208 Midwood Sells for $995,000

Yeah... it's still a HUGE price tag. Though most people on this site have lost touch with reality... and $1 million is just a downpayment it seems.

Honestly, at that price, I'd be surprised if they even bothered with a mortgage! It's barely more than walking around money... Probably will be a nice place for out-of-town guests if you have a bigger house down the street for yourself.

Posted by: tybur6 at April 15, 2009 10:34 AM

A single-car garage would make it a $1.8 million house I think...

Posted by: tybur6 at April 15, 2009 10:53 AM

Apart from the "good price" vs. "bad price" debate... can we all agree that folks paying $1 million or more for a small home are a bunch of idiots and the root cause of NYC's financial woes??

I think we can agree on that.

Posted by: tybur6 at April 15, 2009 11:48 AM

Well, I think there are actually a lot of people that would agree with that statement.

Paying $1 million for a little house is CRAZY and these unreal prices ARE the root of all (or at least a MAJOR symptom) of the other unrealistic problems with the city's finances. (more4less is spot on above)

Oh, and idisagree, let me know what crazy price you paid for your home and I'll happily adjust my statement to $10,000 higher.

Posted by: tybur6 at April 15, 2009 12:01 PM

My post was called sarcasm... obviously there are homes worth $1 million and ones worth $10 million. This one isn't an example of that.

I don't have "entitlement issues," just think it's sad the way the market has gone nutty pushing everyone out of the market who (1) didn't cash out on some absurd sale of their own, or (2) doesn't earn $400,000 or more.

Like I've said before, this isn't coming from the perspective of "oh, how sad am I that I can't buy a house." I'm not particularly sad about that... it's simply unsustainable. As the Mansion-Price Sprawl (just made that up!) takes over, no one within a 20-mile radius of Brooklyn Heights will be able to be "working class" or even "lower middle class". They won't be your neighbors.

It's just a horrible cyclical monster. Who's going to be the clerks in your beautiful boutiques? Well, they will either live over an hour away and have to be paid a premium to attract them... or you will have to pay them $125k so they can live nearby.... either way, your organic apple just went from $1.50 to $5 and your Dry Cleaner now charges $47.65 for a 2-piece suit.

The garbage men and street sweepers and police already come from darkest Queens and far flung NJ to keep you clean and protect you.... will they be able to continue to live there (only an hour from Park Slope?) -- probably not because the Mansion-Price Sprawl will continue... how do you attract and retain firemen and police officers with current wages? You don't. You either keep expanding the payroll budget exponentially or accept low-quality because the better workers are finding jobs in central NJ and L.I. where they live.

Hmmm... let's accept the $5 apple and $1000/mo dry cleaning bill... but since the property taxes don't actually track with the exponentially growing property "values" (e.g., $4,500 tax bill for a $3.5 million house).... how are the public services being paid for? that'll be an interesting conundrum to deal with.

Posted by: tybur6 at April 15, 2009 12:17 PM

(as a side note... I said "root cause or a major symptom," not the sole cause or a major effect. These are no synonymous phrases... and I'm not too concerned that you can't be bother to "engage on [sic] it."

Not being sure if the overinflated housing market is just a major symptom of general irrationality in the marketplace or actually the cause of the the general irrationality doesn't strike me as illogical... I just haven't taken the time to do a full regression analysis.)

Posted by: tybur6 at April 15, 2009 12:38 PM

11217... I DO realize that. This is my point. it's not that people can't afford to pay crazy prices for mediocrity... it's that the Mansion-Price Sprawl continues... *because* they are willing to may crazy prices for mediocrity. Midwood and Ditmas Park. Do you really think a family with a $100k income will be able to find a home there for much longer? (if they can know) The house I live in off of Cortelyou Road (renting an apartment) is appraised at $1 million!! It is a total piece of crap... but could probably sell for $900-$1.1 million easy. So then the low-6-figure salary families move to East New York and Bensonhurst. And the working class and lower middle class are "displaced" because that totally serviceable, though fairly crappy house in East Bushwick is now an "amazing find" for folks with 6-figure incomes.

It all just seems unhealthy on many levels.

idisagree... I *first* comment was a joke. and obviously you're a bit thick.

Posted by: tybur6 at April 15, 2009 1:02 PM

And DIBS, that original point was a joke/exaggeration/sarcasm... though, dinners for $19.95 would be great. As long as that's the price for 2.

Posted by: tybur6 at April 15, 2009 1:20 PM

"When you factor in the difference between those cities and New York, the prices here kinda make a bit more sense."

HAHAHA! That's a loaded statement.

Anyway, I would also agree that LA, Seattle, Portland, SF, DC and Boston certainly do have similarly crazy price tags. BUT, and this is a big BUT (heh heh), I think you might actually get what you pay for in those cities... i.e., not just the privilege of residing somewhere within the city limits.

What i mean by that is in those other cities, the quality of the home still has a relationship with the price tag. In NYC (brooklyn, manhattan, queens or wherever), there seems to be a sever disconnect and the ol' "location, location, location" seems to be the only driver.... and even that is amazingly stretched.

With very few exceptions, you probably have to work in Manhattan to have the income to afford a $1 million or higher home. (yes, there are exceptions) Looking at other public transportation cities (Boston, Portland, DC)... the "expensive" and "premium" neighborhoods just seem to be more stable (see SouthBrooklyn's comments above). To think that PLG is is now a highly desireable neighborhood demanding $1 - 1.5 million price tags in such a sort span of time... it's just crazy.

Posted by: tybur6 at April 15, 2009 1:32 PM

Bolder, you're a douche. Nowhere in my comments have I suggested that NYC cannot demand a "premium" for real estate in comparison to Cedar Grove, NJ. Obviously the demand curve is fine, it's the "elasticity" of the market that is of concern. i.e., gobs of cash for mediocrity... and the exponential growth and expansion of such.

Posted by: tybur6 at April 15, 2009 1:36 PM

Point taken Brooklynista. "Highly desirable" was probably a poor choice of words to describe what much of PLG has become... I was trying to underscore, perhaps ineffectively, what SouthBrooklyn said earlier (@ 12:57).

It's not so much the desirability, but rather than affordability. The desirable properties were still (relatively) affordable only a very few years ago. And even if the bubble burst brings prices down, PLG will never be (relatively) affordable -- and I don't mean move-in ready brownstones for $275k.... I mean accessible to folks not earning $400k with a $400k downpayment burning a hole in their pocket.

It can't be denied that many of the homes in PLG are very very nice, but...

Posted by: tybur6 at April 15, 2009 2:54 PM

Brooklynista, Since you bring up your appraisal value... I'm curious, the "value" of your home has increased a little less than 400%. Has you tax bill?

I'm not suggesting that you should be forced out of your home because of the market around you... My suggestion is that, you probably have a pretty reasonable tax bill because there are limits to how much it can increase annually... i.e., the market has well out-paced the tax increase.

If you were to sell and someone were to buy... both acts completely voluntary... I would suggest that it is ENORMOUSLY unfair and possibly immoral to *gift* this beautiful tax rate to the new owner. The new owner is, in effect, paying the taxes of a $1/2 million house when she paid a full million...

Would the absurd market be tempered... and would public services be enhanced... by real estate taxes actually tracking with market value (i.e., sale price)? Of course only at the time of sale/flip... i'm not suggesting forcing little old ladies out on their ass because their tax bill went from $1200 to $12,000.

Again, Brooklynista, I'm only using your $1mm assessment as an example... and don't wish to raise your taxes... I'm just find it a bit off putting when you see the annual tax bill included in a real estate listing as a *benefit*!! (e.g., $1.8 million... Annual Tax = $2200... because the tax rate was set when the property was worth only $180k 15 years ago)

You can price me out of the Brooklyn, but you should at least pay for it.... No?

Posted by: tybur6 at April 15, 2009 3:59 PM

$275 in 1987 is about $500 in 2007. Since this $275k house is now appraised at $1 million, the market prices in PLG has *doubled* !!??

While the properties weren't cheap by any stretch of the imagination in 1987... I don't understand why everyone thinks that a 200% increase is OK. The market takes care of everything.

But in all honesty, what would the prices in ANY neighborhood in Brooklyn look like if the tax bill was reassessed at FULL market rate upon sale?! Do you think those $200k north slope brownstones would still be selling at $3 million? Or would the radical increase in the tax bill have tempered the thirst a bit?

What's the point in the city spending money on neighborhood improvements if there are no real benefits to the city coffers? (except 6% a year or whatever the annual cap is). I think Brownstone Brooklyn should have to plant their own trees, maintain their own streets, and privatize the schools. it's only fair.

Posted by: tybur6 at April 15, 2009 4:36 PM

I'm soooo worked up, I'm ready to stab someone.

Posted by: tybur6 at April 15, 2009 5:24 PM

Brooklynista... that's awesome! Truly is. By the way, I hope you didn't think I was trying to make you feel guilty about your tax rate... certainly not! Your tax rate is based on what you bought, namely a $275k house that has appreciated and the tax rate has gone up probably faster than inflation, but not as fast as the market value -- that makes sense. You made this neighborhood and house your home.

Now... if you sold today for a cool million? Should the buyers get your tax rate?! My opinion, ABSOLUTELY NOT. They freely decided to pay a million bucks, they should have to pony up the taxes.... and not just the one-time "mansion tax." But, herrumph, they heavily monied individuals get the benefit of your rate based on 1980-something and don't add anything to the city's coffers even though they paid a price that is double the "original" price (adjusted for inflation).

As you can imagine, I'll probably return to this notion of tax reform in the future... given the city's fiscal condition, I don't think there's a choice to do something about it (and not just by metaphorically raping the new construction and "conversions" with the FULL market value tax assessments because it's the only time the annual cap doesn't apply.)

Again, Brooklynista, may you live long in your home! You're actually the type of owner that I like very very very much. You actually bought a property to *keep* -- not just a glorified rental situation where you are just planning on living there for a 2 to 5 years, and then plan on cashing in on a huge profit. (i.e., bubble makers.) Oh, by the way, I don't think you're crazy... you're the opposite of crazy... Now, the person that buys your house in 25 years for $9.8 million, they're the crazy ones!!!

Posted by: tybur6 at April 15, 2009 8:00 PM