Back on the market

139 North Street was built in 2020 and briefly offered for sale for $6.250 million before a tenant turned up and rented it for $30,000 per. That rent was subsequently increased to $35,000, and, presumably, the builder was doing quite well on his investment. Nonetheless, he’s decided to sell, and this can now all be yours for $7.890 million.

Not really my cup of tea, but I’m veery much not the targeted demographic for eight-million-dollar homes, so I’m sure this owner will lose no sleep over my lack of enthusiasm

It’s squeezed into a very narrow lot, but will the NYC buyers who will be looking at this going to worry about that? I imagine not.

Pending in Milbrook

7 Orchard Drive, listed for $6.050 million in April and subsequently dropped to $4.995, is reported pending. The price history of this house offers a nice snapshot of an earlier boom and bust period in the Greenwich real estate market, a phenomenon that, before 2007, many agents didn’t believe could occur — “but this is Greenwich!

Sold for $3,780,000 in 2004; listed at $4.895 in 2006 and finally sold to these owners in 2009 for $2.5 million.

This should make for an interesting question for Property Law 101 classes

no inflated values for this guy!

From FWIW’s southern real estate experts at The Taos Tatler, this:

Homeowner who sold ‘billionaire bunker’ Miami mansion for less than asking price sues realtor for not disclosing Jeff Bezos was buyer

The man who sold Jeff Bezos his $79 million mansion in a tony part of Miami Beach is suing the realtor who handled the transaction because it concealed the fact that the buyer of the 2.8-acre estate was the Amazon founder — potentially costing him as much as $6 million, according to a report.

Leo Kryss, co-founder of Brazilian toy and electronics company Tectoy, filed suit against Douglas Elliman, whose CEO is alleged to have told the mogul personally that Bezos was not the buyer of the home, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Kryss was the owner of the seven-bedroom, 14-bathroom abode that hugs the waterfront on Indian Creek Island — also known as “billionaire bunker” whose famous residents include Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump and football legend Tom Brady.

The Brazilian mogul bought the property, which boasts a wine cellar, library, theater and pool in 2014 for $28 million.

In May of last year, Kryss put the mansion up for sale — with a listing price of $85 million. A month later, Bezos, who has a net worth valued by Bloomberg Billionaires Index at $202 billion, bought the property located just next door — a three-bedroom, three-bathroom home — for $68 million.

A short time later, Kryss received a $79 million offer for his estate, according to the Journal. The businessman then inquired as to whether Bezos is the one who put forward the offer.

According to the lawsuit filed in Florida state court, Douglas Elliman CEO Jay Parker personally phoned Kryss and assured him that Bezos was not the buyer and that the purchaser would not agree to go above $79 million for the property.

Kryss then agreed to cut the asking price by 7.1%. But after closing, he learned that the purchaser was indeed an entity tied to Bezos, the Journal reported.

Realtors say it is common for wealthy buyers to shield their identity throughout the purchasing process due to concerns that the seller could inflate the asking price if they knew the name of the person with whom they were dealing.

Had Kryss known that Bezos was the buyer and that he intended to purchase the property next door to one he already owns, he would not have agreed to cut the listing price, according to the lawsuit.

He alleged in the court filing that “it was highly material to his negotiations and his decision on the ultimate sales price…to know whether Bezos was…attempting to anonymously acquire the home in order to assemble it with the adjoining property.”

Lots of issues here, including:

  • What are the actual damages, and how do you prove them? How will the disgruntled seller prove that Bezos would have paid a higher price, what was that price, and would Bezos have bought the property at all if his proffered $79 million had been rejected?

  • Who did Douglas Elliman represent in this transaction, the owner, or the buyer?

  • Does it matter?

  • Was Douglas Eliman’s CEO’s denial that the bidder was Bezos in fact a material misrepresentation, as the (now former) owner claims?

  • Will a jury really give two farts about a dispute between a couple of obnoxious billionaires?

After 188 days, a price cut on Rogues Hill

549 Round Hill Road, from $4.5 to $3.9 million. 7.42-acres, 2.62 of which has been deed to the Land Trust/Conservation group, but no fear: according to the listing, you can still build the 20,000 sq.ft. weekend cottage of your dreams.

The acreage is listed as land — there was a 1775 house here when these owners bought the property for $4.5 million in 2009, but that’s apparently since been confined to the dustbin of history.

2009 — no longer operative?

Beginning of the End

Stephen Hayward, Powerline:

The Daily Chart: When Did the Reg Revolution Really Begin?

Conservatives like to point to the Progressive Era for the turn in constitutional philosophy that paved the way for the administrative state that then got into business during the New Deal. Though this is account is true, it is not complete. As the chart below of Federal Register pages—a rough measure of bureaucratic and regulatory activity—shows, the administrative state doesn’t really reach escape velocity until the 1970s, under Presidents Nixon and Ford unfortunately. And the kind of regulation that began in the 1970s was of a different and more ominous character than New Deal-era regulation, but that is a long story for another day.



I'm not a big fan of timid price cuts, but maybe this one will work, who knows?

After 48 days on the market 26 Tomac Avenue has shaved 2.3% off its price and it is now looking for $4.275 million instead of $4.375. My working theory in these situations is that if house hasn’t sold in seven weeks, especially in a blistering market like the current one, there’s more wrong with its price than can be cured by a mere $100,000 reduction.

There will be nothing left after four more years of Democrat rule

Lift off? Not if the government can stop it

Biden Admin to SpaceX: Drop Dead!

Stephen Green, PJ Media:

“It isn't a joke whenever I say that the new space race is Elon Musk versus the rest of the world, and I'm not joking now when I tell you that his company's biggest competitor isn't China — and it certainly isn't Russia — but the Biden-Harris FAA.

SpaceX's Starship promises to revolutionize spaceflight by reducing launch costs by two orders of magnitude — that's a 99% savings — and vastly expanding current limits on the size and mass of what can be lifted into orbit and deep space.

If SpaceX can get permission to perform the necessary flight tests, that is — and the FAA is dragging its feet.”

"Starships are meant to fly," the company reminded the Biden administration in a lengthy statement released on Tuesday. "We recently received a launch license date estimate of late November from the FAA, the government agency responsible for licensing Starship flight tests. This is a more than two-month delay to the previously communicated date of mid-September. This delay was not based on a new safety concern, but instead driven by superfluous environmental analysis."

The next Starship flight test is meant to demonstrate vital operations like landing both stages for reuse and the massive launch tower "chopsticks" designed to guide the first stage right back onto the launch pad instead of a landing barge out at sea. The Starship has been ready for weeks. The Biden-Harris administration keeps finding new excuses for delays. 

Every flight of Starship has made tremendous progress and accomplished increasingly difficult test objectives, making the entire system more capable and more reliable. Our approach of putting flight hardware in the flight environment as often as possible maximizes the pace at which we can learn recursively and operationalize the system. This is the same approach that unlocked reuse on our Falcon fleet of rockets and made SpaceX the leading launch provider in the world today.

To do this and do it rapidly enough to meet commitments to national priorities like NASA’s Artemis program, Starships need to fly. The more we fly safely, the faster we learn; the faster we learn, the sooner we realize full and rapid rocket reuse. Unfortunately, we continue to be stuck in a reality where it takes longer to do the government paperwork to license a rocket launch than it does to design and build the actual hardware. This should never happen and directly threatens America’s position as the leader in space.

Green:

“Biden-Harris would have us lose the New Space Race — putting our entire national security at risk — in a fit of partisan pique against the man whose other company, X, had the temerity to restore free speech to just one social media platform.”

FWIW:

You can read the full statement from Starlink detailing the environmental safeguards, monitoring, and reporting requirements already being fulfilled by the company here. Biden’s handlers have mobilized the full force of the government, from the DOJ, the EPA, the SEC, and now, the FAA, to crush all things Musk. If they can do that a dissident as powerful as Musk, they can certainly do it to us small fry.