South of the Village contract reported

7 binney.jpg

7 Binney Lane, Old Greenwich, asking $3.475 million. Binney’s a great street, but this house, built in 2007, hasn’t done well in the resale market after its sale that year for $4.950. Those buyers, despite pouring in some large dollars finishing and improving it, got just $3.925 in 2014 from these present owners and now they, too are taking a hit.

What percentage of this $1.5 million decline in value can we attribute to the poor quality of the lot and the ugly architecture of the house itself, and how much to general market conditions?

Try to remember this after our next ice storm

curse.jpg

The Greenwich Tree Conservancy reminds property owners that they have every right to forbid tree-trimming along power lines.

Letter to the Editor:

The Greenwich Tree Conservancy often hears from residents who are given notice from Eversource requesting a tree on their property or abutting property be removed or significantly cut back. The resident then asks us what they can do to protect the tree which shades their property and adds to its esthetic, economic and health value. When trees are on private property, residents have the right to tell Eversource what is
acceptable to them.

The best idea is to say you want to be there when they do the work. Eversource has a guideline to clear ground to sky and 8 feet from the lines (UPZ) as they do in many towns, this is not Greenwich’s policy.

Nor can Eversource automatically take the tree down if it is not a public safety issue. They often say it’s a safety issue but they are speaking of safety to their lines, not safety to the public. They do have the right to prune the tree if it is currently interfering with the power lines or will be imminently.

Eversource’s contracted tree service is Lewis Tree Service they should prune in a careful way which they will do if you are present when the work is being done.

If a tree abutting your property is in the Town right-of-way, Eversource must obtain a
permit from the Town Tree Warden for pruning or removal by filing a written application and must give 15 days notice to an abutting property owner prior to pruning or removal in the UPZ (Utility Protection Zone) and within the public right-of-way,

Secondly, the Town Tree Warden must issue a decision 10 days from receiving an abutting property owner objection or request for modification, provided a requested consultation has taken place. The property owner or Eversource may appeal the Town
Tree Warden decision to PURA (Public Utilities Regulatory Authority).

The Tree Conservancy has published a Tree Rights for Property Owners brochure as well as a Public Utilities brochure that are available at Town Hall or can be viewed at our website www.greenwichtreeconservancy.org.

Don’t feel powerless when confronted with Eversource!

JoAnn Messina
Executive Director
Greenwich Tree Conservancy

Greenwich is privileged to have exempted itself from the general regulations governing maintenance of power lines in town, and you’ll get no argument from me that private property rights shouldn’t protect everyone from chainsaw-toting goons descending from central authority trucks with tree-ravishing on their lustful minds; besides, only the little people lack generators, so what’s the actual cost of demanding by-appointment hair salon treatment for our trees? Negligible — as inconsequential as refusing permission to build new substations to handle increased electrical demand.

So all that’s great, but over the past decades, every time we’ve been hit with a major power-outage, our citizens scream in outrage, and the power company (CL&P, back in the day) explains that Greenwich regulations forbids it from properly pruning trees to the extent that would protect the wires. it would be nice if, after the next storm knocks out power in town for five days or so, our arboreal estheticians bit their tongues, fired up their generators, and refrained from hysterically whining about the failure of Eversource to protect our infrastructure. A trade-off implies an exchange of one benefit for another: we’ve made that exchange, and should accept the consequences when they arrive.

Or reconsider our bargain. Unless we do, then, please, shut up.

Hat tip, EOS: 781 Lake Avenue profiled in WSJ, without mention of its original $17 million asking price

781 Lake.jpg

Today, 781 Lake Avenue can be yours for just $8.775, and our own GMLS records show a relatively brief listing history, beginning in 2017 at $10.950 in September, 2017. EOS, who brought the WSJ article to my attention, also cites the Zillow history to show that the place started at $17.350 back in May, 2015. According the article, the owners claim to have sunk $9 million into renovating their 2002 purchase of $6.8 million; if that’s anywhere close to an accurate figure, the eventual sale of this property may yield relief, but certainly no joy.

Funny thing about disappearing records. I know that I wrote about this house back then, and yet I can’t locate my post. I suspect that the post disappeared when I switched blog host and lost my archives, but what’s our multi-listing service’s excuse?

(As several readers have commented, however, it is a beautiful home, regardless of its pricing history. I shudder to think of annual maintenance costs, but I suppose that comes with this price territory)

Bernie Sanders, 77, set to announce candidacy

“I’m as clueless and stupid as that Westchester Chicano chick, but at least I can use senility as an excuse”.

Sen. Bernie Sanders is set to announce he will run for president in 2020, three years after fighting the Democratic primary race against Hillary Clinton, according to reports.  

Independent senator Sanders, 77, plans to announce his presidential bid imminently, Yahoo News reports.  

Early polls of the race have shown him as one of the top candidates in the Democratic primary field. 

Just when it looked like Trump had lost his bid for reelection, along comes this ray of sunshine.

A property that's been cursed since it was built in 1916

Still on top of the hill, but slowly, slowly, sliding down

Still on top of the hill, but slowly, slowly, sliding down

Greenwich Time reports that Leona Helmsley’s pile of bricks at 521 Round Hill Road, “Dunnelan Hall”, has slashed its price again, and is now begging for offers beginning at $22.5 million. Owners have never done well here over the past century: financial ruin, tragic deaths of children and, of course, Leona herself being forcibly transferred a few miles up the road to Bedford Hill’s Women’s Prison, but the misfortunes it’s suffered over the past eleven years can be attributed to bad pricing and some truly dumb financial decisions by the current owner.

Ogilvy set off the circus parade back in 2008, when he originally listed it for $125 million, a price that was surely designed more to garner national news coverage for his firm than to convey any realistic appraisal of value, but ridiculous prices can also serve as sucker bait: in 2010, after the disappointed sellers had grown tired of Mr. Ogilvy, they hired a new broker, and a buyer (represented by Ogilvy’s office, ironically), actually paid $35 million. That wasn’t smart but, worse, convinced he’d effected a bargain, the buyer tossed some paint on the project and returned it to the market in 2011, marked up to $42.9 million, but failed to sell it: quell surprise.

Undaunted, the idiot pulled it from the market and put some real money into it, redoing rooms, mechanicals, tearing down an unfortunate addition, etc., and brought it back on in 2014 for $65 million. Five years on, he’s down to $22.5, and still falling.

It’s not as though the prospects for this ugly pink elephant haven’t been discussed online — notably, here, over the years, where both blogger and many commenters have offered their opinions, but ….

The politics of envy

From Powwerlineblog.com:

One of Powwerline’s lineup of contributors, Steven Hayward, is scheduled to speak at Yale today. Here’s an excerpt from his post on the topic:

Among other things, I am going to argue at length that the current furious egalitarian mood of the left is really just a case of envy run amok, but envy is something social scientists don’t study any more, largely because it would discredit the program of the left. In looking around for scholarship on this point, I stumbled across a terrific 1966 book by a German scholar named Helmut Schoeck, Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior. I can’t believe I never came across this book before now. It is stupendously good.

There are too many great parts of his argument to summarize or quote (though I may make a series out of this topic), but here’s one:

It would be a miracle if the democratic political process were ever to renounce the use of the envy-motive. Its usefulness derives, if for no other reason, from the fact that all that is needed, in principle, is to promise the envious the destruction or the confiscation of assets enjoyed by the others; beyond that there is no need to promise anything more constructive. The negativism of envy permits even the weakest of candidates to sound reasonably plausible, since anybody, once in office, can confiscate or destroy. To enlarge the country’s capital assets, to create employment etc., requires a more precise programme. Candidates will naturally try to make some positive proposals, but it is often all too apparent that envy looms large in their calculations. The more precarious the nation’s economy at election time, the stronger the temptations for politicians to make ‘redistribution’ their main plank, even when they know how little margin is left for redistributive measures, and, worse still, how likely they are to retard economic growth.

RELATED: Elizabeth Warren proposes annual “wealth tax” on the rich, annual audits, and a punitive tax levied on those who seek to flee.

And so it begins: statewide tax rate on vehicles. Real estate next, count on it

New Democrat majority proposes uniform mill rate on motor vehicles.

Owners of multi-family houses would get tax breaks, and there would be a single statewide property-tax rate for motor vehicles, under a wide-ranging finance proposal submitted to the General Assembly by Senate President Pro Tempore Martin M. Looney.

Republicans warned that the price tag could be hundreds of millions of dollars, in a shift of the statewide burden to more-affluent towns.

No, they won’t stop at cars. Between the Never-Trumpers who stayed home last November and our Ladies Invisible group who did vote, Greenwich has no one to blame for this coming disaster but itself.

And wait for it: town school districts will fall within the decade.

This seems like a dumb strategy, but the Republicans are known for those

So, after much consideration, I finally decided to spring $25 for an “official” Trump hat: get something to wear when I choose to stroll through dangerous liberal neighborhoods like the Upper West Side, and toss a few bucks into the Republican Party coffers while at it.

But no, you can’t just buy a hat and be done with it. Instead, the party demands both an email address and a phone number, and thoughtfully provides the following warning:

By providing your phone number, you are consenting to receive calls and SMS/MMS messages, including autodialed and automated calls and texts, to that number from each of the participating committees in the Trump Make America Great Again Committee, Donald J. Trump for President Inc. and the Republican National Committee. Msg & data rates may apply.

Thank you, but no: I don’t want any damn hat badly enough to pay you for it and give you permission to invade my house at all hours of the day with robo-calls and emails.


So no deal.