If you're browsing the Beach Reporter
looking for your new home, you might come across this ad for 2709 Oak
, new construction in the Trees. It fairly blares two claims:
Neither of which appears to be true.
2709 Oak was first listed on August 15, 2006, 314 days ago
Perhaps some of those days on market were pre-completion, but the home has been ready for a long while.Is it "priced right?"
The first list price, which lasted nine months, was $2.395m. This month, it dropped a token $16k to $2.379. Before this week's deja vu debut
, the price dropped again to $2.349m. That's a total reduction of just $49k.
Ten months on market, with little movement and no sale, offers evidence that the home is not
"priced right." Saying it doesn't make it so.
Of course, this is advertising, and readers will take all claims with a grain of salt.
If you look up the property using most MLS searches, however, that "new listing" claim might seem legit.
The "current" listing date (MLS #S949367)
is June 20, 2007. DOM: 5.
If your realtor looks it up, let's hope he or she doesn't miss that "CDOM" field (combined days on market): it reveals 246 DOM as the actual age
of the listing. (Much of that was accumulated with the MLS #S932160.)
That's still low by 70 days from our records, but it gives the lie to that headline, doesn't it?
The latest move does make 2709 Oak nearly the lowest-priced new construction in the Tree Section. (Only a smaller new one at 2309 Pacific
is seeking less.) But the problem isn't just where you stack up against the rest, but how much you're asking for someone to live on Oak. And you might get off on a better foot by being forthright with the folks whose money you seek.