Questions About Biden's Real Estate

[audtatious]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/polit....html

September 06, 2008 11:45 AM

The Wilmington (Del.) News Journal takes a look today at some of the real estate transactions of Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del.

Biden is one of the least wealthy members of Congress, but he enjoys a splendid home because of real estate deals with political supporters.

The Bidens live "on a four-acre lakefront estate in a 7,000-square-foot custom home" in Greenville, Del., a property worth at least $2.5 million.

Reports the newspaper: "In 1996, Biden sold a home in Greenville for the asking price of $1.2 million -- more than six times what he paid two decades earlier -- to John R. Cochran III, a top executive at the MBNA credit card bank that was a longtime political benefactor. Using profits from that sale, Biden paid $350,000 cash to real estate executive and developer Keith D. Stoltz for 4.2 vacant acres -- a long, narrow lot a few miles from Biden's old home. Stoltz had bought that same lot five years earlier for the same price…

"Although Cochran paid Biden's asking price, Stoltz wrote in an e-mail to The News Journal that 'the residential real estate market was soft' when he was selling his lot.

"Biden would not agree to be interviewed, campaign spokesman David Wade said in a written statement, because of 'time constraints -- he's going a million miles an hour.' Wade wrote that Biden's deals with Cochran and Stoltz were above board, and involved no special favors. 'Just like millions of Americans,' Wade wrote, 'the Biden family has bought, renovated, and sold their home over the last 20-plus years and been able to have a parent live close by. This is a snapshot of life in America that I think folks can relate to.'"

- jpt

------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting.....

[rn79870]

I see Biden sold his home for a profit and bought 4 lots for the same price the developer had paid for them a few years ago. Scandalous.

[szh]

I see Biden sold his home for a profit and bought 4 lots for the same price the developer had paid for them a few years ago. Scandalous.

Hmmm ... it could be considered political payments from his supporters - an interesting way to provide money through a "normal real-estate deal".

Cochran paid many times what the house value had increased to from the initial purchase - which is usually due to the land value increases, not the physical house.

And, yet, Stoltz sold his land for no gain after five years? I don't believe that!

Interesting indeed! I hope someone is investigating this ...

Z

[rn79870]

Cochran paid many times what the house value had increased to from the initial purchase - which is usually due to the land value increases, not the physical house.

In 20 years the lakefront property was bound to go up some don't you think?

And, yet, Stoltz sold his land for no gain after five years? I don't believe that!

You know, I've had the home I now live in for 3 years and I'd probably have to sell it for a $150,000 loss if I had to sell it now. If I could break even I'd sell it in a New York minute. Controversial, I think not.

Interesting indeed! I hope someone is investigating this ...Z

[szh]

In 20 years the lakefront property was bound to go up some don't you think?

(Look more carefully. It was not 20 years.)

So, the land value of the place that Biden sold went up more than six times, but the land value a few miles away stayed the same?

I don't think so!

You know, I've had the home I now live in for 3 years and I'd probably have to sell it for a $150,000 loss if I had to sell it now. If I could break even I'd sell it in a New York minute. Controversial, I think not.

The article is not talking about your home, wherever it might be - maybe things are depressed there too, but that is irrelevant. It is talking about two properties in the same location, where the land values should go up and down the same amount. Not a FACTOR of 6 for one, and no gain for the other.

Suspicious as hell. That is a classic pay-off disguised as a real-estate deal.

Z

[rn79870]

(Look more carefully. It was not 20 years.)

So, the land value of the place that Biden sold went up more than six times, but the land value a few miles away stayed the same?

I don't think so!

In 1996, Biden sold a home in Greenville for the asking price of $1.2 million -- more than six times what he paid two decades earlier --

Yes, property location determines the value of the property. That and location and location are the three most influential factors on real estate value.

The article is not talking about your home, wherever it might be - maybe things are depressed there too, but that is irrelevant. It is talking about two properties in the same location, where the land values should go up and down the same amount. Not a FACTOR of 6 for one, and no gain for the other.

No two properties are in the same location. I'll show you a block (actually about 10 blocks) a few miles from here where the houses are two million plus on one side of the street and 1/4 to 1/5 that amount on the other side of the street. Same street, different location. It all depends on location, not how near the location the property is.

Suspicious as hell. That is a classic pay-off disguised as a real-estate deal.Z

And America never landed on the moon. We love conspiracies.

[szh]

No two properties are in the same location. I'll show you a block (actually about 10 blocks) a few miles from here where the houses are two million plus on one side of the street and 1/4 to 1/5 that amount on the other side of the street. Same street, different location. It all depends on location, not how near the location the property is.

However, and this is the point, the value of the two houses you are talking about in this exmaple, go up (and down) the same way - even if the percentages are a bit different.

If one house goes up (or down) 2X, the other one does not stay the same.

For a property, near the lake, to stay the same after 5 years, while the other one goes up by a lot, would be kinda miraculous!

Z

[rn79870]

Yes, the one on the lakefront appreciated faster than the one that wasn't. It happens all the time. More desirable property goes up faster than less desirable property. Supply and demand.

[srellim234]

Can someone please tie these real estate deals into vote swings for me? I'm not going to holler "corruption" until it's all tied together. If Biden changed views, changed votes, etc. as a result of these deals then corruption is the issue.

I'm not saying corruption isn't there, but currently I see charges of corruption without the paid-off votes to back it up. Please link the donors to the votes by Biden.

[szh]

A. There may not be clear quid-pro-quo deals related to these few transactions. Or that can be dug up.

B. Regardless of whether there is or not, it involves personal financial gain by a Senator, in a sketchy real-estate deal.

Plus, I have not said that there is clear and obvious corruption. Merely that it is interesting indeed and needs investigation.

Z

[szh]

Yes, the one on the lakefront appreciated faster than the one that wasn't. It happens all the time. More desirable property goes up faster than less desirable property. Supply and demand.

You missed my point. One sale that benefitted Biden, appreciated 6 times (okay the period was longer) benefitting Biden, but the other did not change at all, also conveniently benefitting Biden!

That is not just "appreciated faster" ... conveniently, the second one did not appreciate at all!

Unlikely.

Z

[srellim234]

You're right. It IS suspicious and typical of what goes on in Washington politics. You're probably right that it can't be tied to specific votes, too.

[rn79870]

You missed my point. One sale that benefitted Biden, appreciated 6 times (okay the period was longer) benefitting Biden, but the other did not change at all, also conveniently benefitting Biden!

That is not just "appreciated faster" ... conveniently, the second one did not appreciate at all!

Z

If I understand your point, Biden should have sold his developed lakefront property for less than it was worth and bought the undeveloped non-lakefront property for more than it was worth.

[szh]

If I understand your point, Biden should have sold his developed lakefront property for less than it was worth and bought the undeveloped non-lakefront property for more than it was worth.

Nope. The buyer should have paid fair market value in both transactions.

Z

[audtatious]

You're right. It IS suspicious and typical of what goes on in Washington politics. You're probably right that it can't be tied to specific votes, too.

I agree and it further justifies my stance that the majority are crap and not just one party.

If I understand your point, Biden should have sold his developed lakefront property for less than it was worth and bought the undeveloped non-lakefront property for more than it was worth.

Do you have any information that shows other properties in the area went for the same amount or more? If not then you are assuming as well and ignoring the fishy factor.

[rn79870]

Nope. The buyer should have paid fair market value in both transactions.

Z

And market value is what a willing seller is willing to pay and what a willing seller is willing to sell for. Now if you had a party whose offer of more money was refused than you might have something. Otherwise, you have a market value transaction, nothing more.

[rn79870]

Do you have any information that shows other properties in the area went for the same amount or more? If not then you are assuming as well and ignoring the fishy factor.

I'm merely claiming that appreciation for developed lakefront property can reasonably be expected to be considerably higher than the appreciation of undeveloped non-lakefront property. As such, the values presented are not patently unreasonable.

[audtatious]

The property he is on now is lakefront and he bought it for the same price the MBNA guy had bought it for 5 years earlier. Based on what you just stated above, by all reason it should have been worth more in that 5 year timeframe.

It's fishy and since it seems to be the norm to post articles which call in the honesty and integrity of the four candidates, regardless of proof, then it fits in well here. Regardless of anything, the two deals were done with political supporters. If it were Bush, McCain or Palin then it would be front page news to rehash everything and use innuendo to bury them.

[szh]

And market value is what a willing seller is willing to pay and what a willing seller is willing to sell for.

The "willing" part is highly suspect, because it was in the interest of the buyer (in the first transaction) and the seller (in the second) to do convenient financial favors for Biden.

The first transaction might be such that the buyer paid extra to Biden (for the obvious reason) probably paying more than the real FMV. The second transaction might be such that the seller charged less to Biden, thereby selling at less than the real FMV.

Both conveniently "favorable to Biden" outcomes.

Like I said, suspicious, but not [yet] a smoking gun.

Z

[AZhitman]

The part that makes me more curious is that the deal was done with political supporters... Can someone expound on that?

[hannibal]

^ yeah, that seems shady regardless of the properties' values...