You've probably heard of the first, but can you name the second one without peeking?
/There, right there; that woman in blue — she’s heard of me!
Greenwich, Connecticut real estate, politics, and more.
Greenwich, Connecticut real estate, politics, and more
There, right there; that woman in blue — she’s heard of me!
Hold my beer
Biden calls it quits in New Hampshire, flees south. Fortunately, FWIW’s cinematography team was on hand to record the event.
444 Old Church Road, now asking $1.999. I think the bank and listing agent David Huffinpuffer have their work cut out for them here. A stuccoed, hideous design sited on a dreadful location: tough sell. And given the age of construction, 1983, that stucco* is probably Dryvit.
There’s a reason some houses don’t sell.
But a wide choice of routes to choose from
*Huffinpuffer describes it as a “stone manor”, but David’s always had a dry sense of humor
I believe the expression here is “missed the boat”
25 Richmond Hill Road has cut its price, again, and is now asking $4.495 million. Built in 2014, it’s been on the market ever since, beginning at $7.195. While there was a brief period of popularity for this street at the beginning of the century, there hasn’t been a significant sale since 2010, and I don’t see that changing soon. There seems to be no debt on the property, so it’s going to take a while, but I predict a number beginning with three in this project’s future.
Me? Leader of the Free World? Well, shucks ….
“That’s what we do”, he says, and seems to think that’s a good thing. “Lead, follow, or get the hell out of my way” means nothing to a little man stuffed to bursting with a false sense of self-importance.
68 Halsey Drive, new construction asking $2.795 million is under contract. Nondescript construction, to my eye, but on 1.5 acres, which is huge for Havemeyer; in fact, this property was marketed in 2010 as an approved 4-lot subdivision. Crazy price? I don’t know. Hillcrest Park, across Palmer Hill, can command this much and more, but up to now, Havemeyer pricing has been a step down from Hillcrest. Maybe this signals a change in those relative values.
Raising the question, why does he want to take guns away from the rest of us?
2015 tape surfaces from Aspen Institute Conference reveals Bloomberg saying “[in NYC] 95% of murderers and their victims are ethnic minority males”.
"95 percent of your murders -- murderers and murder victims fit one M.O. You can just take the description, Xerox it and pass out to all the cops. They are male, minorities, sixteen to twenty-five. That's true in New York, that's true in virtually every city," Bloomberg said.
"And that's where the real crime is”…. . "You've got to get the guns out of the hands of the people that are getting killed. You want to spend the money on a lot of cops on the streets." Once you've got more cops, he argued, you have to "put the cops where the crime is, which means in minority neighborhoods."
Bloomberg even responded to those who'd pull the race card on him. "One of the unintended consequences is people say, 'Oh my God, you are arresting kids for marijuana that are all minorities.' Yes, that's true. Why? Because we put all the cops in minority neighborhoods. Yes, that's true. Why do we do it? Because that's where all the crime is."
And he wasn't done quite yet. He added that "[the] way you get the guns out of the kids' hands is to throw them up against the walls and frisk them... And then they start... 'Oh, I don't want to get caught.' So they don't bring the gun. They still have a gun, but they leave it at home."
Here’s the thing: Bloomberg is right: blacks and Hispanics are both the main perpetrators and victims of violent crime in cities like New York. It may be that intrusive police tactics like stop-and-frisk are the wrong way to stop that crime and that somehow rebuilding minority familes, reforming public education and somehow instilling a sense of purpose and hope into young black and Hispanic males is the cure, but I think Bloomberg was looking at it from the perspective of policing: first, stop the bleeding.
Regardless, Bloomberg’s going to be hammered for saying aloud what everyone knows, but dare not say. Too bad, because you can’t address a problem if you won’t admit it exists.
UPDATE, 2/12/20: I don’t watch TV news of any brand, but I did come across this clip of Fox News’ Sean Hannity denouncing Biden’s remarks as racist. He makes no reference to the Bratton report cited above; indeed, he flatly denies that minorities commit 95% of violent crime in NYC. Hannity isn’t alone in this bullshit — he’s been joined in the pile-on by his fellow prevaricators on the Left, but it does reaffirm my decision made years ago to ignore television news, because they’re liars, every one of them.
An estimated 30 people showed up for a Biden rally last night. Just down the road, a different story.
They shoot horses, don’t they?
The Mercer University economics student [a mini OCA?] was at a New Hampshire campaign event on Sunday with a school trip when she asked the Democratic presidential hopeful about the viability of his campaign given his fourth-place standing in the Iowa caucuses.
Biden responded: “Iowa’s a caucus. Have you ever been to a caucus?”
When she nodded yes, Biden retorted: “No, you haven’t. You’re a lying dog-faced pony soldier,” drawing laughter from the crowd.
Moore, of Fernandina Beach, Florida, said she was nervous when Biden asked if she’d been to a caucus and nodded yes. She hasn’t been to a caucus, but said she felt that was irrelevant to her question.
So she lied and was caught at it on national TV. Fine; I was feeling sorry for her, a little, until I read this:
“Instead of answering that question straightforward [sic] his immediate response was to attempt to invalidate me by exposing my inexperience.”
“Attempt to invalidate me”? “Exposing my inexperience”? Who talks like that? Who thinks like that? Sniveling, tubby little snowflake liars, that’s who, and there’s an entire generation of them out there now. Dear God.
900 Lake Avenue, purchased for $2.8 million in 2017 and returned to the market just two years later at $2.850, has sold for $2.2.
I’ve always liked this house, even though it has no yard, and even though the modern addition to the original 1790 structure is a bit awkward; I could see how it would work. But any purchaser should have been wary of a house that was on the market from 2010 until 2017 before finding a buyer. Yes, the original 2010 price of $4.125 was partly to blame, but seven years of market exposure and no one wanted it? Before paying $2.8, these owners should have asked themselves who was the chump at the poker table and, having failed to find him, passed.
Be notified of new posts! Sign-up here:
Want to comment without registering?