.

Mill Valley’s Priciest Homes: 85 Marin View Ave.

This completely rebuilt house is for sale for $1,595,000.

Originally built in 1913, this two-bedroom house was completely rebuilt in 2008. It has two full bathrooms and a half-bath, is 2,189 square feet and is listed for $1,595,000.

The house is situated on about one third of an acre in the Mill Valley hills, affording expansive views in many directions.

There is a 300-square-foot studio space with a private entrance.

The main house features a chef’s kitchen with a walnut island, breakfast nook, open living and dining room, hardwood floors and a gas fireplace. There are two master suites, a two-car garage and ample decks.

The property is near the Dipsea Trail and Stinson Beach and within three miles of five elementary schools, all of which scoring either a 9 or 10 in the GreatSchools Rating system.

Pacific Union represents the property. For more information, visit the AOL Real Estate page.

SadTamValley Resident December 16, 2012 at 05:07 PM
$1.5M is more like the median in MV (unfortunately)
Jack December 17, 2012 at 03:01 PM
While the Patch is clearly recognized by even the most casual observer as real estate advertisement spam, can you not at least refrain from pushing the same garish properties day after day?
Cate Lecuyer (Editor) December 17, 2012 at 05:01 PM
Hi Jack, We have this one real estate column on Mill Valley Patch featuring a different home each week, which we started about a month ago and is very popular among readers. If you ever see anything that's actually posted by a real estate spammer, please let me know. Happy Holidays! Cate
Jack December 18, 2012 at 02:23 AM
Hello Cate, Thank you for your reply. You have written: "At Patch, we promise always to report the facts as objectively as possible and otherwise adhere to the principles of good journalism." Just pointing out the obvious that real estate advertising is not journalism (especially when the same ad continues to appear). Merry Christmas, Jack
Jim Welte December 18, 2012 at 02:52 AM
Jack: Thanks for the comments. We're not purporting this little Sunday feature to be good journalism. It's simply an anecdotal look at the most expensive homes in town. We choose it. It's not a source of revenue for us. There is plenty of content on our sites that is quality, thoughtful, local journalism. While this little real estate item is quite popular among our community, if it doesn't suit your tastes, no worries at all, just ignore it. Thanks for checking out Patch.
Jack December 18, 2012 at 03:14 AM
Please Jim. Ads for unconscionably expensive real estate directing the reader to the realtor + links to a half dozen more websites advertizing more real estate? How can you simultaneously " promise to adhere to the principles of good journalism" while "not purporting this to be good journalism?" I support your otherwise good journalism, thank you.
Jim Welte December 18, 2012 at 06:15 AM
Jack - Unless we're talking about different items, these short homes items feature one link - to our sister AOL Real Estate page - and nothing else links out. I'm not seeing the half-dozen more website we're linking to from this feature.
Jack December 18, 2012 at 06:43 AM
I think we're both right - half a dozen links to the same place - your sister (heretofore undeclared partner's?) real estate advertising website - not sure what that means, but they're all links to a lot more real estate advertising. So, these ads aren't a direct source of revenue to Patch, but rather an indirect source of revenue via your partner AOL Real Estate page? I say let's call it what it is: real estate advertising. After all, we can all see it. Thanks.
Rico December 18, 2012 at 05:04 PM
Nice house !
Chas Blackford January 15, 2013 at 09:37 PM
Jack- This is capitalism at work - advertising supports community/local newspapers as well as websites. It's your choice to read them. Question: are you writing to the NY Times or Marin IJ and objecting to subject appropriate advertising that appears in both the printed and online versions on those papers? Spam is unwanted, gratuitous or inappropriate ads. An ad from a local realtor like Bradley isn't spam. Me leaving a link in this comment to a website about a hair lose treatment would be: http://www.hairballspamsite.info.
Jack January 16, 2013 at 12:27 AM
Hello Charles. To be clear, my point is that real estate advertisements are appearing as news items in the Patch, which is inappropriate per Patch's own "promise to adhere to the principles of good journalism." Capitalism at work doesn't belong in the news section. Capitalism at work belongs in the advertising section. If I pick up the NYT, it's easy for me to toss the real estate and other advertising supplements. If the NYT features an advertisement, it says so. I don't read the Marin IJ, but I expect that they do so too. Time for Patch to catch up.
Jim Welte January 16, 2013 at 12:34 AM
Hey Jack: Quick point on this issue. I think you are confusing two distinct things: advertisements and editorial content. We choose the houses we feature in our communities. We do not accept money or solicitations for the homes we choose for this feature. And I'd suggest a more comprehensive look at other media outlets on the web would reveal very similar features, even at the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2013/01/13/realestate/20130113-OTMMIAMI.html
Rico January 16, 2013 at 01:41 AM
Hi Jack, You must understand that newspapers have been struggling for many years, due to online media. But, they are both in a very competitive industry that relies almost 100 percent on advertising revenue to exist. Do you think that the Patch makes money off of our comments ? No, the Patch is owned by AOL, which was one of the first and largest internet providers in the country. I remember getting CD's delivered in the mail from AOL to load their program into my computer. To me, that was unsoliced junk mail that I had to chuck into the circular file (trash can). And the IJ has been running front page articles that were actually publically funded advertisements for the SMART train, the MMWD (desal plant-water deficit propaganda) and a host of other developers with their new "north bay agenda". The exact same thing with the Pacific Sun, both of these papers would have gone bankrupt if it wasn't for us taxpayer to run advertising disguised as articles. Actually, even though we generously donated to the IJ welfare fund for SMART train advertising even BEFORE the measure Q was passed by the voters of Sonoma county, the IJ did go bankrupt ! You have to realize that any public internet site that offers a free commenting forum, needs revenue from somewhere. The IJ switched over to a Facebook commenting system, and Facebook recieves money from data mining and the taxpayers for working with the FBI to track people, which they must kick some dough down to the IJ.
Jack January 16, 2013 at 01:58 AM
Thank you Jim. If nothing else, the Patch as a portal to real estate advertising has been made increasingly clear during the course of this conversation. There is no confusion. If Patch says real estate advertising is editorial content at Patch, then real estate advertising is editorial content at Patch.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something