1495 EVANS FARM DR
MCLEAN VA 22101
List Price: $1,849,000
Original List Price: $2,499,000
Days on Market: 590
Prior Sale: $1,364,730 08/30/2002
ZESTIMATE®: $1,804,500
Value Range: $1,587,960 - $2,039,085
30-day change: -$33,000
"In the year and a half that Ann Page has struggled to sell her five-bedroom McLean home, she has received an array of lackluster offers that fell below her original $2.499 million price tag. None was as exasperating as when the businessman from Dubai offered $1 million less than the asking price.
. . .
'I just thought it was ridiculous. If you want to pay $1 million, then go to the neighborhood next door,' said Page, a commercial real estate agent. 'He doesn't seem to understand that I can't just give it away. This place has 10-foot ceilings, a three-car garage and an elevator.'
[but does it come with a mercedes, a sauna, and room for a pony?]
. . .
She has become frustrated and has decided to hold an auction June 5, with a minimum price of $1.5 million. She has hired Sam Solovey, an auctioneer who appeared in the first season of "The Apprentice." She hopes to get multiple offers.
[What do you all think? Will she get multiple offers? Will it sell?]
'I would think that some people would be embarrassed by what they offer, but they're not,' Page said. 'They think they should get it for nothing.'"
The attitude reminds me of this Britcom skit:
Mr Fawlty: Your sister says you've had an offer of £87,000 for your house in Brighton.
Mrs Richards: 87? Give it to me - don't be a fool Stephanie - £92,750 is what I said and I'm not taking a penny less - you tell him that ! (slaming down the phone) Why don't people listen!
59 comments:
Fawlty Towers! Awesome.
If $1.5M is both the starting price and the reserve price, there's a chance it'll sell. Slim, but possible. If the reserve is at all much higher, it won't.
I also suppose multiple bids is pretty likely. But she hasn't lowered the initial price enough to really attract a lot of attention. A celebrity auctioneer? How much value does that generate?
When our agent gave us the offer on our last house sale my wife went balistic. She was vey short with the relator and told him it was a ridiculus offer. He turned to me in private and told me how he was sorry and he hoped he did not make my wife mad, I soothed him like I was on "his" side, (however I am always on my wifes side). He came back the next day with a new offer and in the end we made a little over 7% per year.
Its a good to have a "good" cop "bad" cop senerio in house negociations.
As to this house, I BID 10 MILLION DOLLARS!!!!!!!!!
She's not giving it away!
Aww,
Poor Princess -
of course she's not giving it away, it has an ELEVATOR !!
Then live in it honey :)
"..she has received an array of lackluster offers that fell below her original $2.499 million price tag. None was as exasperating as when the businessman from Dubai offered $1 million less than the asking price..."
If her asking price was $2.5M, then the guy from Dubai offered $1.5M. I wonder what some of the other offers were?
It's a very nice house, but the lot is tiny (~ 1/8 acre). For that kind of money, i'd want some elbow room.
I did a quick search on redfin for houses in 22101, price range $1M-$2M, at least 1/4 acre: 85 results. This place has been on for over 2 years:
6541 OLD CHESTERBROOK Rd
According to the listing, the original asking price was $3.3M. Since the owner paid $2.13M in August, 2005, $3.3M seems a bit excessive. Check out the listing price history since July, 2007:
Jul 11, 2007 $2,500,000
Jul 13, 2007 $2,425,000
Jul 27, 2007 $2,350,000
Sep 18, 2007 $2,299,000
Sep 29, 2007 $2,250,000
Oct 10, 2007 $2,175,000
Oct 11, 2007 $2,350,000
Nov 08, 2007 $2,275,000
Nov 20, 2007 $2,190,000
Dec 28, 2007 $2,090,000
Feb 06, 2008 $2,375,000
Mar 10, 2008 $2,099,000
Mar 30, 2008 $2,049,000
Apr 28, 2008 $2,000,000
May 07, 2008 $1,995,000
May 31, 2008 $1,975,000
With all the choices in McLean for under $2M, i'll be surprised if there are multiple bids above $1.5M.
hog
My question is, why do sellers think they should make money just from living in their house for a few years? Truly, this is a completely new concept for me, one that never occurred to me until we moved to this area in 2006.
My parents lived in my childhood home for 15 years. We built an entirely new house on top of the old 70s split-level, while we lived in it, because my dad's an engineer and we had outgrown the old house (I think there were 7 of us kids when we added on). They did all the work themselves, used high-quality materials, and intended to live there forever.
Then my dad found out he was about to be downsized, and took a job on the East Coast. The day we moved out was the day we finished the last building tasks, like putting down the carpet. The house never sold, and was eventually purchased by the relocation company for $50,000, just enough to pay off the remaining mortgage.
Next move they made, 10 years later, they were again able to pay off the mortgage, and that was it.
They never cashed out, never used their house as an ATM, and never expected to make money from putting a roof over their heads.
When did people start to think that simply living in a house for a short time entitled them to tens and even hundreds of thousands of dollars?
Hi Tabitha,
We completely agree.
Rule of thumb used to be you had to live in the house five years just to break even (after the realtor fees).
Now people seem to think they are entitled to 20-40% profit (or more) after five years. It is breaking this sort of entitlement perception that is one of our primary markers for determining the bottom.
That's why we are in no hurry to buy now. Just as it took several years to build people up to where they thought such gains are "normal" it's going to take several more to change them back.
"It's a very nice house, but the lot is tiny (~ 1/8 acre). For that kind of money, i'd want some elbow room."
Even in Mclean you can be pretty picky if you are going to spend $2.5 million.
It obviously has a lot of nice features, but in that price bracket there are some pretty high standards.
"When did people start to think that simply living in a house for a short time entitled them to tens and even hundreds of thousands of dollars?"
I think it is a combination of two things, obviously the first is the biggest real estate bubble in living memory. It is a lot like the internet bubble where companies that had few assets and had never actually turned a profit were valued at hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars.
Naturally people declared it a "new paradigm" and tried to invent theories that would allow them to throw all the traditional metrics used to value a company out the window.
Nobody wanted to hear the realists when they said it was unsustainable and certain to end badly. Instead everyone wanted to think they were investing geniuses and were obviously being rewarded for their smart moves...
The same thing happened in the real estate market. People looking at unprecedented windfalls convinced themselves they had earned the money and that they had been "smart" when they bought. Anyone that questioned the obviously unsustainable run-up was attacked...
The second major thing is the recent popularity of cable networks like HGTV.
Numerous shows focus on one "smart" homeowner after another who after living in a house for 2-3 years and putting in new carpet find their house is worth $100k+ more than they paid for it... One of the worst is "National Open House" on HGTV.
"Bob and Cindy bought this 1954 Rancher for $250k in 2003, now with a new hot tub and an expanded bathroom it is worth over $400k in ______'s hot real estate market!"
There were countless voices promoting the idea of real estate throughout the media and on cable networks. The message always seemed to be "Real estate goes up, if you had bought you would be making all this money too."
People stopped valuing housing as a place to live and started looking at it at least partially as an investment...
When the population in general really and truly gives up on real estate as an investment and stops expecting to see appreciation we will be at the bottom.
joel and sonia said:
"Rule of thumb used to be you had to live in the house five years just to break even (after the realtor fees).
Now people seem to think they are entitled to 20-40% profit (or more) after five years. "
As you know, I am a firm believer in the 5 yr rule. I also think it is rediculous that people expect to make a profit not only after 5 years ... but after 1 year. Some (and I don't mean all) of the BH posters on here though constantly talk about people being "underwater when they buy" and how those who bought within the last 2 - 3 could have made more if they'd invested in gold, etc.
I'm in complete agreement with people such as yourselves who recognize the folly of thinking a house should automatically be a money maker ... "just for living there." What irks me to no end are thouse BHs like Leroy and Neil who don't understand this ... going on and on about how they can make more by renting and investing than buying a home to just be a home.
When I was a young person in the 60s and 70s, my father was transferred often as he climbed the corporate ladder. My mother's attitude was that if each house sale was break-even or realized a small profit including realtors and other fees and taxes, everything was great. It seemed to work that way for them through their last move in 1989.
My ex and I bought our first home in the suburbs of Atlanta. The area around us began to explode with beautiful new houses and landscaping. More and more people moved to the small community because it was a 30 minute commute to the Perimeter area (where most people worked) and the public schools were great. It was a modest all brick home 3-bedroom, 2.5 bath with a full basement. In Atlanta that was the normal starter house at the time. We paid $46,000 for it 1978. Sold it for $91,000 in 1985. The value increase was a total surprise to us.
We never realized that level of profit again. In other words we didn't get rich from the sale of our homes and we never expected to. Over time we did incrementally "move up" into what some would consider high-end, but it took 25 years, major career jumps, dedication to our separate careers and living within our means the entire time. We were quite fortunate. Though the marriage didn’t make it beyond 25 years, we produced 2 wonderful, balanced, kind and successful children and we both live well today. We never viewed a house as an investment. Never. Nor did any of our friends about their own homes. We made money other ways.
Tabitha, I find many of the attitudes about housing value or potential value today really strange. In my mind much of the frenzy that has been bred in the last 7 to 9 years borders on a manic illness. People “bought into” an idea they were measured by the faux values of their dwellings/ RE investments. Some people lived/live in what is (by my standard) ghetto housing and strut around with their chests puffed out bragging that their dump was worth $.5 M, all I could do was laugh inside. What is valuable to me in a house obviously is quite different from many in this area. People actually got “high” on themselves. A drug cocktail wouldn’t have produced more bravado. Sadly some foolishly went out and HELOC’d their places on the faux values. Whatever would possess a person to do such a thing?
Their arrogance and pretentiousness borders on nauseating. Their self-aggrandizement will bring many down. The piper is always paid.
"I'm in complete agreement with people such as yourselves who recognize the folly of thinking a house should automatically be a money maker ... "just for living there." What irks me to no end are thouse BHs like Leroy and Neil who don't understand this ... going on and on about how they can make more by renting and investing than buying a home to just be a home."
Um? Again lance you are either lying... or demonstrating amazingly poor reading comprehension.
Investing while renting is the sensible thing to do while letting the market correct. It makes far more sense than buying something overpriced only to watch it fall.
Leroy said:
"It makes far more sense than buying something overpriced only to watch it fall."
Leroy, when you someday do buy, you could indeed watch it go up, AND watch it fall, and then watch it go up again ... But you shouldn't ...
In most cases the end result will be like what KCWood's parents experienced. You'll have maybe gained a little from an investment perspective and certainly gained a lot from a way of life perspective, but the focus will have been on buying the best "home" you can for you and your family within your means. That's a very different focus from "watching the value of a home go down OR up." When you understand this simple basic fact of life you'll understand why waiting around for "the best deal" is the worst thing you can do.
The fact you would say "watch it fall" illustrates that you are watching it as if it were a stock investment to be bought
Leroy,
Just another thought. This is the perfect time to easily distinguish inherently valuable properties and neighborhoods from risky or fadish properties or neighborhoods. During the boom ALL properities and neighborhoods were going up in price. Today only the inherently valuable ones continue to rise in value (or at least not really fall in value). Why would you want to wait around for the places losing value to lose even more value? You really shouldn't be looking at those places in the first place? You should be looking at the places which have retained their value inspite of this downtrend. That is where you will find the real value that will ensure you that over the longterm you won't be selling your place for less than what you paid for it.
and yes, I know, you're personally not in a position to buy at the moment. But I was answering your question ...
"When you understand this simple basic fact of life you'll understand why waiting around for "the best deal" is the worst thing you can do."
Worst thing I can do?
lol
Tell that to the poor people who did as you advised and bought at the top of the bubble and now find themselves paying tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars more for their house than someone buying today.
Sorry lance, but blindly rushing into a huge purchase is a dumb idea. If you buy within your means you shouldn't lose the house... but that doesn't mean you didn't waste a huge amount of money.
You were trying to scare people into buying back at the very top of the bubble. You claimed their chance was slipping away back in 2006... you claimed the bottom had already past in 2007... even today you lie and claim that "90%" of the area hasn't seen declines.
You aren't exactly the sort of person to take advice from.
I think Lance and Leroy are both correct. Lance (and Tabitha et al.) are correct that real estate should be purchased primarily as a place to live--the true profit should come in owning your own home and doing what you want with it. Maybe it will appreciate over the years, maybe it won't, but if you're buying for the right reasons, it doesn't matter.
But Leroy is also correct, especially for first-time buyers in this market. I am so thankful that I finished graduate school in 2006; by the time I started thinking seriously about buying a place in 2007, it was clear that there was a real estate bubble and that it was starting to burst. What if I had graduated in 2005 and then convinced myself in 2006 that I HAD to buy some crummy 600-sf one-bedroom condo outside the beltway for $400k or get priced out of the market forever? I don't want to wait forever to buy, but I sure am going to wait at least another year to see how things settle down. At the very worst, prices in my target area (Falls Church or Mclean) won't be any higher, and most likely they will be another 10-15% lower--AND I will have more money saved up for a down payment. As a first-time buyer, it would be foolish to buy now--despite the fact that I hate renting and would love to own my own place sooner rather than later--only to watch its value fall almost immediately. I'm okay with buying a place in 2009 or 2010 and watching its value stay flat for the next 5-10 years (which is quite possible), but why rush out to buy now when prices are still falling? That would be like throwing money down the drain.
"Just another thought. This is the perfect time to easily distinguish inherently valuable properties and neighborhoods from risky or fadish properties or neighborhoods. During the boom ALL properities and neighborhoods were going up in price. Today only the inherently valuable ones continue to rise in value (or at least not really fall in value). Why would you want to wait around for the places losing value to lose even more value? You really shouldn't be looking at those places in the first place? You should be looking at the places which have retained their value inspite of this downtrend. That is where you will find the real value that will ensure you that over the longterm you won't be selling your place for less than what you paid for it."
Right right... and using this flawless logic in 2006 when you claimed people's "window of opportunity was slipping away" everything but the very fringe of the region was "inherently valuable."
Last year when you claimed the bottom had already past everything inside the beltway was "inherently valuable."
Now, only small parts of the city are "inherently valuable" and those areas seem to be shrinking by the day.
Funny how that works isn't it?
I suspect that in a few months even fewer areas will prove to be "inherently valuable."
On a more serious note... the fact that you are suggesting that a potential buyer should only consider looking at one of the few areas that haven't yet seen declines is right in line with your previous terrible advice.
A potential buyer should be looking for a home that suits their needs, and for the vast majority of the buyers that means somewhere where prices have already fallen. (Obviously, since the large majority of the region has seen declines.)
It is almost like you want to find some way to talk people into wasting money.
"I'm okay with buying a place in 2009 or 2010 and watching its value stay flat for the next 5-10 years (which is quite possible), but why rush out to buy now when prices are still falling? That would be like throwing money down the drain."
Exactly... despite the way lance tries to twist the argument I am not promoting real estate as some kind of an investment, nor am I against buying it.
On a long timeline buying is a good idea in almost every case.
The exception to that rule is in a situation like today when prices are dropping and are showing no signs of slowing their drop.
There is virtually no risk in waiting, especially if you can save more money by renting.
The worst that will happen is you will have to delay getting something you want for a little while. That sacrifice will likely give you a significant financial reward.
And let's not forget, no one should seriously consider the words of someone who says "don't buy as house as an investment, buy for the long-term" when their own house purchase was done with a 10-year IO fixed rate mortgage.
Pot . . . kettle . . . black.
As others have said, the lot is very small. It is out of proportion -- to the house, to the price tag, and to the typical lot size of those of much less expensive houses in McLean (I just toured another McLean house with a friend - <$900K asking, >.5 acre beautifully landscaped lot). And since someone brought up HGTV, I'll add a kiss-of-death comment often heard on those shows (hoping to encourage homeowners to shell out for their advertiser's latest wares). From the virtual tour, this house's kitchen cabinets, one bath, and some of the other areas look *dated* for a $2 million + house. Of course everyone's taste is individual, but it doesn't surprise me at all that her offers have been far below what she wanted. I'm sure she'll get a buyer above $1.5 who likes all the space, but if you want "top dollar" you have to have all the amenities.
As for the tip on how to present a lowball offer, I suspect that works only when the lowball offer is close to market value. A seller might be less offended if convinced that the buyer was offering as much as s/he could afford, but the seller also knows that the buyer could set his/her sights lower, on a house in his/her price range. A would-be Lexus 400 buyer can always get a Camry instead. And, if the seller has other options and the buyer is asking the seller to take a huge loss on what s/he has invested in it, no amount of suger-coating will make any difference.
According to Fairfax County, the assessed value has dropped from $1,919,150 for tax year 2007 to $1,866,420 for tax year 2008. Given the time lags in assessments, I wonder what it would be today?
hog: her asking price was $2.5M
Two point five?
Here's what 2.35 looks like.
This crib isn't out in PWC. It's in close in Alexandria. 3/4 acre, stone, slate, copper roof on the cottage.
It's a 20 minute walk to the King Street Metro.
On the market 3 whole weeks and it still hasn't sold.
She's a poster child for the Entitlement Society. No one cares what she wants for it. The house is only worth what someone is willing to pay. Let her & her house rot.
Oh, and she's a real estate agent and probably has Too Much Koolaid Syndrome. Only one known cure: reality.
I think you got the wrong Evans Farms property. The pictures in this one:
http://www.franklymls.com/FX6627994
match those in the WaPo, while the pix of the kitchen, etc. of the one in Evans Farm you cite doesn't match the WaPo story.
But the overall story is about the same. Its a Craftsman home, which is an indication of good looks but mediocre construction, and there is no swimming pool either on the property or in Evans Farm. This is a killer for the price being asked, and another big problem is that it is on a really tiny lot. To make the minimum $1.5 m price, you would have to have $300,000 cash downpayment, plus an outrageous salary. If you have that sort of cash and salary, then why not take one of the discounted castle-like mansions in Great Falls, which is a mile or two away from this Evans Farms location, and feature both pool and acre and a half lots. Also, look at the other properties for sale in McLean, and you will see there are better deals available for that price. My bet is that she's not going to find a bid that makes her minimum June 6, and if she then decides later to put it up for absolute auction, it might go for slightly under $900,000. Ouch.
I think you got the wrong Evans Farms property. The pictures in this one:
http://www.franklymls.com/FX6627994
match those in the WaPo, while the pix of the kitchen, etc. of the one in Evans Farm you cite doesn't match the WaPo story.
Fairfax County tax records show that Ann Page owns the home at 1495 Evans Farm Drive, but not the property at 7231 Addington Dr.
Areas with a large number of REOs have seen much faster price declines - and are probably closer to the price bottom. Areas with fewer REOs will exhibit "sticky prices" and the prices will probably decline for some time.
-- Calculated Risk
http://tinyurl.com/3zvoqu
Leroy said:
"The worst that will happen is you will have to delay getting something you want for a little while. That sacrifice will likely give you a significant financial reward."
There you go again, talking like someone who doesn't understand that a home isn't a financial investment with which to get "a significant financial reward."
Sorry about my duplicate posts, folks--I was able to delete them just now.
Hope y'all had a nice weekend.
"There you go again, talking like someone who doesn't understand that a home isn't a financial investment with which to get "a significant financial reward.""
Amateurish trolling lance...
I was obviously talking about saving money... not some kind of investing strategy.
Harriet,
but does it come with a mercedes, a sauna, and room for a pony?
I hope I'm not alone in understanding that quote! You share one of my passions - silly Brit coms. Even my two year old likes to watch them because they are simple and funny.
I wonder how the Bucket woman would respond to a lowball offer? Man, that would be a great episode, wouldn't it?
Speaking of Brits:
http://tinyurl.com/28ofbl
"There you go again, talking like someone who doesn't understand that a home isn't a financial investment with which to get "a significant financial reward.""
A home IS an investment and in NOVA one would have had to buy it from someone who wants a significant financial reward.
Whats wrong with making $200,000 in 6 years off the place?
Sell it for 1.5 to that guy from Dubai already!
doug,
Greed
someone refresh my memory, is it usually favorable to take a business transaction so personally?
This home may be overpriced, but not based on the acreage. If you're buying in the Evans Farm area, you're probably not looking for a lot of land. The Evans Farm development consists of a lot of large, expensive, tightly-packed houses.
It looks like this house might border the Evans Farm development rather than being part of it, but I can't tell for sure, but if you consider the Evans Farm development its neighborhood, the house size to lot size ratio is not that unusual. It's a very different neighborhood than what you find nearby, like on the other side of 123, and would attract a very different buyer. It's meant to have more of a Georgetown or Old Town look - though notably lacking a Georgetown or an Old Town.
As far as looking dated, it doesn't look that much different than many of the recently renovated houses I've looked at in Arlington over the last few weeks. I don't like the kitchen much, but I'd say its more an issue of taste than datedness (enough with the granite, already). Also, a brick facade on a $2M house? In this bracket I'd either go with brick all around or quality siding (real wood or hardiplank).
Still, move this to 22207 and no one would blink at the $2M price. They might not buy it, but they wouldn't blink. It would look as reasonably priced as most of the other $1.5M + houses on the market.
I was also a little bit curious about the comment that "Craftsman" indicates good looks, but mediocre construction. I don't question that this happens sometimes, but the "Craftsman" style (sometimes referred to as Arts and Crafts) is pretty popular in Arlington right now, especially among some of the better custom builders. With them, it usually signifies a greater attention to details, especially interior, with a corresponding increase in cost per square foot - similar to the approach you often see in the "Not So Big House" series of books. That's not to say that a builder couldn't build a crappy home and dress it up with a Craftsman look to take advantage of the trend. The only reason to do this though, is to try to take advantage of the reputation of the real thing.
Maybe Ann C Page is a common name...
Interestingly, I could not find info that any of these properties were sold. Maybe the washpost data base is not complete.
Comments???
1) 06/06 Buyer: PAGE ANN C
ROGERS ROBERT E 7416 OLD MAPLE SQ Mclean, VA 22102 $1,675,000
2) 09/03 Buyer: PAGE, ANN
EVANS FARM ASSOCIATE
1480 EVANS FARM DR. #103 PHASE 2 Mclean, VA 22101 $685,416*
3) 08/02 Buyer: PAGE, ANN C HAMPSTEAD VILLAGE LL
1495 EVANS FARM DR. Mclean, VA 22101 $1,364,730*
4) 12/01 Buyer: PAGE, ANN C HAMPSTEAD VILLAGE LL
1486 EVANS FARM DR. Mclean, VA 22101 $891,030*
5) 08/01 Buyer: PAGE, ANN C LOUGHLIN, CATHERINE
6800 FLEETWOOD RD. Mclean, VA 22101 $198,000*
6) 12/00 Buyer: PAGE, ANN C
JONES, KAYLA D 6921 PINE CREST AVE. Mclean, VA 22101 $375,000*
7) 07/00 Buyer: PAGE, ANN C TAFT, DANIEL H
6812 WEAVER AVE. Mclean, VA 22101 $310,000*
8) 07/00 Buyer: PAGE, ANN C
PLATT, ELIZABETH K 7360 MONTCALM DR. Mclean, VA 22102 $300,000*
9) 05/00 Buyer: PAGE, ANN C FLYNN, EILEEN F
6800 FLEETWOOD RD. Mclean, VA 22101 $89,000*
10) 05/00 Buyer: PAGE, ANN C
COE, JEFFREY F 6800 FLEETWOOD RD. #1121 Mclean, VA 22101 $90,000*
11) 10/99 Buyer: PAGE, ANN C NEUTZE, ARLENE C 7610 TIMBERLY CT. Mclean, VA 22102 $502,500*
12)02/99 Buyer: PAGE ANN C
8340 GREENSBORO DR. #502 Mclean, VA 22102 $88,800*
13)12/01 Buyer: PAGE, ANN C HAMPSTEAD VILLAGE LL 1486 EVANS FARM DR. Mclean, VA 22101 $891,030*
14) 08/01 Buyer: PAGE, ANN C LOUGHLIN, CATHERINE 6800 FLEETWOOD RD. Mclean, VA 22101 $198,000*
15) 12/00 Buyer: PAGE, ANN C JONES, KAYLA D 6921 PINE CREST AVE. Mclean, VA 22101 $375,000*
16) 07/00 Buyer: PAGE, ANN C TAFT, DANIEL H 6812 WEAVER AVE. Mclean, VA 22101 $310,000*
17) 07/00 Buyer: PAGE, ANN C PLATT, ELIZABETH K 7360 MONTCALM DR. Mclean, VA 22102 $300,000*
18) 05/00 Buyer: PAGE, ANN C FLYNN, EILEEN F 6800 FLEETWOOD RD. Mclean, VA 22101 $89,000*
19) 05/00 Buyer: PAGE, ANN C COE, JEFFREY F 6800 FLEETWOOD RD. #1121 Mclean, VA 22101 $90,000*
20) 10/99 Buyer: PAGE, ANN C NEUTZE, ARLENE C 7610 TIMBERLY CT. Mclean, VA 22102 $502,500*
21) 02/99 PAGE ANN C 8340 GREENSBORO DR. #502 Mclean, VA 22102 $88,800*
We had our wedding reception at Evens Farms. It was nice. The next year. Poof. It was gone.
Owner asks 2.5 mil.
Lowball offer 1.5 mil. (1 million less) no sale.
1 year later... property up for auction..starting at 1.5 mill.
This seller would have saved 12 months of what have to be enormous mortgage payments, if she had stepped back, taken a big breath and countered with 1.7 mil. I bet the guy would have bitten. She comes out ahead, just not over the top.
Sellers are stoopid.
she must be too busy talking to lance.
Values
Current Land $618,000
Current Building $1,248,420
Current Assessed Total $1,866,420
Tax Exempt NO
Note
Values History
Tax Year Land Building Assessed Total Tax Exempt
2008 $618,000 $1,248,420 $1,866,420 NO
2007 $598,000 $1,321,150 $1,919,150 NO
2006 $598,000 $1,265,960 $1,863,960 NO
2005 $598,000 $1,004,730 $1,602,730 NO
2004 $384,000 $1,004,730 $1,388,730 NO
2003 $366,000 $896,480 $1,262,480 NO
2002 $305,000 $0 $305,000 NO
PAGE ANN C 1495 EVANS FARM DR
Structure Size
Above Grade Living Area Total Sq. Ft 4,766
Basement Garage # Cars 2
Attached Accessory Structures
Structure Size % Complete
Open Porch or Portico 32 SQ. FT. 100%
ATTACHED GARAGE 220 SQ. FT. 100%
PT 475 SQ. FT. 100%
Detached Accessory Structures
Structure Size % Complete
Basement Garage 1 SQ. FT. 100%
Sales History
Date Amount Seller Buyer
08/30/2002 $1,364,730 PAGE ANN C
Sales
Date 08/30/2002
Amount $1,364,730
Seller
Buyer PAGE ANN C
Notes Valid and verified sale
Deed Book and Page 13274-1830
The article identifies her as a commercial real estate agent.
#1 purch 6/6/2006 1,675,000
sold 3/27/2008 1,525,000
#2 purch 9/2/2003 685,416
sold 5/16/2005 846,000
#3 purch 12/28/2001 1,364,730
still owns
#4 purch 12/28/2001 891,030
sold 2/26/2003 1,000,000
#5 purch 8/16/2001 198,000
still owns, unit 1010
#6 purch 12/13/2000 375,000
sold 12/17/2001 460,000
#7 purch 7/25/2000 310,000
sold 1/5/2004 400,000
#8 purch 7/3/2000 300,000
sold 10/1/2002 399,500
#9 purch 5/1/2000 89,000
sold 7/23/2001 126,100
#10 purch 5/1/2000 90,000
sold 7/24/2000 115,000
#11 purch 10/25/1999 502,500
sold 1/11/2000 630,000
#12 purch 2/1/1999 88,800
sold 4/8/2002 151,000
#13 purch 12/28/2001 891,030
sold 2/26/2003 1,000,000
#14 same as number 5
#15 purch 12/13/2000 375,000
sold 12/17/2001 460,000
#16 Same as number 7
#17 purch 7/3/2000 300,000
sold 1/1/2002 399,500
#18 purch 5/1/2000 89,000
sold 7/23/01 126,100
#19 Same as number 10
#20 Same as number 11
#21 Same as number 12
I didn't see this on one your list:
7222 Farm Meadow Ct., #101, McLean
purch 1/3/2005 1,244,035
sold 6/1/2006 1,450,000
she must be too busy talking to lance.
She's probably trying to make up for the bath she took at the end of March.
#1 purch 6/6/2006 1,675,000
sold 3/27/2008 1,525,000
Wow, zerodown, I guess that explains why she thinks she is entitled to lots of money for owning a place for a short time.
keithk,
I think Ann's problem is that she has to compete with neighborhoods/ houses other than Evans Farms/houses. Her lot:house ratio may be typical for that neighborhood, but many buyers willing and able to pay that money, in this market, will not settle for the packed in McMansion style of Ann's house. When the supply/demand balance favored sellers, she could get away with this flaw. Not now, IMHO.
White cabinets and the writing on the wall, the faux country European decor, etc., is pretty passé, according to the authorities at HGTV. Yes, some of the newer Arlington (and McLean, etc.) houses still sport this look, but many of them have been sitting on the market for a long time. There is nothing wrong with not updating a house with that is 6 years old, but don't expect to get the same price you would get for cherry cabinets and a more sophisticated decor. On the other hand, I agree with you that taste is individual, and there are a lot of people who like the "look" - this is a very conservative town when it comes to architecture and interior design/decoration. But if there were even one with the means and desire to pay her what she's asking, the house would have sold a long time ago.
The reader comments to the WaPo article are interesting (honestly, I didn't make any of them :-)):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/30/AR2008053001502_Comments.html
Those are amusing comments. It looks like the reality of the bubble is starting to sink in with the general population.
I have observed the same thing in speaking to people. "This isn't 2005 anymore... those prices were crazy..."
This is my favorite comment from the Post's comments section:
"Anyone else find it ironic that for all of those years when the market was exploding there was never an article about the chutzpah of realtors and sellers asking a fortune for a dump--now there are tons of articles about the chutzpah of people trying to find a "bargain"?"
Yeah... I love how important the "pride" of sellers is...
Ooh, you don't want to "lowball," that might insult the seller!
I imagine she received a commission each time a prop was bought/sold. Creating biz for herself and sold most props for a hefty profit...although the interest must have eaten into a lot of the profit.
anyone have access to info--whether she claimed primary residence on loan apps for multiple props?
Good question, Buck. Wish someone here could investigate.
When I look at the photo of her in that house (it was clearer in the print edition), I could just picture Donna and Shannon Freeman (or even one of the more tactful Realtors who have shows on HGTV) saying, "Clive, something TERRIBLE must have happened here! Someone tell the homeowner to get her money back - those installers put the awnings on the INSIDE of the house by mistake!"
"And, Clive...my grandmother used to have a mural like this one! No wonder the installers got confused about the inside and outside. Do you suppose the homeowner did too? Why else would she put her outdoor furniture in the breakfast room? Outdoor furniture belongs...outdoors!"
http://soloveypropertyreport.com/2008/04/16/real-estate-auction-on-may-22nd-at-1115-am/
nothing posted on his blog, had it sold I'd imagine that he'd of blogged about it...
BTW did you see the terms of sale...1) 100% as-is 2) Buyer to pay all closing costs (imagine that includes a commis for Ann ☺) 3) "ALL ANNOUNCEMENTS MADE AT THE AUCTION TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER ANY OTHER PROPERTY INFORMATION OR PRINTED TERMS OF SALE." (oral ammendments..huh??)◘
Post a Comment