There have been a number of very attractive and well priced new listings come on the market in the last month. I've selected a few favorites you may want to check out, ranging in price from $185,000 to $699,000. (In the listings that come up when you click the link, the house at left is MLS 24791 priced at $275,000.)
While the "New and Notables" includes new listings I've noticed, there are a number of other really great listings on the market. Right now, there's a nice selection of farmhouses and classic charmers, like 40's era capes, ranging in price from about $200,000 (for a smaller house on less than an acre) to $799,000 for a lovely 5 bedroom wrap porch farmhouse on 172 acres with a pond listed in the MLS, plus a few others that aren't MLS-listed. For the first time in years, I'm excited because there are a number of good houses in each price range from $200K to $800K to show buyers looking for something in the 'country classic' genre. It doesn't feel like too much inventory, though, although there is enough competition that sellers do need to be on their game to attract a buyer.
On the other hand, lakefront property continues to be very sparse, with very few new listings coming on the market. That's not so surprising, because lakefront listings tend to be more seasonal. I tend to find that with lakefront homes, whatever is going to listed in a given year is on the market by the end of September.
That Narrowsburg house is a honey. A lot depends on its location. If it is in a desirable area the house is a steal.
Posted by: bix | November 04, 2008 at 08:27 PM
No house is a sure-thing steal in sullivan county until the prices become more stable. If Sullivan County returns to the place where you get the most for your money among 2nd home destinations, than that's not a bad thing for the marketplace in general.
Posted by: mlk | November 05, 2008 at 05:57 AM
David,
MLS # 24394
Number of Acres: 1.56 Acres
Approx. Lot Size Front: 31ft
If the information is correct, and the lot is more or less regular, you can turn the property into a very, very, very, very long bowling alley (2000+ ft long).
Posted by: frdiay910 | November 05, 2008 at 03:10 PM
David,
MLS # 24394
Number of Acres: 1.56 Acres
Approx. Lot Size Front: 31ft
If the information is correct, and the lot is more or less regular, you can turn the property into a very, very, very, very long bowling alley (2000+ ft long).
=======
Rip Van Winkle loved to bowl in the Catzkills.
Ze Ripster
Posted by: ripster | November 05, 2008 at 07:30 PM
The Pond Eddy house looks great, but 15,694 in taxes? Yowch.
Posted by: Reg | November 05, 2008 at 07:43 PM
Could someone shed some light on why and how MLS No. 24743 with the following characteristics:
Listing Price: $569,000
Acres: 17.6
Approx Year Built 2005
Approx SqFt Above Grade 2000
Approx SqFt Below Grade 2000
Approx Total Square Feet2000 <-- shouldn't Total = Above Grade + Bellow Grade???
Approx Total Taxes 4234
and a property no more than 3 miles away, also in Barryville, also a Cape format, and also in 12719, with the following characteristics
List Price: less than 50% of MLS # 24743
Acres: less than 1/3 of MLS # 24743
Built in the same year (2005)
Approx SqFt Above Grade: 2400
The taxes on this property are 50% MORE than MLS # 24743 (around $6500).
So either MLS #24743's taxes need some major re-adjustment, or the other less expensive property is being taken to the cleaners. Either way, something is not right!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: friday910 | November 05, 2008 at 10:20 PM
As for MLS # 24818, also listed here
http://realestate.aol.com/resale-homes/255_Hollow_Rd-Pond_Eddy-NY-12770/mls-5285526/1.usvlsh-h_5285526
here
http://real-estate.nextag.com/propID_69934784/255-Hollow-Rd/Pond-Eddy/New-York/homes-html
and here
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/home-info/54276062_zpid
(for sure out of my price range) but the most interesting pieces of data are:
Sale Date: 02/11/2004
Sale Price: $375,000
Posted by: friday910 | November 05, 2008 at 10:57 PM
I for one really enjoy when David posts these links to houses on the market that he thinks are interesting for some reason. I remember a post of his a long time ago about a real estate blog in the NW that was sued and shut down because of the negative comments on the blog. I think that situation was a little different, because the blog was paying people to scope out properties. But, if this kind of negative discussion of the listings on the blog will prevent David from posting this kind of thing in the future, then I'd suggest that he make these types of posts with comments turned off.
These are folks who are trying to sell their houses, and the market will decide what the value is. If it creates this much stress for some readers, I don't know why they keep coming back to read it.
Posted by: Michael | November 06, 2008 at 07:19 AM
Look dude.
A house that sits on a cigarette lot which measures 31 feet in the front - no matter what kind of eye candy it has - is going to be suspect.
Back in the 60's, 70's and 80's, "developers" - i.e.; folks that had 50 acres and long road frontage sliced up their land to make these parcels. You see them throughout the county along with flag lots.
That house has 30 feet in the front, you might be able to hear your neighbors to the left and right snoring - and you begin to wonder where the septic and well might be with so little side yard.
Jeff Bridges
Nice site Dave. In from L.A.
Posted by: Jeff Bridges | November 06, 2008 at 07:42 AM
There are not really many good buys in SC. In time, some sellers may become desparate to sell but right now, it's "I don't need to sell". That will change. Be patient. Do not buy from sellers who bought in the 2002-2007 bubble....they can't afford to sell in today's market...those folks will need to wait 15-20 years for the next boom to get their money back. Look for older sellers who have owned for a long time....they tend to be realistic.
Chris
Posted by: Chris | November 06, 2008 at 08:40 AM
Michael,
I'm assuming you are referring to my posts.
Do you think listing quantitative, factual, public, knowledge/information relevant in deciding the "value" of a property is considered "negative discussion", or do you subscribe to the "ignorance is bliss" doctrine? More than that, do you think it is the responsibility of an agent to disclose as much as possible information about a property?
Nothing personal against David, but if David considers (1) a bowling alley, (2) property with questionable taxes, (3) and a property where the owners try to make a 50% profit in 4.5 years in today's market, "a few favorites" out of "a number of very attractive and well priced new listings" in SC, than I guess the question "...why they keep coming back to read it" is starting to make a lot of sense.
Posted by: frdiay910 | November 06, 2008 at 08:42 AM
friday910, sometimes new listings come through that catch my attention. I don't do a full due diligence on them, looking at what they sold for in the past, what renovations the owner may have done, etc. etc. I should probably have written "attractive OR well priced listings" instead of "AND". Also, the property with 31 feet frontage is not a "bowling alley lot". There is 31 feet of frontage and then the lot pies out from the road.
Also, the 2004 sale you found for MLS 24818 for $275,000 was an "in family" sale, not an arms-length open market sale. The house was purchased by someone with the same last name as the current owners in 2000 for the same $375,000, so this was definitely some type of in-family transfer. I would agree, however, that the taxes will present a significant sales challenge.
It can misleading, at times, to pull summary data from Zillow or another source without knowing the property history. That's why I spend, for example, over a thousand a year to subcribe to Realquest, a property information database that gives me much more complete info on a property history than available through consumer or public sites.
Regarding the other cape on the market in 12743 (at $259K) on 5 acres and the log home at $569K on 17 acres, its not an apples-to-apples comparison. The cape is more suburban-style with vinyl siding, and has a different market appeal than the log home. The log home is also new to market, and may not have yet reached its "price to sell" point, while the cape has now been on the market for a couple of years.
And on the issue of how square footage adds up, well, welcome to my world. Lots of listings just don't have accurate information, particularly on square footage and taxes.
Posted by: David Knudsen | November 06, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Hi David,
I am not questioning the price of 24743. I am questioning the accuracy of the taxes of 24743, as it compares to a property within 3 miles also in 12719 (and not 12743) which is 1/2 the price of 24743, 1/3 lot size of 24743, same year built as 24743, 2400 square feet (20% more), and taxes are $6500 (50% more). Do you think that is accurate?
Regarding property history, maybe for agents it is a matter of paying the right amount and obtaining correct information. Speaking as a buyer it always feels like pulling teeth to just get the recent and accurate history, and then many times the data obtained from agents becomes suspect the moment you do a little research and find out that numbers like "Days on the market" don't seem to add up.
Posted by: friday910 | November 06, 2008 at 12:52 PM
friday910, I just checked the taxes on both, and on 24743, they're actually a little low in the listing because there's a STAR exemption. WIthout SSTAR. they're $4799. But there is a substantial difference in the assessments between those houses. This is a great example of why folks needs to be paying attention to the assessments on their houses.
Regarding your second point, it doesn't sound like you've been using a buyer's agent.
Posted by: David Knudsen | November 06, 2008 at 01:15 PM
Also, providing "Days on Market" is not necessarily in the seller's best interest to give to a buyer. The Sullivan County Multiple Listing Service has a policy regarding IDX, Internet Data Exchange, which is how other brokers' MLS listings are displayed on listing search engines on other broker and agent websites. The Sullivan MLS IDX Policy prohibits some fields from being publicly displayed in a consumer search. One of those fields is "Days on Market" (along with property address, owner name and a handful of others.) It is also not a field displayed on Realtor.com. A seller's agent providing DOM information is a pretty controversial topic in the real estate community.
Also, if a listing has been moved from one broker to another, or relisted by the same broker, the "DOM" calculation on the listing will not be accurate. An agent can do a property history search, but it isn't always accurate, because it pulls by an exact match on the property address. So if the address isn't a perfect match, even using "Rd" in the street name versus a previous listing with "Road", the history won't come up.
Posted by: David Knudsen | November 06, 2008 at 01:34 PM
The Man Who Saw It Coming: Meet Dr. Doom ABCNEWS
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=6192714&page=1
Posted by: Dr Doom | November 06, 2008 at 01:57 PM
David
The taxes on mls 24134 (the example I've been using) are around $6400
The taxes on mls 24743 (without SSTAR) are $4800
Asking Price Built Zip Approx. SF Lot Size Taxes
24134 $259K 2005 12719 2400 5 Acres $6400
24743 $569K 2005 12719 2000 17.6 Acres $4800
The properties are less than 3 miles apart.
Are you sure that the taxes are correct?
Posted by: friday910 | November 06, 2008 at 02:35 PM
Friday910 - good eye concerning the inequities of the tax assessments on these properties - one of the reasons we successfully fought to have the assessor removed from the Town of Highland. Outlandish inequities and illogical methods produced some very strange assessments over the past few years - and now that she is gone, we expect a more uniform and fair approach to property taxes.
Posted by: ross | November 06, 2008 at 05:22 PM
Aw, lay off David. These were interesting listings, and would be even if all were crap. Obviously a buyer has to travel out and see the properties.
Really like that Narrowsburg listing. At that price, I'm willing to wager that there is something wrong with it. Maybe bad location (such as the unattractive low-lying area on the river).
Posted by: bix | November 07, 2008 at 09:16 AM
Ohh well..... so much for the Concord!
http://sc-democrat.com/news/11November/07/concord.htm
Posted by: Catskills Ghost | November 07, 2008 at 12:52 PM
The Blue Vic in Jeffersonville is now at 129.5k - down from 300k+.
It says: "DEAL of the CENTURY!".
Dave...how LOW can it GO?
Ah, remember 2005? TV Show about makeovers, The Media Blitz, NY Times Weekender. It seems so long ago...
Proust
Posted by: Proust | November 08, 2008 at 07:32 AM
Proust, I have no idea where it might sell at. The issue with finding buyers for commercial property is that you have to either find a buyer who has a use for the property, or an investor who looks at it purely from a cash flow standpoint — and there are existing or propective tenants who can generate that cash flow.
Posted by: David Knudsen | November 08, 2008 at 04:07 PM
Rgdave: whatever the policy of the MLS may be, it is imperative for a buyer to know how long a property is on the list. That is essential information that the buyer will find out eventually, so it is a bit foolish to conceal it. Even if the property was relisted etc., there are simple ways to find out (such as by asking neighbors).
Proust: what's that about the Old Vic? Please elaborate, as I am not sure what you mean.
Posted by: bix | November 09, 2008 at 11:24 AM
Bix -- The Blue Victorian in Jeffersonville was an icon of the "new" Sullivan County as second-home venue, a symbol of the county's supposed achievement of parity with Hudson Valley destinations. Same with a now defunct restaurant in Jeff touted by the same Greenwich Village real estate broker who peddled this "new" Sullivan vision supposedly "hip" Manhattan buyers the way Florida swampland was marketed to Northerners in the 1920s. Now, and for at least a year, the Blue Vic pleads for a buyer, dropping its price monthly, as does the buildeing housing that restaurant, and both stand as embarrassing reminders that the premise behind the boom was an illusion: Stuff got built, but too few came.
Posted by: andy | November 09, 2008 at 11:45 AM
MLS# Asking Price Built Zip Approx. SF Lot Size Taxes
24134 $259K 2005 12719 2400 5 Acres $6400
24743 $569K 2005 12719 2000 17.6 Acres $4800
The properties are less than 3 miles apart.
Is there a reason for such huge discrepancy in taxes?
Posted by: Friday910 | November 09, 2008 at 01:59 PM
While nothing Andy surmises is untrue, Sullivan County as a whole is a dramatically different place than it was pre-2001. It overshot on its real estate prices, but when they find their new fundamental value, it will be much higher than it was in pre-2003, even if it's a lot lower than last year's peak.
There are plenty of business started over the past 4 years that still exist and prosper. The Blue Victorian is a victim of an owner who wanted to 'move on' - although watching it fall from the mid $300's over a yr ago to the mid $100's has been surprising It's hard to argue that the building is not worth more than the asking price at this point.
In contrast, the old Kitchen/Stella's building across the street is still listed in the high $300's.
Posted by: ross | November 09, 2008 at 02:13 PM
ross, I would agree. Sullivan County is much different than 6 or 7 years ago. While The Kitchen/Stella's didn't make it, and the building just sits there empty, there have been lots of other restaurant openings. We now have "Restaurant Row" on Kauneonga Lake (who wudda thunk?), the Lazy Beagle in Livingston Manor, Buffalo Zach's in Roscoe, Matthew's in Callicoon, Restaurant 15 Main and Main Street Cafe in Narrowsburg and the Carriage House in Barryville. Some things just never came to pass, like the much-touted revamp of downtown Liberty or the revitalization of Broadway in Monticello, and we're still waiting for retail at "The Corner" in White Lake. But other things did. For heaven's sake, we have Bethel Woods now.
Posted by: David Knudsen | November 09, 2008 at 04:28 PM
The Kitchen had a strange menu, mediocre food and bad service. Jeff already had a few very good restaurants, so it doesn't seem possible the Kitchen would have survived.
I thought the Blue Vic was pricey-I always went there but never bought anything. They could have used a better product mix, maybe even new items, to better their cash flow.
I always thought these two places were strictly at variance with the local population; the Blue Vic seemed like a hobby business for someone. I can't believe they were trying to turn a profit given the inventory and prices.
Many shops in the Hamptons which depend on summer tourists close down in the winter and open the 'winter shop' in Palm Springs.
Any new biz in SC will have to balance their touristy higher priced items with regular everyday items that winter locals would need, and they will thrive.
Has anyone ever noticed that there are no clothing stores in Jeffersonville? Does everything come from a catalog up there?
Posted by: Mary Ellen | November 13, 2008 at 10:48 AM