Sutherland wrote:
I'm going to guess this property (136 Erie) sells for about $850k. My guess is based upon a similar sized house just around the corner on 8th St, basically only a few doors away, also listed with Armagno that sold for $850k That property had rental income and a back yard. We will learn more soon.

user1111 wrote:
Quote:

JC_GeeGee wrote:
Quote:

bobm wrote:
Dixon Leasing, which has an office in Exchange Place, is a subsidiary of Dixon Advisory, a huge financial services firm based in Australia. They have bought and manage several residential properties in JC, including the Hamilton Park brownstone where I rent the basement studio. They are attempting to raise my rent by over 60 percent.

60%!?!?! Is that legal? Your rent must be really cheap or they're trying to get you out of there b/c that kind of increase is outrageous.

My guess is the rent is pretty cheap, all the homes they purchased around here they raised the rents from 50-70% which is not bad since the original rents were like 800 bucks a month. However every home they purchased they did major work so a three bedroom renovated house with parking is worth $1400 a month. I have nothing but love for these guys. They have made the surrounding area a little more beautiful, its a breath of fresh air from the typical absent, section 8 collecting, south jersey landlord.

JC_GeeGee wrote:
Quote:

bobm wrote:
Dixon Leasing, which has an office in Exchange Place, is a subsidiary of Dixon Advisory, a huge financial services firm based in Australia. They have bought and manage several residential properties in JC, including the Hamilton Park brownstone where I rent the basement studio. They are attempting to raise my rent by over 60 percent.

60%!?!?! Is that legal? Your rent must be really cheap or they're trying to get you out of there b/c that kind of increase is outrageous.

bobm wrote:
Dixon Leasing, which has an office in Exchange Place, is a subsidiary of Dixon Advisory, a huge financial services firm based in Australia. They have bought and manage several residential properties in JC, including the Hamilton Park brownstone where I rent the basement studio. They are attempting to raise my rent by over 60 percent.

Who are these Aussies everyone is talking about, is it one person, a group, are they actually from Austrailia ? People have bank accounts all over the world and different names for corporations, they rubber stamp everything.

JC_GeeGee wrote:
Quote:

malcontent wrote:
How do you guys find the closing price? Tax records? What is the site and how long does it take to show the closing price?

Depends on how fast they close. Closing price will become public soon after but I'm not sure exactly how long it takes. Went into contract pretty quick. Wonder if the Aussies (Dixon Leasing) got it?

malcontent wrote:
How do you guys find the closing price? Tax records? What is the site and how long does it take to show the closing price?

bill wrote:
gotta love that zestimate, 819k when it sold in 10/12 and now 4 months later 1M which is a nice 22%!

VA2015 wrote:
Quote:

FKSJC wrote:
Quote:

pattyb wrote:
... The area is unhyped, pretty...

Seriously? Do you live (among the copious goose sh&t in Liberty State Park)? JC is many things, but pretty is not one of them. I get that beauty is in the eye of the beholder so one can always find it- but really?! Maybe the VIEW of NYC, river, etc is pretty (from waterfront or LSP), but the city itself?

What is ugly about the streets surrounding Van Vorst Park, Hamilton Park, or most of the Paulus Hook areas? I think the historical brownstones are scenic and pretty. I think there are parts of downtown that are ugly too but I find ugly interesting. I commute through the bowels of Newark everyday and it's one of the most visually interesting places I've ever seen, in an urban decay sort of beautiful way.

FKSJC wrote:
Quote:

pattyb wrote:
... The area is unhyped, pretty...

Seriously? Do you live (among the copious goose sh&t in Liberty State Park)? JC is many things, but pretty is not one of them. I get that beauty is in the eye of the beholder so one can always find it- but really?! Maybe the VIEW of NYC, river, etc is pretty (from waterfront or LSP), but the city itself?

pattyb wrote:
... The area is unhyped, pretty...

tommyc_37 wrote:
Then again, the age range at Lucky's seems to be 21-70, so I guess I'm good for a while.

tommyc_37 wrote:
Do your Manhattan friends not invite you to these events anymore, now that you live a whole mile away with 24 hour transportation? :)

Quote:

VA2015 wrote:
I would rather live in JC that NYC even though I could afford either. For one I am cheap and everything involving cost of living is higher there. I need to have some actual cheap stores accessible to me - I'm a Goodwill, discount grocery store kind of gal. JC has that along with a reasonable amount of culture - enough to have stuff to do but not so much it's overwhelming. In NYC there are always 10 things going on, with friends trying to get you to go to lots of different things, and I find it draining. I also find the apartment sizes claustrophobic in the city, combined with all the hustle and bustle on the street, crowds and noise pollution - you aren't shoulder to shoulder on any sidewalk in JC. I also don't like the loneliness of NYC, that you can so easily be anonymous most places you go - anywhere I go in JC I recognize people, they recognize me, I feel like part of a community.

bill wrote:
gotta love that zestimate, 819k when it sold in 10/12 and now 4 months later 1M which is a nice 22%!

Crazy_Chester wrote:
The WSJ has an article today:

Of note:

"They're pushing tenant occupancy over homeownership," said John Taylor, chief executive of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, a Washington-based consumer-advocacy group. "Having someone guarantee that renters will be there for a long time depresses values and makes it much harder for people to recoup lost equity and stabilize neighborhoods."


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001 ... od=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

immigrationlawyer wrote:
Where on Eerie is that house located? Does anyone know how large it is or in what kind of condition it was in?

JC_GeeGee wrote:
Quote:

Crazy_Chester wrote:
Quote:

JC_GeeGee wrote:
Quote:

Crazy_Chester wrote:
The WSJ has an article today:

Of note:

"They're pushing tenant occupancy over homeownership," said John Taylor, chief executive of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, a Washington-based consumer-advocacy group. "Having someone guarantee that renters will be there for a long time depresses values and makes it much harder for people to recoup lost equity and stabilize neighborhoods."


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001 ... od=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

Always liked that house on Erie (front page pic). I guess the Aussies liked it too....so much so they bought it for their portfolio.

That house is gross. The Aussies liked it so much they are going to fill it with renters.

Ha! If you think that house is gross, I wonder what you would think of my house!! That house is in much better condition than mine.

Crazy_Chester wrote:
Quote:

JC_GeeGee wrote:
Quote:

Crazy_Chester wrote:
The WSJ has an article today:

Of note:

"They're pushing tenant occupancy over homeownership," said John Taylor, chief executive of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, a Washington-based consumer-advocacy group. "Having someone guarantee that renters will be there for a long time depresses values and makes it much harder for people to recoup lost equity and stabilize neighborhoods."


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001 ... od=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

Always liked that house on Erie (front page pic). I guess the Aussies liked it too....so much so they bought it for their portfolio.

That house is gross. The Aussies liked it so much they are going to fill it with renters.

JC_GeeGee wrote:
Quote:

Crazy_Chester wrote:
The WSJ has an article today:

Of note:

"They're pushing tenant occupancy over homeownership," said John Taylor, chief executive of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, a Washington-based consumer-advocacy group. "Having someone guarantee that renters will be there for a long time depresses values and makes it much harder for people to recoup lost equity and stabilize neighborhoods."


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001 ... od=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

Always liked that house on Erie (front page pic). I guess the Aussies liked it too....so much so they bought it for their portfolio.

Crazy_Chester wrote:
The WSJ has an article today:

Of note:

"They're pushing tenant occupancy over homeownership," said John Taylor, chief executive of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, a Washington-based consumer-advocacy group. "Having someone guarantee that renters will be there for a long time depresses values and makes it much harder for people to recoup lost equity and stabilize neighborhoods."


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001 ... od=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories