, come 'round again — to $3.990. Meanwhile, he marked 80 down from a starting price of $3.995 to $3.3 — my guess is that it's going for less than that. That's a lot of carrying costs.

Worse, assuming this house's final selling price proves less than $3.3, and that's a pretty solid assumption, the ugly house in back has just dropped to, at best, to that same $3.3. Most back lots are worth less than the house in front of them, so that figure is almost certain to be discounted further. The builder might, maybe, break even here, but my guess is that he's losing his shirt. If for some reason you are willing to live in this portion of Cat Rock Road, in an ugly house, you might pitch a bid of, say, $2.250, and see if you can't get a nibble. Failing that, wait until the bank owns it, and try $1.75.

I'd advise against it.

 80 Cat Rock:  I think not, thank you

80 Cat Rock:  I think not, thank you