Probably not a home run here

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

George Carlin on plastic bags, styrofoam, and our ephemeral presence on earth

Say goodbye

"Greenwich Taxpayer" sent along this wonderful, brilliant commentary by the late and lamented George Carlin on "Saving the Planet". Probably because my minor in college was geology, I've long had an appreciation of exactly how insignificant our temporary visit on earth has been, and will be, but Carlin says what I've long preached, and so much better than I. In fact, my own thoughts on the subject are even tinier compared to Carlin's than are the 200,000 years of human existence vs the 4.5 billion years our planet's been around.

The entire 8 minutes of this video are very much worth watching, but if you're pressed for time, Carlin's discussion of plastic bags begins three minutes in.

But really: watch the whole thing.

Contract, Burning Tree

63 Burning Tree Road, asking $3.595 million. Just 54 days on market, which suggests it's going for something close to that asking price (and which should, I hope, reinforce my regular lecture here about the importance of listing your house early in the year if you want to capture the spring market). 

It's a really nice house, right on Frye "Lake" — many, many years ago, my father told me that any body of water you could see across was a pond, not a lake, but then added, "unless you're a real estate agent, in which case everything's a lake". He taught me that lesson in about 1965, and it's as true today as it was then.

I liked this house very much back in 2008, but laughed at its opening price of $3.695, and that laughter was merited: it finally sold in 2010 for $2.475. But these sellers  did extensive improvements, and now its price seems (more) reasonable.

The only quibble I have is the owners' insistence that its light fixtures are excluded. For heaven's sake, for $3.5  million, let go of your wall sconces and chandeliers, won't you? Back when my law practice included residential real estate, one of the main sticking points in negotiations was who got the friggin' curtains. If I was representing the seller and we "won", I often followed up a year or so later and asked my clients what they'd done with those disputed window treatments. Invariably, the answer was "Oh, we found out that they didn't fit in our new home, so they're in the attic". 

Let it go.

Once again, "The Chair" saves the day

Not sure the street will support this, but maybe it will

After 403 days, 69 Circle Drive Extension, asking $2.499 million, has a contract. Most sales on this street and Circle Drive proper (which is even closer to I-95 and the railroad) have been selling in the $800,000 -$900,000 range, but the have been modest homes. This one, although built in 1954, had been extensively redone, and if the cheaper homes are also slated for re-dos, then fine. Otherwise, not so fine.

I remember the Marshall and Mary Ann Heaven built a spec home near this one, years ago, and did alright, but our GMLS erased its records for sales dating back 10 (15?) years ago, so I can't give you that selling price. 

This one is a really nice house, and I can understand its appeal — I just wonder whether the buyers will prove to be pioneers, and it's the pioneers who get the arrows.

Deerfield, MA, 1704: Injuns drop in for a visit

Buy land; they ain't making any more*

just don't expect it to appreciate, at least in the back country. 2 Crown Lane, 4.5 acres on the corner of Stanwich,cut its price today to $2.1 million, from $2.350. The sellers paid $1.480 for it in 1995 which in current dollars is $2.,4 million. When this parcel finally sells, it will probably fetch even less than $2.1.

* Said by Will Rogers who, unlike a certain Harvard professor, really was a documented Cherokee 

Dictatorship of the non-proletariat: Liberals resist letting terminal patients try experimental cures

Complacent dupes? All for it

Why? Because the libertarian Koch brothers support it. So do the dying, and their families, but leftists want the FDA, and only the FDA, to decide what drugs the dying can have. Does this apply to marijuana? No, because, well, because!!

It's not really about the Koch brothers, it's about concentrating control of every citizen's life under the thumb of a government ruled by those who know what's best. A doped up crowd of somnolent tokers is acceptable, even preferable, but individual patients escaping the claws of a federal agency? Unthinkable!

Few Washington practices are creepier than the exploitation of the desperately ill for ideological ends. That hasn't stopped the sponsors of the egregious federal 'right to try' bill from scheduling the measure for a crucial House vote Tuesday.

The version to be voted on was formally introduced only Monday. (Pro tip: If a bill is sneaked onto the legislative calendar in the dead of night, it's probably not a good bill.) The sponsors imply that this is an improved version over the measure we wrote about in January. But experts who have examined the language, including Holly Fernandez Lynch of the University of Pennsylvania, regard the changes as modest and largely window dressing.

What hasn't changed is the goal of the bill's promoters, a right-wing gang that includes the Koch Brothers and the Arizona-based Goldwater Institute, to use the bill to undermine the Food and Drug Administration. Their campaign is part of their program to undercut government regulations in the name of "liberty" and "choice" — the choice to get injured and killed by doctors and drug companies chasing profits, presumably.

The consequences could reach all patients who depend on the FDA to determine the safety and efficacy of drugs. "Are we prepared to abandon the FDA's gatekeeping role in favor of unfettered patient autonomy and market forces," Fernandez Lynch and Joffe asked, "risking precisely the problems that prompted Congress to grant the FDA its present authority?"

The Koch network doesn't want you to know about its ulterior motives. That's why two of its representatives, Nathan Nascimento and David Barnes, responded to my earlier column about the bill by utterly misrepresenting the piece and neatly avoiding mentioning the goal of cutting the FDA out of the drug approval loop.

It's about power, pure and simple.

Will Trump prove himself to be just another politician? When it comes to ethanol, he very well may

If Iowa didn't hold an early presidential primary, this would never have happened

(Certain) members of Congress finally admit that the ethanol program is a bust and call for its elimination, but Trump is expected to resist. Reason? 2020 election.

In a sort of good news/bad news announcement last week, key Democrats behind the biofuel push contained in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 announced that they had “made a mistake” with the ethanol mandate, and they introduced new legislation to fix it.

“The law hasn’t worked out as we intended,” said former California Congressman and Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee Henry Waxman. Following a joint call with reporters, Waxman joined current members of Congress, Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) and Sen Tom Udall (D-NM), to introduce legislation that will phase out corn-based ethanol. Speaking for the group, Welch said:

“We’ve now had more than a decade of experience with it, and it had the best of intentions. But it has turned out to be a well-intended flop.

“It actually doesn’t cut down on greenhouse gas emissions, it expands them. It’s had a significant impact on overplanting in fragile areas of the corn belt. It has had significant impacts on small engines. And it’s also had a significant impact on feed prices … and there is a lot of evidence it has increased the cost of food.”

So, that’s the good news. The bad news is that Trump promised to protect corn-based ethanol and he, along with a host of ethanol-loving Republicans from red state producers of corn, wants the RFS to stay.

It was just a few months ago that Trump caved to Big Corn when he overruled an effort by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to make major modifications to the RFS following heavy resistance from a gang of Midwestern Senators led by Chuck Grassley. And with his reelection campaign officially launched, Trump will be in campaign mode for the rest of his first term as he prepares for Iowa in 2020.

Trump promised in 2016 to protect ethanol mandates, a promise that he’s already bragged about keeping. And even though he’s demonstrated a propensity to break his promises when politically convenient, it’s very likely that Trump will continue to keep his ethanol promise to Iowa.

Not because it’s good for America, but because it’s good for his campaign.

I believe in acting on principle, which is why I'd never have made it as a politician.

This is supposed to be a blog about Greenwich real estate, so here's news of a contract

2 Jofran Lane, asking $3.495 million, has found a buyer.

Good location for those who want to live close to central Greenwich, nice update of a 1954 home, but otherwise ... meh. 

Three-and-a-half million seems like a lot to pay for "meh", but this property lasted just 25 days on the market, so there's obviously a large demand for houses like this and, just as obvious, my personal opinion of its merits is irrelevant, as always; I never claimed it was.

The zebra can sell anything

Speaking of stupid, this seems dumb: Trump has fired Tillerson

Maybe you should run for the Greenwich RTM, Donald

Not many adults left in the administration

UPDATE: I never liked the man (though I'm okay with his policies) but this is either pure cowardice (unlikely, I hope) or coarse, solipsistic behavior of the worst sort: Trump didn't bother speaking with Tillerson, simply tweeted his decision to fire him.

The two had their differences, fine; but Tillerson put his personal life on hold, at Trump's request, and served the country tirelessly and well for 14 months. Common decency would demand that Trump fire him personally, and maybe even thank him, but if there's anything we've known about Trump for decades, he is not a man of decency.  In fact, he's a disgusting,  low class (okay, no class) human being.

It's still better to have him in office, instead of Hillary, but that's not saying much.

UPDATE: very, very positive review of Pompeo here, and praise for dumping Tillerson.

UPDATE II: Apparently Tillerson was working against Trump's attempts to undo the Iran deal Obama put together, and in general, was resisting Trump's policies. For that, he did deserve to be fired, so my objection is now down merely to Trump's rudeness, and we already knew he was rude. So, whatever.

RTM is exactly as stupid as most of us supposed

A moronic solution to a non-existant problem

Plastic bag ban passed at last night's meeting

The only blessing is that the proposed charge of 25-cents for paper bag replacements was shelved, for now.

This is virtue signaling at its worst. A number of readers invited me to post on this topic a couple of weeks ago and I intended to do so, but I've written about it so frequently in the past that I guess I'm just tired out on the subject.

Without bothering to look up the links again, here are the facts: plastic bags require one-one-hundredth of the energy to produce a reusable bag. Reusables wear out long before 100 uses, so the cycle begins anew.

Reusable bags, if unwashed, are so germ-ridden that they far surpass the kitchen sponge, until now the champion of filth in the household. If a bag is washed, the energy consumed by generating hot water doubles that 100-to-one ratio between plastic bags and reusables.  Most people don't wash those bags, though: cashiers at Whole Foods and Trader Joes tell me that they refuse to touch the inside of a lot of them, they're so groty and disgusting.

its there really a litter problem in Greenwich caused by plastic bags? No, because most of us have the self-respect and pride not to throw our garbage on the streets.  Sad stories of sea turtles choking on plastic bags notwithstanding, that's a problem that isn't the fault of Greenwich residents.

A landfill trench 30 miles long and six miles wide could accommodate all of the residential trash of the entire United States for 100 years. That sounds like a big trench, but anyone who's ever flown across the country will know that there's plenty of space to accommodate thousands of such trenches: we are not running out of landfill sites. Modern landfills are designed to be anaerobic, by the way, so paper or plastic, the stuff's going to be there a long time.

I have no objection to using reusable grocery bags: I have several myself, because they're far stronger than the flimsy throwaways, and carry heavy objects, like gallon jugs of whiskey and shop-lifted radios without danger of breaking. What I do object to is the Pussyhat Campaign imposing its virtue signaling program on the RTM and, through them, all town residents. I warned here that these people would bring politics into our RTM, and this is just the opening salvo in their campaign to do just that.

Phooey.