Barbarians on the field!
Our little town has achieved front page status in the New York Times (check link - I think it's working) via an article by my friend, Peter Applebaum. Peter wrote a fair and balanced story covering the issue but I tend to side with our town's chief of police who is quoted in the Greenwich Time this morning as disapproving the kids' argument that it's a choice between whiffleball and heroin. Reminds of that idiotic ad campaign in the 60's (or maybe early 70's) showing an unattended car with its key in the ignition and the tag line, "don't help a good boy go bad". I was very much not good boy during that period, but even I could appreciate that good boys wouldn't be tempted to do evil by the sight of an easily-boosted car.

I sympathize with both sides here. The kids were bored, and Greenwich is truly boring for kids of that age, so they did something about it in an enterprising way. The neighbors want peace and quiet, however, and that's being ruined by the noisy games. It will take a wiser man than I to decide this one fairly - in the meantime, the neighbors could pray for rain.

UPDATE
One commentator below expressed disappointment that I don't side more strongly take the kids' side - I was focusing more on the dumb threat one of the kids made that, if they weren't allowed wiffleball they'd just turn to drugs, but the merits of the case itself probably fall in favor of the kids. Heck, we had a pretty-much non-stop baseball game going on in my backyard in Riverside long ago, with an ever-changing lineup as local kids showed up, played a few innings and went on to other things (drugs and alcohol? I think we were too young) and were replaced by the next player. I'm sure our games made a lot of noise but somehow the adult neighbors survived and amazingly (this was 40 years ago, in another era) never complained. For that matter, and again to demonstrate how different is the world we live in today, we had at least two broken arms from bat-body collissions, another couple of broken arms from kids falling out of the big tree in the outfield, and not one of the parents brought suit. Imagine that.

Apples to Apples?
It's often difficult to calculate price increases in the market because so many older houses are bought at one price, completely renovated and then placed back on the market. If they sell for a higher price, how much can be attributed to shiny new kitchen appliances, master baths and granite counters versus the general upswing of the market itself? So it's nice to find an untouched house and see what's going on. One such example is 228 Stanwich Road, an older house in need of renovation that sold for $1,700,000 (from an original asking price of $2,125,000) on August 30,2007. The new owners did nothing to it and changed their mind about holding on to it so today it was returned to the market at $1,895,000. Has the property really increased $200,000 in value? I personally doubt it, but I'll watch what happens and let you know.
196 Bible Street sold on June 14,2007, for $4,050,000 and after being re listed in November for $4,555,000, untouched, was dropped today to $3,850,000. There's an owner who has some grasp of current market conditions, I think.

Then there's 23 West End Avenue, new construction right next to the Old Greenwich sewage pumping station. The seller originally asked $1,895,000 and the house sat unsold, despite its description as "abutting town land" (might have worked for noseless, blind buyers). It remains unsold, three years later and today was listed for $1,649,000. The builder owner is getting there, but now he's selling a three-year-old house. Tough to get new construction pricing under that circumstance.

Mortgages in Greenwich?
A reader expresses surprise that we have such things - "I thought everyone paid in cash?" Hardly. First, if the median price for a house in town is around $2,000,000, that leaves plenty of houses for sale in the $450,000 - $2,000,000 range to be purchased by folks who, if they lived in Zimbabwe, might be considered wildly rich but here in Greenwich are probably just struggling to get buy. No college scholarships for most of these people, but lots of taxes and more on their way - someone has to pay for Obama's largess. Second, even wealthy people don't like sticking a huge sum of cash into a relatively illiquid "investment". I know many instances where buyers of multi-million dollar mansions took out 80% mortgages. either because their stock holdings were restricted or they just didn't want to part with their cash. I've got a call in to a couple of my mortgage broker friends but I'd bet at least 80% of all house sales in town involve a mortgage, even though the current tax law disallows any interest deduction after the first million (at least, I think that's still the law - not being in quite that category myself, I haven't checked recently).