3 listings, 361 days on market in total · 361 days the displayed figure does not show · 2 clock resets
3 separate listings since 2025-09-15 add up to 361 days on market. The displayed figure is 0 days, so 361 days of market time is not being shown.
A terminate-and-relist issues a new listing number, and days on market is a property of the number rather than of the house. The reset is legitimate bookkeeping. It is also the reason a portal can print “New listing” over a house that has been for sale since last autumn.
Went off market on 2026-01-15, back on the same day on 2026-01-15 at the same price. 122 days of market time had already accumulated, and a days-on-market figure that starts at the relist shows none of it.
Went off market on 2026-09-11, back on the same day on 2026-09-11 at $99,100 less. 361 days of market time had already accumulated, and a days-on-market figure that starts at the relist shows none of it.
Each of these is a pattern in the dates and prices above. The reading is about what the pattern means for a buyer, not about the people involved.
Off market 2026-01-15, back 2026-01-15: $1,199,000 before, $1,199,000 after. 122 days of market time predates the relist.
The price did not move and the days-on-market clock went back to zero. Any read of seller patience that starts from the displayed figure starts from the wrong number.
Off market 2026-09-11, back 2026-09-11: $1,199,000 before, $1,099,900 after, down 8.3%. 361 days of market time predates the relist.
The ask came down across the break, and because the listing is new the reduction does not appear as a price cut anywhere on the current record. Both halves matter: the house did not sell at the old price, and the clock no longer shows how long it was tried.
3 separate listings inside 12 months: 2025-09-15 at $1,199,000, 2026-01-15 at $1,199,000, 2026-09-11 at $1,099,900.
Several separate listings inside a year. Each one reset the clock, so no single days-on-market figure describes how long this house has been for sale. Ask what changed between them, and what did not.
No assessed value on file, so the tax line on this listing cannot be checked against anything.
We cannot compute this one. The effective rate comes from this property’s own assessed value and its own annual bill, and this record does not carry both. A rate borrowed from the municipal average would produce a figure that looks the same as a real one and is wrong by whatever the education portion and any local improvement charge come to here, so nothing is shown instead.
One ordered list, price movements and tax records together, because they are the same story told by two different offices. Each row says what it implies rather than leaving you to work it out from the numbers.
A new listing, and a new days-on-market clock. 361 days of market time predate this listing and are not counted by it.
The annual tax the record carries for that year, on the assessed value rather than on any asking price.
A new listing, and a new days-on-market clock. 122 days of market time predate this listing and are not counted by it.
The start of the record we hold, which is not necessarily the start of the marketing.
This listing against the comparable solds is not shown here
Not shown: our current listing agreement does not licence this figure for display.
Each of these is a hole in the record rather than a finding about the house. They are listed because a conclusion drawn from a partial history is only as good as the reader’s knowledge of which part is absent.
No assessment on file
No assessment on file, so we cannot say what the house is valued at for tax purposes or what the bill is calculated from. The tax figures on the listing, if any, are unverifiable against anything we hold.
