« Open Thread Realty Collective Buys Out Frank Manzione! »

October 30, 2009

Report: Foreclosures Hurting Prices in Bed-Stuy

Small multi-family buildings in lower-income neighborhoods of Brooklyn have been particularly hard hit by the housing crisis, according to a new report from TerraCrg Commercial Realty Group. As reported in The Real Deal, 80 percent of foreclosure filings in Brooklyn over the past year were for mortgages under $1 million and 51 percent of non-residential mortgages were for three- to four-unit residential buildings; the article also notes that "the majority of the foreclosures took place in lower-priced neighborhoods like Bed-Stuy and East New York." The result? "A bevy of three- to four-unit residential buildings in Bedford-Stuyvesant can be had for under $300,000." No big surprises here, though the headline tries to put a positive spin on the news: "Discounted Brooklyn brownstones coming to market, but not in prime neighborhoods."
Discounted Brooklyn Brownstones Coming to Market [TRD]

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/12078

Comments

DIBS, care to comment....

Posted by: randolph at October 30, 2009 9:30 AM

What about 1 & 2 family??? Speculation (read extended financially) usually does happen more often in investment property.

Someone please show us the listings where 3-4 family buildings can be had anywhere near Stuyvesant heights for "under $300,000" They don't exist and if they did a few of us on here would be at the doorstep with checkbooks.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 30, 2009 9:56 AM

the problem now is that rental income is not as easy as it was to get 2 years ago. I just had to give my tenant 18 percent off to stay and I suspect things will be like this for years. I would guess that many of the 3 family owners from this article had no wiggle room.

Posted by: bitter_bubble_buyer at October 30, 2009 10:02 AM

18%??? Would you care to describe the unit some more??

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 30, 2009 10:08 AM

"A bevy of three- to four-unit residential buildings in Bedford-Stuyvesant can be had for under $300,000, for example, according to Ofer Cohen (see full report below), the managing director at TerraCrg Commercial Realty Group.

"I've got a list of 10 of them right now," he said"

Give 'em a call http://www.terracrg.com/contact.html

Posted by: the chicken at October 30, 2009 10:08 AM

There aren't any on their website.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 30, 2009 10:12 AM

Maybe they're holding them back for their "special" clients?
Let me know if they do have them. I'll go halves with you.

Posted by: the chicken at October 30, 2009 10:16 AM

Even Massey Knackal has nothing below $500,000

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 30, 2009 10:26 AM

DIBS,
anything worth looking at in this lot?

http://bk.ly/TZ

Posted by: the chicken at October 30, 2009 10:32 AM

Dave the apt. is a floor thru in Fort Greene. Very typical 750 sft Brownstone floor thru

Posted by: bitter_bubble_buyer at October 30, 2009 10:37 AM

YES, chicken...the two houses on the 200 blocks of Chauncey and bainbridge.

They look very attractive. Devil in the details as to whether or not the tenants are paying rent.

BBB...my typical 750 sq ft floor thru garden level rents for $1,200. What is yours going for???

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 30, 2009 10:43 AM

1700

Posted by: bitter_bubble_buyer at October 30, 2009 10:50 AM

My neighborhood is chock full of 8 unit flats buildings. There are three right across the street from me, all very well kept up, with more on the block. I've always thought that if I wanted to invest in multi-unit properties these would be a good investment, assuming right building, and deep enough pockets to carry through vacancies, repairs, whatever. I think the article was correct - too many people bought without a financial plan or a cushion.

What the article and the thread doesn't speak of is what happens to the tenants? Those going about their business paying rent are in danger of either losing their homes, or suffering reduced services while the building is in limbo, or the owner bails. Those who see this as an opportunity to stop paying rent will contribute to the building's decline and everyone suffers. I hope this is looked at seriously and not just as a financial situation where bargain hunters can clean up.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at October 30, 2009 10:53 AM

I think I could have gotten $1,300 - 1,400 for mine when I first rented it in January 2008. I did not raise the rent in 2009 but I've seen things that are smaller on my street go for $1,100-1,300.

I have excellent tenants.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 30, 2009 10:55 AM

Yes, MM. If the tenants are problems these things will sit and sit and sit or only be sold at very deep discounts to what would normally be the needed yield.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 30, 2009 11:01 AM

A few weeks ago I saw a brownstone in BS that was at first listed around 600k, go for 475k. Buildings going for around 300k wouldn't shock me, particularly in certain parts of the neighborhood. Some streets are definitely less desirable due to: safety (actual or perceived), transportation and just general services.

Posted by: liexpat at October 30, 2009 11:50 AM

David, what did you pay for your brownstone in 2007 and how many square feet is it?

Posted by: stevieb at October 30, 2009 12:04 PM

$820k, 2,560 sq ft...all new roof, plumbing, wiring and all the architectural detail inside....basically all renovated & restored. Very private yard as it's got buildings on one side & the back with no windows plus the open side has southern exposure.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 30, 2009 12:13 PM

Wow, you got a great deal then. You paid $320/sq feet for a renovated and restored brownstone and with southern exposure. With 20% down, you are probably paying 5k a month for mortgage. If you are able to rent out two floors for $1,200 each of 2,400 in total, you are net paying only $2,400 a month to live in a duplex before tax deductions.

Posted by: stevieb at October 30, 2009 12:24 PM

My mortgage is $2600 including taxes (which are only $2,000 a year) because I put a lot more down. The basement unit I get $1,200 and they are gret tenants. I have the top two floors.

That said, I put another $100k into it to make a huge ensuite master bath and do over the second bath, add a deck and have the facade restored.

I only looked at about 12 houses. It was actually hard to find one with all the great details left inside. I'm on Stuyvesant about 4 blocks up from Fulton Park...it's very quiet over there and a great place to live.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 30, 2009 12:42 PM

how much do you think its worth today? Or better yet if you had to sell it what cuold you get for it? I am taking a bath on my investment property

Posted by: bitter_bubble_buyer at October 30, 2009 12:57 PM

This article is exactly what I have been saying on here for a year! There are really cheap houses available in the "subprime" areas.

But look -- you don't want to buy foreclosures for $200,000-$300,000. Go see one or two, and you'll figure out why.

They don't have plumbing, they don't have roofs.

Only people who can buy these are contractors or architects or people like Denton with a vision who want to completely gut a place and can either pay all cash or don't mind taking out a a203K loan.

What you want to do is find a nice house *before* it becomes a foreclosure, and pay $400,000 to $600,000 -- depending on size, number of units, rent in that particular area, etc.

Also, be smart about where you buy. Some of these areas are better than others (in terms of desirability, stability of rents, etc.)

Posted by: mopar at October 30, 2009 1:00 PM

BBB, investmt ppty? thought you lived there?

Posted by: more4less at October 30, 2009 1:02 PM

Bitter Bubble, where is your investment property and why are you taking a bath? Did rents go down and the monthly is now more than rents?

Posted by: mopar at October 30, 2009 1:02 PM

Check out this article about foreclosure auction in Detroit:

-----------------------------------------

http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/10/detroit_defines_a_bad_real_estate_market.php

You might wonder if there's an easy way to identify a really bad real estate market. Detroit can help. How about when you can't auction houses off with a starting bid of $500? Yep, that's pretty bad. We all know that things are truly awful in Detroit, but this answers the question: just how bad?

In a report that can really only be described as scary, Reuters says:

Despite a minimum bid of $500, less than a fifth of the Detroit land was sold after four days.
So that's not one or two properties not selling for $500. That's over 80%. Maybe this shouldn't be surprising, since back in January there was a report that the median home price in Detroit was $7,500. This might just indicate it's fallen a bit... further. Here's some more detail from the article:

Posted by: stevieb at October 30, 2009 1:15 PM

I have two places. The one I live in I am way up on and I purchased an investment property in Fort Greene in 2006. Given the current rental market I will be paying out of pocket to service the debt. I can afford to hold it but I am not sure I want to be paying the bank to manage there property for however long this downturn lasts.

Posted by: bitter_bubble_buyer at October 30, 2009 1:16 PM

BBB, when did you buy your property in fort greene and what did you pay for it?

Was it because you listened to the likes of 11217?

I was very close to buying a few years ago after listening to the perma bulls but thank God for the What; he advised me not to and saved me from financial ruin.

Posted by: stevieb at October 30, 2009 1:19 PM

Not sure what I'd get for it...probably close to $800k...with the deck and the facade done, maybe more.

I'm sure the condo I sold in Manhattan is worth a lot less than when I sold it.

Besides, the overall economics look like this:

Condo fees $6840 pa
Condo RE taxes $5200 pa
Mrtgage payment was $2,600 per month

Mortgage payment now $2600 per month including taxes

Income $14,400 pa

So I'm up 14,000 + 6840 + 5200 = $26,000 per year in reduced expenses + income

My gas bill is only about $1700 - 1900 per year

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 30, 2009 1:21 PM

Being a few hundred thousand under water in your primary residence is far from "financial ruin." It was your inappropriate use of terms like that yesterday that got us into the big battle!!!!

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 30, 2009 1:23 PM

Dave,
did not mean to start another argument with you. We were getting along just fine earlier with the nice conversation we were having. as you may or may not know, I dont have a lot of money and so if I bought a place a few years ago, I would have taken out a loan on 95% of the price of the house. I was looking into buying a place for 650k with a loan of $617,500. A mere 35k decline in the price of the place would have wiped out my equity completely.

Posted by: stevieb at October 30, 2009 1:29 PM

>>So I'm up 14,000 + 6840 + 5200 = $26,000 per year in reduced expenses + income

this was a great trade.

Posted by: stevieb at October 30, 2009 1:32 PM

What rate were they offering on your loan. I think the ability to lock in low rates certainly has a big effect on everything.

Any idea what that place or similar would sell for now???

Didn't mean to start a fight again but if it's your primary residence and you plan to stay there for more than 2-4 years, it shouldn't enter into the decision.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 30, 2009 1:32 PM

BBB, sorry to hear that.

What is the typical rent on a 750-sf floor-through these days, and what was it in 2006?

Good luck with the property.

Posted by: mopar at October 30, 2009 1:34 PM

It was a great trade for more than the financial reasons

1. I was tired of living in a large condo building
2. I really wanted more space especially outdoor space...I felt I earned it.
3. I was definitely getting bored and needed something to work on
4. I fell in love with the brownstones after a ride through Brooklyn one day. I had never been to Brooklyn all the years I lived in Manhattan since 1994 except once at night for a party.

The only real negative is that I'd still be walking to work (3 blocks) if i stayed in that condo!!!! Arrrgggghhhhhh

But the A is much better than the F and don't let any PSers tell you otherwise!!!!

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 30, 2009 1:35 PM

mopar..she's getting 1700...not sure if that's before or after the 18% cut....i get 1,200

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 30, 2009 1:37 PM

>>What rate were they offering on your loan. I think the ability to lock in low rates certainly has a big effect on everything.

They were going to offer a low introductory interest only rate of 6.25% for 2 years for my Alt-A loan. But the rate would have jumped up to 12.5% by the mid of this year.

I dont know where that place would sell today. It is in crown heights. My wild guess is at least 75k lower, or $575K

Posted by: stevieb at October 30, 2009 1:43 PM

>>I have two places. The one I live in I am way up on and I purchased an investment property in Fort Greene in 2006. Given the current rental market I will be paying out of pocket to service the debt. I can afford to hold it but I am not sure I want to be paying the bank to manage there property for however long this downturn lasts.

would it be fair to say that fort greene's real estate prices are below the level they reached in 2006, and possibly to 2005?

Posted by: stevieb at October 30, 2009 1:50 PM

Well, then maybe you ARE right, a rate of 12.5% can be financial ruin. I've traded about 20 houses over my llife ( a lot were spec rehabs, mostly in Chicago) and I think I've only used a 3 year ARM twice. THEY ARE TOO RISKY.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 30, 2009 1:51 PM

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 30, 2009 1:53 PM

yeah, i was not thinking that i would have ever needed to pay 12.5% because the prevailing thinking back then was that the price of the house would have appreciated sufficiently in 2 years to allow me to re-finance at a lower rate.

Posted by: stevieb at October 30, 2009 1:55 PM

BBB, i still want that freestanding 1830s frame on the corner of Adelphi & Lafayette. It's just TOO big of a renovation to manage, like a second job.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 30, 2009 1:56 PM

DIBS, has that place not sold yet? Why not see if they will entertain a lower offer?

Posted by: the chicken at October 30, 2009 2:10 PM

DIBs, that place is in contract a few days ago

Posted by: more4less at October 30, 2009 2:15 PM

>>DIBs, that place is in contract a few days ago

what price, does anyone know?

Posted by: stevieb at October 30, 2009 2:16 PM

It's too much work for me now, chicken

m4l, good to hear that. I hope they make it a real nice spectacular place. It deserves it.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 30, 2009 2:17 PM

"Discounted Brooklyn brownstones coming to market, but not in prime neighborhoods."

Wrong. Prime too.

What about the PRE-foreclosure numbers? I've been asking this for a while but no one seems to have a handle on it.

***Bill Thompson for Mayor (TUESDAY!!!)***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at October 30, 2009 2:24 PM

What about the PRE-foreclosure numbers? I've been asking this for a while but no one seems to have a handle on it.

***Bill Thompson for Mayor (TUESDAY!!!)***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at October 30, 2009 2:24 PM

One thing is for certain, those numbers will worsen if Thompson becomes mayor.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 30, 2009 2:28 PM

BHO, what happened to our bitter renters' gathering (read: the lower class get-together)? Can you round up Miss Muffett and antidope?

By the way, I am voting for our boy Bill thompson next tuesday and am working on my wife to vote our way as well.

**keeping my fingers crossed!!**

Posted by: stevieb at October 30, 2009 2:31 PM

Have your wife call me.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 30, 2009 2:35 PM

> One thing is for certain, those numbers will worsen if Thompson becomes mayor.

Whatevs. You just don't want to see Bloomie the Wall Street Fluffer voted out of office.

Posted by: DitmasSnark at October 30, 2009 2:35 PM

DS, you cannot tell me that you believe Thompson will do a better job than Bloomberg.

Get out of your brass framed shower stall and smell the coffee.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 30, 2009 2:38 PM

>>One thing is for certain, those numbers will worsen if Thompson becomes mayor.

YAY! let NYC burn!! this way, i can pick up a brownstone in bedstuy for 100k!

ALL BITTER RENTERS SHOULD VOTE FOR BILL THOMPSON!!!
The lower class shall rise again!

Posted by: stevieb at October 30, 2009 2:45 PM

Bloomie's time is up. I can't abide a person who treats this city like a banana republic. If he wanted a third term, he should have put that to a vote by the people, but he didn't.

Please, do you really believe the city will return to the "bad old days" if Thompson is elected?

Posted by: DitmasSnark at October 30, 2009 2:48 PM

I'll be bringing my shotguns in from the country house. They're both double barrell.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 30, 2009 2:48 PM

I'm not sure how bad it would get under Thompson. No, it won't be 1970s-1980s but he'll likely give in to everything and bust the budget.

He will not be as good as Bloomberg and I don't think you can argue that.

The term limits issue was decided in the courts. yes, he pressured everyone to vote to overturn them but that's politics. If you don't think there will be despicable politics with Thompson then you're living in a fantasy world.

Now...back to Bd Stuy real estate.

Mopar is right, anything under $500-600,000 comes with HUGE problems.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 30, 2009 2:53 PM

"One thing is for certain, those numbers will worsen if Thompson becomes mayor."

Bloomy too. No mayor can stop what's coming. Similarly, those numbers would have improved had Thompson ran and won the past two terms. It was said before, Bloomy rode the wave of Ponzi finance where RE only went up, up and away!

"BHO, what happened to our bitter renters' gathering..."

Change the title. We're not bitter anymore. The sellers and landlords are! Yeah my wife was on the fence too but I rescued her.

"If he wanted a third term, he should have put that to a vote by the people, but he didn't."

Welllllll, those same people better show up on Tuesday!

***Bill Thompson for Mayor (TUESDAY!!!)***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at October 30, 2009 3:05 PM

Similarly, those numbers would have improved had Thompson ran and won the past two terms.

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at October 30, 2009 3:05 PM

ROTFLMMFAO. YOU DON'T ACTUALL BELIEVE THAT DO YOU????????

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 30, 2009 3:09 PM

"Mopar is right, anything under $500-600,000 comes with HUGE problems."

I see it differently. Anything NOT considerably UNDER $500-600,000 in Bed Stuy comes with HUGE losses.

***Bill Thompson for Mayor (TUESDAY!!!)***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at October 30, 2009 3:09 PM

"YOU DON'T ACTUALL BELIEVE THAT DO YOU????????"

I do but no thanks to Thompson. It was the home price Ponzi Scheme.

***Bill Thompson for Mayor (TUESDAY!!!)***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at October 30, 2009 3:11 PM

>>I'll be bringing my shotguns in from the country house. They're both double barrell.

Dave, just messing with ya'. I am taking advantage of your weakened state to rile you up with some outrageous comments. LOL!

BHO, what do u do for a living? You sound very smart and educated. Are you an economist or something like that?

Posted by: stevieb at October 30, 2009 3:18 PM

Yeah, BHO, the rapid rise in home prices was all Bloomberg's fault. It didn't occur anywhere else in the country and he is fully to blame and it never would have happened with Thompson.

I've never seen anything posted here as ridiculous as that point of view.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 30, 2009 3:18 PM

BHO, what do u do for a living? You sound very smart and educated. Are you an economist or something like that?

Posted by: stevieb at October 30, 2009 3:18 PM

Stevie, I like your sense of humor.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 30, 2009 3:21 PM

>>Stevie, I like your sense of humor.

thanks Dave. am i allowed back into the OT? are u going to be nice to me?

Posted by: stevieb at October 30, 2009 3:34 PM

Stevie, I don't think anyone kicked you out of the OT. Unfortunately there are no guarantees of niceness over there. :)

Pop in and post some cat shit and everyone will like you.

I'll tell them you're coming. no homo

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 30, 2009 3:36 PM

> If you don't think there will be despicable politics with Thompson

True that, but I'm ready for a different flavor of despicable.

Your comments that Thompson will "give in to everything" are laughable. I love the absurd meme that Bloomberg is rich enough to not be beholden to anyone. It just means he panders to the rich instead of the working class.

Time for him to go.

Posted by: DitmasSnark at October 30, 2009 3:43 PM

What are some examples where he's pandered to the rich as an overall group of people. Sure, there are deals with rich people but that's because rich people have big companies that do business with the City.

But there's no evidence that he's done something for the benefit of all people with anet worth or income of XXX.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 30, 2009 3:47 PM

The RE tax rebates were $400 for every homeowner. They unjustifiably benefitted those in poorer nabes with much lower taxes.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 30, 2009 3:48 PM

hey dibs,

here's the final word on the class warfare stevieb et al like to dredge up for political expediency.

this info is culled from the last census:

*************************************
Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.
As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

Posted by: Legion at October 30, 2009 3:52 PM

> But there's no evidence that he's done something for the
> benefit of all people with a net worth or income of XXX.

Of course not. Crony capitalism is for cronies.

Posted by: DitmasSnark at October 30, 2009 4:00 PM

to be clear,
true poverty does exist in America, but not to the extent that some, particularly democrats and the left, would have you believe.

what you have most of the time is, in essence, people with alot in America, angry at people with even more in America.

The guy with the chevy is angry he doesn't have the benz.
The guy with the 2 bedroom house is angry he doesn't have the 4 bedroom house.
The guy with the color television is angry he doesn't have the 50 inch plasma tv.
and so on,

and by god they will vote themselves into it if they have to and they will continue taxing others until they get what they want.

unfortunately,
you can only tax people so much until there's nothing left to tax.

Posted by: Legion at October 30, 2009 4:08 PM

Whoa, Dave, don't get carried away. I said $400,000 to $600,000. Our place was in the 400s.

Luckily, it turns out to have fewer issues than we feared. We upgraded the electrical, put in a new boiler, and are refinishing the floors and painting.

Posted by: mopar at October 30, 2009 4:17 PM

"I've always thought that if I wanted to invest in multi-unit properties these would be a good investment, assuming right building, and deep enough pockets to carry through vacancies, repairs, whatever."

MM, 8 unit buildings are stabilized, no? Hard to make a case for a stabilized property as a good investment unless there are special circumstances.

Posted by: denton at October 30, 2009 4:22 PM

> you can only tax people so much until there's nothing left to tax.

I don't think we're in imminent danger of that. Taxes on the wealthiest in this country at the lowest they've been in decades.

Posted by: DitmasSnark at October 30, 2009 4:23 PM

Posted by: stevieb at October 30, 2009 1:55 PM

Yeah, that thinking (that nothing ever goes down) is the SINGLE biggest reason for the mess we are in now. And even Greenspan said it.

Posted by: denton at October 30, 2009 4:25 PM

> But there's no evidence that he's done something for the
> benefit of all people with a net worth or income of XXX.

Of course not. Crony capitalism is for cronies.

Posted by: DitmasSnark at October 30, 2009 4:00 PM

Yeah, and a Thompson administration certainly wold be "crony free."

COME ON DITMAS, YOU'RE SMARTER THAN THAT.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 30, 2009 4:28 PM

> Yeah, and a Thompson administration certainly wold be "crony free."

I'm not saying that.

I'm saying that Bloomberg is far from "not being beholden."

And mostly I'm just messing with you because it's Friday and I'm in a poking mood.

Posted by: DitmasSnark at October 30, 2009 4:35 PM

And mostly I'm just messing with you because it's Friday and I'm in a poking mood.

Posted by: DitmasSnark at October 30, 2009 4:35 PM

This is far from the first poking I've had this wee, here on Brownstoner or elsewhere.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 30, 2009 4:45 PM

Of that I have no doubt, dear DIBS, heh heh.

Posted by: DitmasSnark at October 30, 2009 4:47 PM

But agree you could find a two-family in MOVE-IN condition for $500,000 in a good area of Bed Stuy such as Halsey near Lewis or Throop. I know someone who did. And you can get a 30-year fixed with 3.5 percent down. Fantastic for first-time buyers.

Posted by: mopar at October 30, 2009 4:53 PM

« Open Thread Realty Collective Buys Out Frank Manzione! »

October 30, 2009

Report: Foreclosures Hurting Prices in Bed-Stuy

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions