Total # 2 BR for sale: 15
High $299,900
Low $179,990
Median $229,990
Sold 2 BR YTD: 6 LP/SP Days on Market
High $195,000 96% 49
Low $140,000 83% 8
Median $161,250 90% 215
Total # 1 BR for sale: 7
High $129,000
Low $ 87,500
Median $104,990
Sold 1 BR YTD: 5 LP/SP Days on Market
High: $117,000 87% 10
Low: $ 85,000 86% 270
Median: $101,000 86% 140
Information provided by Marge Matinale, Lic. Associate Broker, Prudential Florida 1st Realty, 954-298-2527, fax: 954-771-7367, email: margesells4u@yahoo.com
3 comments:
Based upon present market values, it would seem logical to take actions that would increase our buyer base and improve our attractability as a residence for prospective buyers. I know that River Reach, a similar waterfront community in Ft. Lauderdale, allows pets. Their values haven't plummeted as drastically as have ours, so maybe it's time to investigate allowing pets at BCC. Lord knows there are sufficient grandfathered and quasi legal pets to refute that we're a "No Pet" community. Certainly worth a realistic discussion.
Wouldn't an amendment to the BCC Declaration of Condominium be required. Doesn't that need a 75% vote?
How about getting rid of ALL the pets, kids and residents with a last name ending in a vowel?
Anonymous One:
I must agree with you regarding the allowability of pets. I, too, have been following this issue through the Sun Sentinel reports on condo communities that are (or have been) in trouble.
One such community was almost bankrupt with over half of their units in foreclosure; they were in such dire straits that they could no longer afford a manager and were in great debt for electricity and water bills. They no longer provided cable TV and were being sued by many vendors. They have had no landscaping for the past two years (no flowers or replacement trees, etc.) They changed their rules to allow pets (under strict rules) - they are now back from the edge of oblivion with less than 20% of their units now in trouble.
I have been told by a reliable source that the BCC ORIGINAL 75% vote in favor of prohibiting pets was corrupt and that the original vote was actually in FAVOR of keeping pets but the Board in power at that time illegally "doctored" the final tally of votes and made it seem otherwise. I would think that if the current Board were to investigate though legal counsel, it should be possible to overthrow and rescind this corrupt pet settlement document.
Anonymous Two:
Yes - you are correct - a 75% vote would be necessary. I would hope that if a vote were to be taken, that the Board would take all precautions (as they did for the last Election) to ensure that the votes were honest and NOT corrupt and that there was no stuffing of the ballot box.
Your final sentence caused me to laugh uproariously!
I really don't think that ObamA would approve - you are suggesting ethnic "profiling"! That would mean getting rid of SlotA, ZubkO, LombardI ... basically you advocate getting rid of our whole Italian population (there goes "da mob" that Rocco Viola seems to be afraid of - including Mr. Viola himself!). You would also throw out all the Slavs, Polacks, Japanese, many Jews, many Frenchies and most of the Latinos (except those with names ending in "Z"). I wouldn't suggest this with the market depressed as it is at this point; there would be a glut of units available.
But you DO have a wicked sense of humor that I find delightful in a risque way. I'm afraid that we would have to declare you an non-conformist with inappropriate thoughts. I don't blame you for remaining "anonymous"; obviously YOUR real last name does NOT end with a vowel!
Post a Comment