I personally think that a bid of $540k is too high, but I am not particularly stunned given that the top bid on the Brownstoner widget was over $500k, and that was out of 29 submissions. Not sure how many people constitutes a "big turnout" but if there were more people at the auction, it is not surprising that one of those individuals would have submitted a bid that was even higher than the average expectation. I guess that's what makes a market...

Posted by: bkhabitant at November 13, 2009 9:12 AM in response to Big Turnout for 437 Waverly Auction

I don't agree that the fact that properties sell for a higher price than the average widget price indicates that widget users are undervaluing house/co-op/condo prices. In the real world, if the seller had to accept the average offer s/he received, then it would be an apples-to-apples comparison to look at the average widget price relative to the sales price. But the seller only has to accept the highest bid (by definition an outlying bid from the average offer s/he receives), so it makes sense that the average widget bid is below the sales price. Now, if the highest estimate on the widget was lower than the price the property actually sold for, then brownstoner would have underpriced the property.

Posted by: bkhabitant at October 23, 2009 10:46 AM in response to 20 Clifton Place Sells, Kicks Widget's Ass

Seems you can't see "Atlantic Yards" in a sentence without seeing the word "loophole" before the next sentence begins!!

Posted by: bkhabitant at August 26, 2009 9:59 AM in response to The Carlton Avenue Bridge: Closed Through 2011

Love the comments deriding the judges in NYC Housing Court for doing their job - enforcing the law. The decisions may not be landlord friendly but anyone who has a problem with the decisions they render in favor of tenants has a problem with the lawmakers not the judges.

Posted by: bkhabitant at August 17, 2009 2:14 PM in response to Tenant's Deposit

Mixicon, are you planning to convert each level into a one family home? If not, would assume you could move into one of the higher floors and wait out the lease?

As has been commented on in other forum posts, an eviction process for a rent stabilized tenant is a long and tedious process and with good reason - ultimately, the tenant would need more than moving fees to be made whole as they will likely have to pay higher rent going forward upon moving.

I assume you're focused on the garden because you want access to the backyard? If not, any reason, you need to move into the garden apartment? Just seems like you're asking for a lot of headache when you could more easily move onto other floors.

Posted by: bkhabitant at August 13, 2009 4:55 PM in response to Eviction for Owner Occupancy

Every night when I walk home from work, the place is packed. Good number of tv's to watch the baseball games as well.

Posted by: bkhabitant at August 6, 2009 2:07 PM in response to StreetLevel: WingBar Takes Off on Smith

MacD, no argument from me anymore. You're right - enough said based on your second post.

Posted by: bkhabitant at August 6, 2009 10:07 AM in response to Brooklyn Monthly Foreclosures

MacD, not so sure I see what in that comment would imply that the lender was not "above board". The company failed, but nothing in the comment implies they defrauded anybody or did anything else unethical. When a company fails, there is always collateral damage and some people who relied on this company for loans will have to get them elsewhere - that doesn't imply anything untoward by the company.

Posted by: bkhabitant at August 6, 2009 9:38 AM in response to Brooklyn Monthly Foreclosures

I agree with Pete - if you're going to do it (and you need to do it), use a very neutral color.

However, my overriding thought is that there is a reason they make tiles in different colors...

Posted by: bkhabitant at July 29, 2009 4:25 PM in response to Painting Tile

Dave, you can claim that the stock market's moves over the past few months were an over-reaction. I would agree - we saw 6,600 on the Dow only because of panic selling. Let's be honest though - the stock market and housing pricing we saw for the past few years was equally irrational - the result of loose monetary policy and over-leveraging. The stock market (reasonably in my opinion) is pricing in 2003 levels, but housing has not had a similar correction from its irrational highs, if we are going to use the stock market as a metric for the housing market. I never believed that we were headed for a great depression but an unprecedented correction had to be expected after an unprecedented and unrealistic boom in all assets over the past five years.

I tend to discount the stock market for exactly the reason you mention - it is too volatile and does not accurately reflect fundamentals. Here is the fundamental issue for housing - unemployment continues to rise. Until that ceases, housing is only going one way. Confidence is rebuilding, I agree, but that does nothing to replace the thousands of high paying wall street jobs that were lost and aren't coming back.

Posted by: bkhabitant at July 1, 2009 9:59 AM in response to Case-Shiller: Beware the Head Fake

The stock market is up significantly over the last three months but off of 1998 levels. We are still off 40% from the peak and the market (Dow, Nasdaq and S&P are at 2003 levels currently). Housing prices are still above 2003 levels, and if housing is indeed a lagging indicator, this would suggest there is more room to the downside.

Additionally, one other big factor in driving demand for housing is employment, and the unemployment rate is well above where it was in the last downturn (and still moving higher I might add).

I am not one who thinks real estate pricing will return to mid-1990s levels as some have argued, but if we are going to use the stock market as an indicator of housing strength, then housing is only moving one way from here.

Posted by: bkhabitant at July 1, 2009 9:42 AM in response to Case-Shiller: Beware the Head Fake

Let's at least stop with this foolish claim that everyone who is opposed to AY is a NIMBY (or NIMBYer or whatever we have decided to call them).

I don't live anywhere near AY and whether it is constructed or not will not impact my neighborhood, but there are plenty of people including myself who don't live in the area but still think that if a developer is going to get a cut rate deal to develop a piece of property owned by a city or state agency, he or she should deliver on the promises they made to get the sweetheart deal in the first place. In this case, that includes delivering on affordable housing. If the project is not going to deliver on its promises, then clearly the city or the MTA should be receiving some piece of the profits as compensation.

Posted by: bkhabitant at June 30, 2009 2:47 PM in response to Court of Appeals Will Hear AY Eminent Domain Case

Adam, I think you are talking your book to a certain extent. Adam, no doubt people will be coming in to refi/buy houses in larger numbers if the Fed comes in and buys Treasuries, pushing rates down again. The problem with that decision is that it crushes the dollar, which in truth really isn't good for anyone except those who overextended themselves and used all of their savings to buy a house that was at or above their means. What we need is the true correction back to real pricing where homes cost three to four times annual salaries and people reduce their debt to historical levels.

I do agree with you that the market is getting ahead of itself, but what we need is to reverse the absurd leveraging that occurred for the last decade.

Posted by: bkhabitant at June 5, 2009 1:49 PM in response to Conforming Loan Question

mopar, this is the debate I am having and I raised it earlier this week in the Biggest Weekly Sales thread. Interest rates have pushed up 90bps in the past five weeks. In order for affordability to remain the same, prices would need to come down to reflect this... unless the rise in interest rates is a reflection of increased expectations for inflation in which case people should be willing to pay more today because they expect they will be paying even more in a year or two. I can't figure out if the rise interest rates is a reflection of rising inflation expectations or signs that Treasury buyers are losing confidence in our government's fiscal discipline, which would be a negative sign for economic growth and housing prices. Next week's Treasury auctions should help answer that question.

Posted by: bkhabitant at June 5, 2009 10:21 AM in response to Conforming Loan Question

i disagree hit the nail on the head - Garden Cafe was not cheap but the food was always well cooked and tasty and it was always consistent. It will be sorely missed as there is not a restaurant in Brooklyn (or Manhattan for that matter) that provides that kind of quality cooking for the (reasonable, though not cheap) price.

Posted by: bkhabitant at June 3, 2009 9:59 PM in response to Brooklyn Food & Drink Round-Up

M4L, I think that is a reasonable strategy - when asked how he made so much money, a famous investor once said (blankign on who right now), "I bought a little too late and sold a little too early." It is a reasonable strategy to let the market tell you when the bottom has been achieved. My post was not in relation to yours by the way.

Posted by: bkhabitant at June 2, 2009 2:04 PM in response to Last Week's Biggest Sales

Etson, we're on the same page. That has been my strategy as well - oil, gold, short-Treasury ETFs. I am with you.

Posted by: bkhabitant at June 2, 2009 2:02 PM in response to Last Week's Biggest Sales

Not trying to start a bear vs bull discussion here (in fact, I will be kicking myself if the result is 50 posts of back and forth - the bottom is here... no, its not here, we still have forever to fall).

If the housing starts are up, it is likely a combination of two things - the low interest rates this spring and the fact that prices have come down somewhat.

So, what happens when the government prints all this money, puts it in circulation and we get inflation but also higher interest rates. The inflation presumably should help home prices, but higher interest rates hurt home prices.

Anyone remember the environment in the 1970s and early 80s? Which won out - inflation or high interest rates?

As someone on the sidelines today, my gut tells me to take advantage of low interest rates and the specter of inflation today, but if the result will be 10-20% interest rates in five years, that jump in rates could wipe out any equity built up as people will have to discount high borrowing costs.

Any thoughts?

Posted by: bkhabitant at June 2, 2009 1:31 PM in response to Last Week's Biggest Sales

BrooklynGreene, got nervous when I saw your post. Just tried the phone and found its been disconnected. Not a good sign...

Posted by: bkhabitant at June 1, 2009 2:47 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 279 Sterling Place Studio

TD, thanks. Thought it was 46x4 but the numbers were small on my screen.

Even at 6 to 8 feet though, pretty narrow for two bedrooms, unless one is willing to climb over one bed to get to the second bedroom.

Posted by: bkhabitant at June 1, 2009 2:11 PM in response to House of the Day: 130 South Oxford Street

Oh, and if one is going to mention good food and Vanderbilt, need to state the obvious and cite a fine dining institution - Garden Cafe. Not the cheapest place in the world but I think the food there rivals any place in Manhattan or Brooklyn. I love Soda as well 11217. Have you been buy the new place on Washington with the outdoor space? (Washington Commons I believe). Wanted to stop by but haven't had the chance yet.

Posted by: bkhabitant at June 1, 2009 2:04 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 279 Sterling Place Studio

In all seriousness, I really like the look of this house and someone should say congrats to the owner as well - he did a very nice job with the website.

Posted by: bkhabitant at June 1, 2009 1:44 PM in response to House of the Day: 130 South Oxford Street

You all need to stop complaining - 12.5 feet is the new 25 foot. In fact it's really a triple wide!! Just a bit to the northwest, they're suggesting you can make two bedrooms out of a 45x4 space. No joke!!

http://corcoran.com/property/listing.aspx?Region=NYC&ListingID=1562358

Posted by: bkhabitant at June 1, 2009 1:41 PM in response to House of the Day: 130 South Oxford Street

Beautiful building in a great location. Wish a one or two bedroom would come on the market here. Completely agree with you 11217 - for my money, the best commercial strip in the borough or at least one of them.

Posted by: bkhabitant at June 1, 2009 1:16 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 279 Sterling Place Studio

"But why do the Clinton Hill merchants fail to grasp the benefits of organizing to improve the safety and aesthetic levels of where they do business when their peers both to the east in Bed Stuy and the west in Fort Greene are overwhelmingly on board with the program?"

They all read "The Hunt" in the New York Times and see the future.

Posted by: bkhabitant at June 1, 2009 10:45 AM in response to Fulton BID Opponents Threaten Not to Pay

The What is right - someday the war is going to end... and someday Corcoran will stop insulting our intelligence. Pretty soon there won't be anything left of Crown Heights the way they are expanding PH.

Posted by: bkhabitant at May 29, 2009 1:02 PM in response to Open House Picks

House prices in New York up 73% since 2000? Not too hard to link that to the exorbitant pay scale on Wall Street during this decade. Wall Street isn't returning to that irrational pay scale anytime soon, and New York housing prices therefore must return to rational pricing as well.

Posted by: bkhabitant at May 27, 2009 9:44 AM in response to Case-Shiller: Record Drops in NY and Nationwide

Suburbandude, I am not voicing support for rent stabilization. I do support a safety net for those at the bottom financially but I agree that this safety net has been abused to the point that it needs to be reformed. But Maly is exactly right - to reform the system in the way suggested is a one time windfall for the people who bought the buildings at a cheaper price because of restrictions and would then enjoy better cash flow with the restrictions removed. And that's just not right.

Posted by: bkhabitant at May 19, 2009 10:19 AM in response to Rent Board Chief on Shifting Onus from Landlords

etson, could not agree with you more. I also am not in favor of rent stabilization, but the people who bought these buildings knew the rules going in (and also enjoyed the discounted price on the building). Its all about cash flow - the reason the building these landlords bought was cheaper than comparable free market buildings when they made the purchase is because the expected future cash flows are lower due to rent stabilization. Now, the landlords want the cheaper initial capital outlay but don't want the reduced rent income that goes along with rent stabilization. Sounds like wanting your cake and eating it to. It is the owners of the buildings that should incur the cost of subsidizing the tenants since they benefited from lower purchase prices at the outset.

Posted by: bkhabitant at May 19, 2009 9:48 AM in response to Rent Board Chief on Shifting Onus from Landlords

I guess it depends how one would define middle class - income (i.e., pure numbers) or lifestyle. From an income perspective, Rob is certainly correct - a $200k or $250k income is well above the median. But with houses in the city going for $1 million minimum, and with the general, traditional bank guideline that annual mortgage, insurance and property taxes should be no more than a third of your income, $200k isn't going to get you that middle class lifestyle people enjoy in other parts of the country.

Posted by: bkhabitant at May 14, 2009 9:55 AM in response to Can Ditmas Park Save The Middle Class?

I thought I saw a post about this building a while back but then I realized that was a post about 475 Sterling - another over-priced, over-windowed development catering to the crowd that until now couldn't afford Manhattan's astronomical prices. And I could have sworn there was a blog about this building yesterday - oh wait, that was 53 Lincoln in Park Slope. With all of these over-priced, over-windowed new developments rising from the ground and sticking out like a sore thumb, its hard to keep them all straight. No wonder these buildings aren't selling - prices at $800/square foot for ugliness and buyers have so many to choose from in Prospect Heights/Park Slope (don't even get me started on 500 4th Ave). A lot of pain coming for these developers!! By the way, anyone notice a post yesterday citing a sale in 20 Pine in the Financial District (similar new development for $600/square foot)? Manhattan new developments now more affordable than Brooklyn!!

Posted by: bkhabitant at May 13, 2009 11:53 AM in response to Checking In On 904 Pacific Street

saminthehood, amen.

Posted by: bkhabitant at May 12, 2009 11:19 AM in response to 53 Lincoln Condos Hit the Market

Despite the "trend" reported by the NY Times that people are returning to Manhattan to take advantage of falling prices there (rentals first and presumably the trend will eventually hit sales as well), the target market the developers of these new condos must be targeting are people who wanted a condo loft in Soho but can't afford that type of real estate. This is the only reason I can come with that a) developers continue to churn out these ugly over-windowed condos that stick out like a sore thumb in what was until their arrival beautiful blocks and b) think that they can charge jut below Manhattan type prices per square foot for these Soho-like condos. As the person who wanted but was until now unable to afford the Manhattan condo on the island begins to realize that prices are dropping there, they won't want the Manhattan-type condo in Park Slope. Pity the developers then because no one who moved to PS for the charm of the neighborhood is going to want to move into these apartments (certainly not at these prices anyway).

Posted by: bkhabitant at May 12, 2009 11:15 AM in response to 53 Lincoln Condos Hit the Market

BH76, you're exactly right - you have to factor in outrageously high heating and cooling bills once you actually come up with the dough to pay off the big mortgage in that building - hope it doesn't have electric heat!! Same story at the Plaza (to my mind, OPP is Brooklyn's equivalent) - a lot of celeb/rich buyers who don't live there. Must be creepy for the few who call this their full time residence. Location can't b beat though!!

Posted by: bkhabitant at May 1, 2009 12:02 PM in response to On Prospect Park: Is Anybody Home?

I agree SnarkSlope - by far the best looking building on this particular block. I am still put off by these modern looking new developments in this area though. My personal opinion of course - I know a lot of people value the light.

Posted by: bkhabitant at April 28, 2009 1:03 PM in response to Price Cuts at 475 Sterling Place

Just to be clear, did not mean this as an indictment of this building specifically, but I have seen a number of developments go up in this area that certainly stick out relative to the other buildings on the block. Wish developers would focus again on aesthetics from the outside.

Posted by: bkhabitant at April 28, 2009 10:58 AM in response to Price Cuts at 475 Sterling Place

Anyone else think the idea of a modern look with floor to ceiling windows on a block with nice historic-looking buildings is absurb? Whatever happened to designing buildings so they fit in with the neighborhood?

Posted by: bkhabitant at April 28, 2009 10:51 AM in response to Price Cuts at 475 Sterling Place

Sam, the former limit for a conforming loan (i.e., a loan that can be purchased by the government sponsored entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) was $417k. It remains to this day $417k throughout most of the country but in certain, higher priced areas (mainly on the coasts) the limit was raised to $729,750 I believe around a year ago when the government started to take over these entities (though I could be wrong on timing). Don't know how they came up with that $729k figure, agreed its an odd number, but then I never could figure out why it used to be $417k either.

Posted by: bkhabitant at April 9, 2009 10:07 AM in response to Manhattan Housing Prices Take a Dive

Sam, I agree with you about your comment that many rc and rr tenants live rent free but to imply that they are squatters implies that they are violating property laws and laws governing ownership, which I do not think is fair to the tenants since they act well within their rights. Your second point is spot on though - potential buyers in these situations need to do their homework given the complexity of these laws. My only point is that the laws are on the books when people choose to buy property in these situations (often at a reduced price relative to a comparable unregulated property. To then complain about the situation and presence of legal residents is a bit disingenuous in my view.

Posted by: bkhabitant at April 8, 2009 11:16 AM in response to Buying a Rent-Stabilized Bldg

IronBalls, I can appreciate your steadfast commitment to ideology, but your suggested link between rent stabilization and the Communist Manifesto is absurd, and the idea that rent stabilized tenants are squatters is laughable (after all, they are living under a legal lease contract and paying the rent stipulated in that lease). If a property owner purchased a building before rent stabilization rules went into place, I have some sympathy for the fact that the rules of the game were changed on them, but given how long rent stabilization laws have been on the books, I doubt that applies to very many people on this board. I can sympathize with your opinion that the law tilts the benefits to renters vs landlords in these cases, but the law is also tilted towards property owners in many cases as well - for example, any homeowner who wants a truly equal playing field with renters can stop deducting mortgage interest on their tax returns since renters are not allowed to deduct the percentage of their rent that is going towards paying the landlord's interest payment.

Posted by: bkhabitant at April 8, 2009 10:49 AM in response to Buying a Rent-Stabilized Bldg