Side-by-sides on Mooreland Road, $11 million + apiece

37 Mooreland Rd

37 Mooreland Rd

37 Mooreland Road has hit the market today at $11.950, joining its sibling at 35 Mooreland, which has sat unsold at $11.250 million since last spring. The two lots were carved from the same 8-acre lot back in 2015, which sold for $5.675. At under $3 for each, that leaves plenty of room to adjust these prices over the coming years: that margin will almost certainly come in handy.

35 MOOReLAND Road, 2017

35 MOOReLAND Road, 2017

(the original) 35 MOORLAND Road, circa 1960

(the original) 35 MOORLAND Road, circa 1960

A fool and his money? Let's wait until the closing price is reported

9 sabine.jpg

9 Sabine Farm Road, asking $31.5 million, is under contract. Purchased for $23 million in 2004, this 20-acre property has been sub-divided into 3 lots, with its obsolete, 12,000 sq.ft. mansion on one of them, and found a buyer.

I know what I'd have advised a client interested in this place, but who knows what the agreed upon price was? Two lots at, say, $3.5 per, and a house on its own lot at maybe $7.5, being generous, and you might have a bargain, however unsellable, but $31.5? Crazy.

Admittedly, purchasers at this level don't actually cook for themselves, but ... really?

Admittedly, purchasers at this level don't actually cook for themselves, but ... really?

October sales figures, per Greenwich Association of Realtors

as is

as is

October 2017 Greenwich Sales

November 16, 2017 (Greenwich, CT) - The Greenwich Association of REALTORS® announces the statistics for home sales in The Town of Greenwich, CT for the month of October 2017.
There were 40 single-family residential closings reported during this period according to figures provided by The Greenwich Multiple Listing Service, Inc., the multiple listing service used by REALTORS® in the Greenwich area.
The number of single-family residential closings increased, compared to October 2016 when there were 39 closings in October. The median sale price for a single-family home increased to $1,638,000 from $1,625,000 the median sales price in October 2016.
The average days on the market (DOM) for residential homes was 193 days; which was a decrease from 249 days in October 2016.
"This years October sales are in-line with last years sales, with an increase by one sale for October 2017, closing in on forty Sales VS. October 2016 ending with thirty-nine sales. The median sale price is very similar to last years, with a little bit of an increase to $1,638,000 from $1,625,000 in October 2017. The Average Days on Market has seen a significant decrease from 249 in October 2016 to now which is 193 days on market.
Riverside and Cos Cob were our strongest sectors this month; Riverside closing in on nine sales, from six in October 2016 with a significant median price increase to $2,950,000 from $1,050,000 and Cos Cob closing in on eight sales when there were zero in October 2016, with a median price of $1,183,250. As we are soon approaching the end of the year, the market seems to be acting similarly to the close of last year", stated BK Bates, 2017 President of the Greenwich Association of REALTORS®.

Take aways: I'm always suspicious of the "days on market" calculation used by the GAR, so I'd be wary of that one.

Good to see that Cos Cob saw 8 sales, vs 0 in October of last year.

The "significant" median price increase in Riverside from $1,183,250 to $2,950,00 can almost certainly be attributed to 2016 sales of building lots/teardowns and 2017 sales of new construction. It does reflect the changing economic conditions of this part of town, but if you own one of those teardowns, don't start planning uses for your $3 million windfall.

Old Church Road sale price reported

old church.jpg

320 Old Church Road, $3.2 million. 483 days on market for this new construction, and started back then at $3.995. We've discussed this house several times during its sale history, so no need to repeat all that. I will, however, note again that "green" features and Crestron auto-home systems don't sell houses in Greenwich or, if they do, command no premium.

This home is at the height of Green Standards from the air purification system to the geo-thermal heating/cooling, Crestron Home automation system, whole house distributed built-in audio and surround sound system in family room.

Not enough to outweigh the price reduction required by the design and the site, which was carved out of ledge.

Uh oh - Senator Al Franken is a sexual abuser

Thank you, Jesus!

Thank you, Jesus!

Al Franken grabbed my breasts and thrust his tongue down my throat.

He's been pretty much doing the same thing to the country since he (fraudulently) won his senate seat, but in view of our current drama, this is fun.

Coming on top of yesterday's revelation that Congress has paid over $15 million of our tax dollars to settle various sexual abuse claims by its members, I think it's time for the appointment of a special prosecutor.

"I grew up in the 60s, so I just don't know better"

"I grew up in the 60s, so I just don't know better"

Given the indistinguishable circus clowns we regularly send to Washington, maybe we should do this on a national scale

We're in the best of hands

We're in the best of hands

Bolton, CT town selectman election settled by a coin toss.

Eremita and Democrat Kim Miller received the same number of votes, 718, in last week’s election, creating a tie for the final seat on the board.
A recount Monday upheld the tie, and the candidates agreed to let the decision be decided by a coin toss rather than a special election, as allowed by the town charter.
Eremita, Miller, and Town Clerk Elizabeth C. Waters all tossed coins Tuesday in Town Hall. Eremita won because his coin matched Waters’, with both showing tails. Miller’s came up heads.
“It’s an old New England small town at its best,” Eremita said of the flip. “It’s the most fun I’ve had so far as a selectman.”

Tiny Bolton saved an estimated $2,500-$3,000 expense by avoiding  a special election. As a country, we'd save billions. Of course, careful preparation would be necessary:

"From the beginning of the world until the end of time" — Greenwich wants to tweak that

Aaron Hernandez lends his brainpower to our BOE

Aaron Hernandez lends his brainpower to our BOE

I used to love drafting that ancient phrase into settlement documents because it summoned the majesty of English Common Law and incorporated utter finality into otherwise-banal civil disagreements. Apparently, our new town leaders aren't as appreciative of its meaning.

The town is trying to replace the lights at the existing GHS football stadium, install new ones at fields on its northern border and is considering expanding/rebuilding the football areas itself, all of which is prohibited by a court settlement it reached with neighbors in 2003. So, being Greenwich, we want to sue, but sue whom, our former Selectmen, the P&Z board of 2003, the then-existing school board and the RTM, all of which signed off on the original agreement?

I'll search for the link to that settlement (I've posted it here before, and I'll dig it up again), but Old Church Road resident Bill Effros and his high school neighbors are absolutely correct when they state that the town is forbidden, by its own agreement, to expand the use of the football field, install more lighting, add parking, bathrooms to the stadium, etc. etc. All of these terms were originally part of an agreement Greenwich made with neighbors when it took the Hillside Road property via eminent domain, and they were incorporated, word-for-word, in the later, 1983 suit brought by Effros and his neighbors. And as I have also written here before, the presiding judge in that suit insisted that every single government body in Greenwich with any jurisdiction over the matter sign off on the settlement before he would accept it.

Which was done, with full deliberation and consent. That the parents of a new generation of high school football players now consider the terms of the agreement improvident is irrelevant; the terms were written to be unmodifiable, forever, and I see no evidence of mistake of fact, or fraud or duress employed by either party in reaching that settlement. I'm not attacking high school football (though I'd never let one of my own children batter his brains to mush even more thoroughly than 8 hours in a public school classroom can accomplish on its own), but the terms of use of the high school were clearly established when it was being built back in the late 60s and reinforced and incorporated in perpetuity by the 2003 court settlement. Mr. Effros can be a polarizing gadfly (which naturally appeals to my own soul), but the law is clearly on his side. 

So why are we now preparing to spend multi-thousands of dollars litigating to overturn what we ourselves agreed to?