I got an email this morning from a well meaning associate about a draconian tax on real estate transactions supposedly due to start in 2013, and of course the editorial message of the email decries President Obama, Speaker of the House Pelosi, Harry Reid,and the rest of the Democratic leadership. The email has an image of a newspaper story from a paper I never heard of (The Spokesman-Review of Spokane, Washington) which must be included, I guess, for legitimacy.  No liberal am I, but if we are going to decry any politician on the right or left, I think it should be for something that is true. 

Here is the link to the Snopes.com entry on the email, which specifies that there will be no 3.8% tax on real estate transactions in 2013 or any other year for that matter. A federal tax on transactions in this age of short sales and negative equity would result in the storming of the Bastille and is antithetical to anyone who wants to remain in office. You just can’t do it. Guess what? They aren’t. 

Currently, New York state has one of the absolute highest transfer taxes in the nation: .04%, or $1,600 on a $400,000 sale. Yes: less than half of 1%. For the federal government to impose a tax that is on a scale of a real estate commission it would mean they are increasing the New York transfer tax by almost tenfold. Absurd, and untrue.

Snopes indicates that a tax is proposed on high earners on investment income over extremely high thresholds, I wouldn’t be in favor of that tax either, but if you are selling your $250,000 home in Pflugerville or Shamokin, you will not have to pay Uncle Sam an additional $9,200. 

Update: The National Association of REALTORS has published clarification on why the myth is misinformation. 

I still love helping buyers. I don’t do it as much as I used to because I am running the company and most buyer requests are given to my very good team of agents who give great service. Our buyers get their own Listingbook account for MLS home searches, automatic email updates when a home that fits their criteria hits the market, and of course many of my buyers look on other websites also.  

There is one thing that perplexes me about some buyers that I haven’t been able to quite figure out. In speaking with colleagues I am not alone in this. I am not sure if they do this exactly on purpose or not, but it seems like they do: While searching for a home online, they find a home of interest. So far so good. Then, they must immediately turn their computers off without writing anything down or bookmarking the property and call me with sparse information on the house they just saw, and I have to triangulate the sketchy details they vaguely recall to figure out what listing it is, often in my car! They might remember a town, a price, maybe a street, or even a physical description. But no address or MLS number, and certainly no email to the link. 

Now it seems to me that just about every home search site out there has a means of bookmarking a favorite property or emailing it to your agent. And if it doesn’t you can always write down the address or MLS number. But all too often, I’ll get a call on my mobile phone while I am driving from a buyer who wants to see the green house in Thornwood by the church near that big rock with all those trees in the yard. I’m exaggerating of course, but the ID of a property should never be that hard if you just saw the thing online. Write it down, email it, get a photo of your computer screen with the digital camera, whatever it takes, but help me help you! If you email it, even by right clicking and copying the link in an email to me, it will get me the needed information without having to reconstruct what you did to find it. And the less detective work I have to do, the better I can help.

So, to all you buyers that call your agent (often in their cars) with less than full information on the property as if we are wizards (we do have the MLS after all), please just do us this one teensy favor: write it down or email the thing to us so we can do less detective work, keep safe in our cars, and devote more resources toward advocating for you. 

If you get a free Listingbook account you can notify me of the properties you like effortlessly! 

What can you buy in different parts of Westchester County for half a million? Interesting question. I did a survey of closed transactions around the county in the past 30 days, and what I found speaks to the different characters of the many areas of our fair county. Bear in mind that these are closed transactions since September 3, not asking prices or deals from a bygone era. All information is taken from the Westchester -Putnam Multiple Listing Service. 

• In Somers, home of my alma mater, John F Kennedy Catholic High School, $487,000 bought a 3 bedroom 2100 square foot raised ranch with a granite and stainless steel kitchen on almost an acre. 
• In Mamaroneck, $520,000 bought a 19th century 1900 square foot 4 bedroom colonial on a third of an acre. 
• In Pelham, $519,500 bought a 1920 era 1500 square foot 4 bedroom dutch colonial on just under a fifth of an acre.
• In Briarcliff Manor, where I live, $520,000 bought a 1905 colonial on 3 acres with 3 bedroom,s 2 baths, and a 2 car garage.  
• In Ossining, my home town, $495,000 bought a 2700 square foot 3 bedroom 3 bath colonial with a stainless steel kitchen and finished basement on just under a quarter acre. 
• In Pleasantville, $487,000 bought a 2 bedroom, 2,5 bath 2400 square foot townhome. 
• In Larchmont, $505,000 bought a 1939 3 bedroom 2 bath split with a garage and fireplace. 
• In Croton on Hudson, a beautiful river village, $503,000 bought a 1930’s art deco home with 3 bedrooms, 2 baths and 2600 square feet on 1 acres.
• In Yonkers, Westchester’s largest city, $500,000 bought a 3 bedroom 1800 square foot colonial with an updated kitchen.
• In White Plains, the county seat,  $485,000 bought a 2005-built 2 bedroom 2 bath 1600 square foot garden style condo. 

This is for single family home activity in the Briarcliff Manor school district for September of 2010. All information is derived from the Westchester-Putnam Multiple Listing Service. 

Compared to June 2009, Briarcliff Manor sales volume is about even. Transactions are down one, and median price is down about 2%. 10 Homes are under contract, which indicates more strong activity, albeit at a lower median price. 

In the Active section, you might notice that the late Brooke Astor’s estate, Holly Hill, has come off the market. It was replaced this past month by the Ash Ridge Estate as Briarcliff’s most expensive available listing. 

There are 51 available home in inventory, which is a healthy selection and just under a year’s worth of inventory.

Previous posts on Briarcliff Manor.  

If you’d like to search for a home in Briarcliff, get yourself a free Listingbook account and search the MLS like an agent. 

This market report is for single family home activity in the Ossining school district for September of 2010. All information is derived from the Westchester-Putnam Multiple Listing Service. 

In the wake of last month’s encouraging numbers, this September was way down from September of 2009. Sales are down by 40% and the median price tumbled $65,000. Not good! 

However, 22 pending sales is healthy, and the available inventory of 161 homes offers great options for prospective home buyers. 

I would not read much into the down numbers; Ossining has not fared poorly lately and was due for a down month. I have a feeling October will be a strong bounce back. 

Previous postings on Ossining.  

You can search for a home in Ossining by getting yourself a free Listingbook account. 

In general, I love being number one. In 2007, I was the top ranked agent in the Westchester Putnam MLS for single family home closings. I was very proud. I also won a high school wrestling tournament my senior year of high school. Very gratifying. Westchester County is also number one in the USA in something, but I doubt anyone will celebrate. What are we the champion in? High property taxes. 

I have to say, that being number 1 in a nation of over 300 million with who knows how many thousands of counties must really take work. This is especially the case when neighboring Fairfield County, CT pays about half the taxes on similar property with not a scintilla of sacrifice to their quality of life, education, or safety. 

How did we get here? Well, I would place plenty of culpability on our former 3-term county executive, who spent money like a drunken sailor, was ubiquitous in the local society pages, loved to spam our telephones with recorded messages and called people who wanted to reduce or eliminate county government “clueless.” But overall, we do not have a sustainable municipal structure. The 19th century model of villages, towns and county governments with overlapping elected officials and redundant services is a huge chunk of the problem. The preponderance of boutique school districts with vast resources concentrated in small wealthy villages with high schools of 300 students next to less affluent cities with thousands in their high school(s) is another big problem.

In Connecticut, villages are for postal addresses and nothing else. In my home town of Ossining, we have two villages with separate governments, police departments and municipal services, to go along with the unincorporated town with its own government, police department and municipal services. 

Westchester also has lots of  school districts that are minuscule in size, with the discussion of consolidation occasionally coming up but vetoed for reasons often not discussed in polite company. The overlap in administrations, superintendents, principals and other roles continues to add to the black hole of spending. 

Other problems loom, such as a $50 million equal housing lawsuit the county must contend with, as well as the ever growing pensions of public employees with defined benefits flying in opposite directions of the markets and defined contributions an anathema to the unions.

It is my hope that first term County Executive Astorino will be given the chance to eliminate the waste, and bring county spending and government in line with sanity. The town of Ossining police department has just agreed to merge with the county force, which will save some money. But we have a long way to go.  

Realizing that they cannot ruin lives without, um, following the law, Chase has joined GMAC in suspending foreclosures while they sort out what has become regarded by Inman News as the “robo signing controversy.” Governing agencies have criticized the large lenders for sloppy procedures in pursuing foreclosures, requiring them to audit their files and make sure they are following the proper steps prior to repossessing and displacing more people. In Chase’s case, 56,000 foreclosures are now on hold in 23 states. 

If you’ll allow me to indulge in a metaphor, the government is making sure the banks find the soft tissue of the borrowers so they can make a cleaner kill when they pull the trigger. You don’t want the victim, um, delinquent borrower to writhe in pain on the floor and have to use a 2nd bullet to finish them off.

Given the stories we have read recently on this very platform of banks foreclosing on homes owned free and clear and beginning short sales on the broker’s home instead of the clients, I agree that it is a good idea to mind the Ps and Qs prior to booting people out of their homes and into a Super 8 or basement apartment.  

One has to wonder aloud how many people have lost their homes who shouldn’t have, and how many more lenders will suspend their own foreclosures. 

Yet again, another mess, created by the banks. 

The “Real Estate as an Investment” Canard