8 Months Later, Lakeview Vintage Single Family Now Reduced By $81K: 3037 N. Seminary
We last chattered about this 4-bedroom 1890s single family home at 3037 N. Seminary in Lakeview in October 2009.
See our prior chatter here.
Since then, it has been reduced by $81,000 and is now listed just $7,000 above the 2004 purchase price.
The house has a front porch and some of the original crown molding.
Three out of the four bedrooms are on the second flooor.
The kitchen has white cabinets and honed granite counter tops.
There is space pac cooling and a 2 car garage.
Is this a good deal at this new lower price for a single family home with the bells and whistles in this neighborhood?
Debra Dobbs at Koenig & Strey still has the listing. See the pictures here.
3037 N. Seminary: 4 bedrooms, 2.5 baths, no square footage listed, 2 car garage
- Sold in October 1992 for $190,000
- Sold in August 1997 for $329,000
- Sold in July 2004 for $762,000
- Originally listed in September 2009 for $850,000
- Reduced
- Currently listed at $769,000
- Taxes of $10,354
- Space pak cooling
- Bedroom #1: 14×16 (second floor)
- Bedroom #2: 16×12 (second floor)
- Bedroom #3: 13×10 (second floor)
- Bedroom #4: 7×13 (main level)
This is the quietest I’ve seen CC in a long time. Am I the only person not taking a holiday this weekend. I need to get a life.
I’m working too.
This is cute. I don’t even know what a good price is anymore, seems high? Then again-a/c, parking, yard… Maybe it’s fair.
“This is the quietest I’ve seen CC in a long time. Am I the only person not taking a holiday this weekend. I need to get a life.”
Most realtors are out today praying for the Resurrection (of the housing market).
lol
They should take down the wall paper. Seriously. Wallpaper removal sucks and everyone that looks at the place will realize they can’t move right in.
Joe isn’t getting paid today to troll with his 10 different usernames so yeah…
T.S., I’m with you, re: cute and price appropriateness. Maybe it’s just that on a gorgeous day like today, who wants to think about forking over $700K+ for anything?
Adorable house. High taxes. Tiny 4th bdrm. Love the way ivy looks, but doesn’t it weaken structures?
Sonies,
I have one identity only, and I’m comfortable with it.
How ineffably sad your life must be that you’re so consumed with hate, so compelled to make up lies while you cower in anonymity.
There has been a lot of chatter at the CLVN (Central LakeView Neighbors Association) meetings about this house. Apparently, the owners were trying to get the property re-zoned to make some changes and looking for CLVN’s blessing. As part of the blessing, the deal was the owner could not sell the property. Well, as soon as the CLVN agreed to change the zoning for doing repairs the house is back on the market.
From CLVN:
Poppy provided an updated on the zoning request for 3037 N. Seminary. At the March
meeting the community supported the homeowners (Harris’) zoning request and CLVN sent a letter to Alderman
Tunney with the recommendation to allow them relief. The P &Z Committee was working on the agreement but
required a short extension since the attorney who was helping CLVN was ill. Poppy reached out to Andee Harris and
their attorney Tom Moore on Friday morning the 19th (a week after our meeting) to notify them the document could be
expected Sunday evening. Sunday afternoon, Feb. 21 Poppy received notification from nearby neighbors the zoning
request sign was down and it looked like the property was being shown. Poppy then verified the sign was gone and
verified real estate agent verified the property was listed as of Feb 18th.
As you recall one of the many conditions of granting such an unusual request is that the Harris could not sell the home
during the zoning change process. This was something the P&Z committee weighed heavily and was concerned that a
homeowner would do. As such it would have to be part of the covenant. CLVN does not want to create a situation
where anyone person would realize a financial gain “windfall” on their property. This would not be fair to the rest of
the community.
Given this turn of events and their home for sale, there was no point in moving forward with an agreement. . So,
Sunday afternoon CLVN sent notification to the Harris, their attorney and the Alderman the support from CLVN was
withdrawn. Later Sunday night Poppy received a call from the Harris’ telling her they realized they couldn’t get the
house renovation done in three months and it would be too much hassle. So, they changed their mind to put the
house on the market. When Poppy asked why this decision was not shared with her on Friday when speaking with
them, Poppy was told the real estate agent moved too quickly and Mrs. Harris is very busy with her work and forgot to
tell her. They intended to notify Poppy on Monday morning.
The homeowner has no agreement but has taken the original letter of recommendation from CLVN which they and
their real-estate broker are using as “information” materials in the listing package. They claim the letter is not to help
the sale only to provide information. CLVN has sent e-mail to the brokers and spoken to the Harris to make sure all the
facts are on the table for future buyers. The recommendation of zoning change has been withdrawn, the Harris
provided an e-mail to CLVN withdrawing their request and the Alderman’s office considers this matter closed. Poppy
reminded them previous support is no assurance the new owner would obtain support. A big reason they got the
support is they claimed in front of our membership their desired to stay in this house. Poppy cautioned them it was
setting up expectations with buyers that may not be realized. They have failed to stop using CLVN’s letter. CLVN has
also learned from neighbors, the Harris have an offer on a home in Logan Square. The claims of commitment and
desire to stay in the neighborhood were “short lived”. Poppy explained at the February meeting, the P & Z Committee
was concerned anything can happen in this situation and took the necessary precautions to protect the community’s
interest.
Can someone please help me? Can someone tell me how much 1615 N Wolcott #201 sold for? I eyed the place for months and it recently sold… but I cannot find out the price.
Any info would be great!!!
“Can someone please help me? Can someone tell me how much 1615 N Wolcott #201 sold for? I eyed the place for months and it recently sold… but I cannot find out the price.
Any info would be great!!!”
$550,000 including the parking.
Sonies- were you referencing Joe’s site’s brilliant April fool’s post? That’s how I took your message on this thread to mean.
Home Fact,
WOW dropping the dish on the owners for being shaddy! snaps to ya.
i guess when your a VP you can do something like that and still drop an offer on another place (but why logan?)
Sonies,
There’s nothing funny about falsely accusing someone of violating state and federal laws, i.e. masquerading under multiple identities.
It’s defamatory and it’s ugly. If you weren’t such a pathetic creature I’d teach you a very expensive lesson about what’s acceptable online behavior and what isn’t.
I know a ton about you – I ran an adolescent ward in a psych hospital for years.
now back to our regularly scheduled programming. I can’t figure this one out, it seems like a good price for the neighborhood, I think it should move fairly soon. The only thing that is not great is that it appears to be next to a monster condo building. That is the only thing I don’t like about these neighborhoods where zoning is mixed and they allow four story giants to go up next to small frame single family homes.
geezzzeee….can’t imagine how depressing the holidays must be at Joey’s house.
I’d hate to be the 5-year old that breaks an Easter egg in front of this grouch.
(….pause for Joey to respond about how his 5-year old grandkids made more money in kintergarden than anyone on this site every will…….)
Wow Joe, there are many terrible posters and trolls on here, but you just have a ton of sand in your va-jay-jay.
What’s wrong Joe, can’t ban everyone here for their comments so you really have to act like an extra tough internet tough guy?
I made a comment based upon a post you made on your own website, so if you can’t see the humor in that, then you truly are a miserable little nebbish.
Based upon your comments just now, thank you for showing us the definition of “case in point”.
Sonies,
A fairer reading of your comment would be that you were picking up on a defamatory meme that’s been repeated here a number of times, i.e., that I post under multiple identities.
Not everyone in the real estate industry is as thick-skinned or forgiving as I am, and some of them like to inflict pain on just-make-stuff-up cheap-shot artists whose true identity is easily discoverable in litigation.
Tom (tfo), Simon
The regulars in this cesspool can call me all the names they want and engage endlessly in the cheap psychologizing that passes for knowledge around here. Not a problem.
Baselessly accusing me – or anyone else – of engaging in illegal behavior is quite another matter.
The fact that Sabrina tolerates it speaks volumes about your host(ess).
“engaging in illegal behavior”
Please point out the statute that prohibits having multiple “identities” in a comment thread of a blog not related to SEC-regulated assets.
TIA.
Joe, as usual, is talking out of his big fat ass
For starters, take a look at the FTC guidelines on endorsements and testimonials:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm
Then read about some of the FTC’s enforcement actions.
Next, read and understand 815 ILCS 505, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.
Get serious, people.
Wait, so cribchatter is one big advertisement now? ugh, I knew it. 😉
“Get serious, people.”
I’m glad you take your responsibilities to be a fair broker seriously, but I don’t recall anyone accusing you of using a secondary identity to market your clients buildings. My recollection of multiple-identity accusations are all related to times when you’ve gone off on individuals and/or the general tone here and/or general market/economic conditions.
I don’t think any of that (were it the case) falls within either of those statutes, but may well be wrong, as I haven’t looked *at all* at how they are enforced (which is the relevant question, not what the statute sez). Certainly were you using additional identities to talk about how great building X is or how wonderful Developer Y’s projects are, that would (at best) be playing with the gray of the spirit of those laws.
Creating “Jay-Zee Speaks Truth” to join “Joe Zekas” in assaulting Bob/HD/Whoever for being imbeciles and jealous and life-time renters and trolls and idiotic fools and haters doesn’t seem to implicate any consumer protection issues–especially since the objects of ridicule aren’t selling anything (could well be different were the object of attack MG or MGG or Gary or Russ).
Anon (tfo)
Many people, myself included, do our best to conduct our affairs in accordance with the letter and the spirit of the laws, without regard to how they’re enforced.
Since my business, and the livelihood of my dozens of employees, depends on strict compliance I take the time to understand the laws that affect me rather than merely glancing at them as you’ve said you’ve done. A dim understanding of how the law applies to what I do may be sufficient for you, and fairly so. It’s insufficient for me, and operating in gray areas is a risk I wouldn’t undertake.
A number of commenters here have repeatedly suggested that I’ve posted under the screen name of “Sparky” or some other name, and have alleged I was doing so to buttress a client’s case. That’s defamatory, since I’ve never posted here or anywhere else without using my true name or my YoChicago moniker.
A number of commenters here have repeatedly made much of the fact that I’ve banned people from YoChicago. Every responsible non-political blog site I know bans commenters who baselessly defame other people or businesses, after giving them fair warning, as I’ve done. Disagreement is great; dishonesty isn’t.
“have alleged I was [posting under the screen name of “Sparky” or some other name] to buttress a client’s case”
Either missed it or interpreted it differently, but I’ll take your word for it, since, as you correctly note, my understanding was sufficient for me.
As to the potential of multiple-identity sniping (dishonest or otherwise), I stand by my assertion that *that* is not a matter of consumer protection and not illegal. And, notwithstanding your concern about giving “the line” a wide berth (which, as I noted, I appreciate), I doubt that anything going on in this “cesspool” would give rise to any criminal prosecution under any consumer protection law.
Joe, ever heard of Illinois’s anti-SLAPP law? All Sonies needs to show that the plaintiff is suing you for “any act or acts in furtherance of [your] rights of petition, speech, association, or to otherwise participate in government.” 735 ILCS 10/15 et seq.
Your comment below sounds like a SLAPP threat. Sue him and in the end you’d be paying Sonies attorney’s fees. Wow, I’ve come full circle and now I’m defending Sonies.
“If you weren’t such a pathetic creature I’d teach you a very expensive lesson about what’s acceptable online behavior and what isn’t.”
The ILCFA is a private right of action, it’s not criminal.
“Next, read and understand 815 ILCS 505, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.”
Joe Zekas,
I believe you to be Sparky. Whether you are or not. Its my belief and I don’t have conclusive proof–that’s rather difficult and impossible.
However the writing styles are very similar and the viewpoints identical. So I believe you to be Sparky and will continue with that assumption going forward. And there’s nothing you can do to stop me. While not a lawyer, I am quite assured of that. 😀
anon (tfo)
I didn’t suggest that any behavior here is criminal.
I also don’t have a problem with anonymous or multiple-identity sniping as long as the snipers don’t have any undisclosed interest in the target of their sniping, and as long as they’re not simply making up damaging stuff that isn’t true about people or businesses and alleging it to be fact.
I referred to this as a “cesspool” because commenters here frequently make unfounded accusations of illegal behavior against people in the real estate industry. Decent adults don’t do that, and responsible site proprietors don’t tolerate it.
homedelete,
I’m very familiar with SLAPP suits and the so-called “anti-SLAPP” law. See the fine article on the subject referenced here from two attorneys at my former law firm:
http://www.jenner.com/news/pubs_item.asp?id=14977824
If you’d read and understood the statute you’d realize it’s completely inapplicable to the discussion here, since it applies on its face to “any act or acts in furtherance of rights of petition, speech, association, or to otherwise participate in government.” 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 110/15
And no, that doesn’t mean the government of CribChatter.
You might want to consult an attorney before getting involved in legal discussions.
Looks like Sparky and Joe Zekas are at least affiliated with one another:
http://mobile.chicagoist.com/2007/06/13/daley_wants_to.php
Both commented on this article back in June, 2007. Maybe Sparky isn’t JZ himself but I’d bet my net worth they’re closely affiliated. JZ at 12:54pm, Sparky at 1:07pm…looks like office fellows to me.
And Bob makes clear why someone who used the name Bob and behaved exactly like this Bob was banned from YoChicago.
It must really pain you Joe that this website has much higher traffic than yours and that Sabrina allows a level of discourse here that you can’t control.
You’re an old man of a bygone era–the information era has usurped the control of information from you with which you used to get your livelihood.
let’s keep cribchatter as a real estate blog
there’s no purpose to some of these remarks:
http://provisoprobe.blogspot.com/2005/09/welch-brothers-file-suit-against.html
recent case law is pretty clear
Bob,
My sites, though aimed at a much narrower audience than CC’s, collectively have, I’m fairly certain, much higher traffic than CC and I’d be happy to submit server logs to an independent third party to verify that. You know that because I’ve previously posted a link to my stats, yet you continue to tout your fictional version of things.
I’ll always be younger than you, Bob. Knowledge keeps me young; ignorance makes you prematurely old.
dd,
Don’t undertand your link – which has nothing to do with case law, recent or otherwise.
Yochicago.com
* Alexa Traffic Rank: 616,030
* United States Flag Traffic Rank in US: 153,074
Cribchatter.com
* Alexa Traffic Rank: 214,916
* United States Flag Traffic Rank in US: 35,421
Data pulled from Alexa.
Again, Joe, don’t let “reality” or “facts” interfere with your opinion, not that you’ve ever been prone to.
😀
We have, as you well know, Bob, more sites than YoChicago.
We also have a visitor base that’s generally too sophisticated to install the Alexa toolbar on which these near-useless stats rely. Do you know anyone who runs the Alexa toolbar?
Alexa also only runs within IE (41.6% of our users), and its rankings are easily gamed.
Sabrina serves a very different audience than we do, and I’m glad s/he does.
There’s room for many real estate sites in Chicago. On behalf of the Tribune we’ll soon (April 15) be launching 6 new sites at ChicagoNow.com branded as Homeward Bound, beginning with city and North Shore sites and adding 2 more in May and 2 in June.
Does anyone else find it ironic that Joe Zekas needs to promote his website on the very site he criticizes. Love how he has to rationalize the web stats Bob provided from Alexa – very defensive. Kinda like that insecure 13 year old boy who loses an arm wrestling match to a girl. Thankfully, Sabrina doesn’t stoop down to his level and bans anyone with a dissenting view point.
My guess is CC out performs all the Joe Zekas permutations of WordPress blogs stats wise, reaches a far bigger audience, and has a larger base of return visitors. Not to mention with a budget that is probably 1/100th the size of JZ’s.
Joe put up or shut up, what are your website stats. Post them on your website.
Ned_Flanders
If you’d spent 1/10th of the time searching that you’ve spent speculating you would have found this:
http://yochicago.com/yochicago-%e2%80%93-the-tip-of-an-iceberg/13564/
I note you’re not challenging Sabrina to post comparable numbers.
Don’t undertand your link – which has nothing to do with case law, recent or otherwise.
Joe: the purpose was to get back to real estate. Also, this local case was important and written in a law journal…. suing a blogger for “defamatory” information did not go anywhere legally…
i get the sense of two distinct age groups and generations clashing on here…
Please try and be civil. Thanks.
http://mobile.chicagoist.com/2007/06/13/daley_wants_to.php
great post bob!!!!!!
in the pic that graff was done by a graffiti legend ..Antck DTE.. and the tag above it is my good old friend ..OL CARCrew.. i need to call him its been years since we spoke.
“suing a blogger for “defamatory” information did not go anywhere legally”
What about http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/autoadmit ? Wherein a subpoena seeking the identities of “anonymous” commenters was enforced? The potential liability of the host and the commenters is different.
Still turns on things being genuinely, legally defamatory, rather than defamatory in plaintiff’s conservative/liberal (depending on one’s perspective) interpretation of “defamatory”.
Anon:
Nice reading, Internet law is still developing. Subpoenas can usually be enforced with blogs because one needs to know the identity of the person so a complaint can be filed.
Agree with your last sentence and that it helps if monetary damages can be demonstrated. By the way, politicians don’t seem to have to adhere to any of this because of “absolute privilege.”