Connect with us

Rhode Island

On the Market: Explore 28 open houses in Newport County this weekend (Nov. 2 – 3) – What's Up Newp

Published

on

On the Market: Explore 28 open houses in Newport County this weekend (Nov. 2 – 3) – What's Up Newp


Welcome to this week’s edition of “On the Market,” where we highlight exciting real estate opportunities featuring open houses across Newport County. As we embrace fall, the Rhode Island real estate market is experiencing notable shifts. Inventory levels are gradually increasing, but many buyers face affordability challenges as conventional loan rates remain around 7%.  

While the market remains competitive, we anticipate greater price stability as sellers adjust expectations and buyers negotiate more assertively. It’s essential for buyers to monitor interest rate fluctuations, especially with indications that the Federal Reserve may keep rates higher into 2024. Newport and surrounding communities continue to be highly sought after, particularly as remote work makes Aquidneck Island an attractive option for permanent residence.

Partnering with an experienced local agent is crucial during these changes. Tyler Bernadyn, co-owner of RE/MAX Results, offers unparalleled local expertise and commitment to his clients. Whether you’re buying or selling, Tyler is here to guide you through the process.  Be sure to visit his open house this weekend at 17 Longmeadow Road in Portsmouth.  

For questions on any of these offerings or to discuss the market, please contact Tyler at 401-241-1851 or TylerB@resultswithremax.com. Let’s take the next step in your real estate journey together.  

Advertisement

Click HERE to see what’s On The Market this weekend in Newport County

Saturday, November 2, 2024 – Open House roster

Middletown

  • 1505 Fairway Drive
    • Property Type: Condominium
    • Time: 11:00AM-1:00PM
    • Price: $550,000
    • Bedrooms: 3
    • Bathrooms: 3/1
    • MLS#: 1371983
  • 262 Peckham Avenue
    • Property Type: Single Family
    • Time: 11:00AM-12:30PM
    • Price: $2,599,000
    • Bedrooms: 3
    • Bathrooms: 3/1
    • MLS#: 1360274

Newport

  • 47 Admiral Kalbfus Road
    • Property Type: Single Family
    • Time: 12:00PM-1:30PM
    • Price: $575,000
    • Bedrooms: 3
    • Bathrooms: 1/0
    • MLS#: 1372068
  • 131 Broadway #6
    • Property Type: Condominium
    • Time: 10:30AM-12:00PM
    • Price: $385,000
    • Bedrooms: 1
    • Bathrooms: 1/0
    • MLS#: 1371654
  • 131 Broadway #5
    • Property Type: Condominium
    • Time: 10:30AM-12:00PM
    • Price: $435,000
    • Bedrooms: 1
    • Bathrooms: 1/0
    • MLS#: 1371653
  • 131 Broadway #3
    • Property Type: Condominium
    • Time: 10:30AM-12:00PM
    • Price: $425,000
    • Bedrooms: 1
    • Bathrooms: 1/0
    • MLS#: 1371647
  • 131 Broadway #2
    • Property Type: Condominium
    • Time: 10:30AM-11:30AM
    • Price: $465,000
    • Bedrooms: 1
    • Bathrooms: 1/0
    • MLS#: 1371645
  • 131 Broadway #1
    • Property Type: Condominium
    • Time: 10:30AM-12:00PM
    • Price: $365,000
    • Bedrooms: 1
    • Bathrooms: 1/0
    • MLS#: 1371642

Portsmouth

  • 17 Longmeadow Road
    • Property Type: Single Family
    • Time: 11:00AM-12:30PM
    • Price: $599,000
    • Bedrooms: 3
    • Bathrooms: 1/1
    • MLS#: 1372147
  • 180 McCorrie Lane
    • Property Type: Single Family
    • Time: 2:00PM-3:00PM
    • Price: $525,000
    • Bedrooms: 3
    • Bathrooms: 2/0
    • MLS#: 1371515
  • 79 Roger Williams Court
    • Property Type: Single Family
    • Time: 10:00AM-11:00AM
    • Price: $875,000
    • Bedrooms: 3
    • Bathrooms: 2/1
    • MLS#: 1368396
  • 1 Aquidneck Avenue
    • Property Type: Single Family
    • Time: 11:00AM-12:00PM
    • Price: $640,000
    • Bedrooms: 2
    • Bathrooms: 1/1
    • MLS#: 1370922
  • 42 President Avenue
    • Property Type: Single Family
    • Time: 12:00PM-1:30PM
    • Price: $750,000
    • Bedrooms: 4
    • Bathrooms: 2/0
    • MLS#: 1372056
  • 11 Cindy Lane
    • Property Type: Single Family
    • Time: 11:00AM-12:30PM
    • Price: $1,089,000
    • Bedrooms: 3
    • Bathrooms: 1/1
    • MLS#: 1370045
  • 71 Douglas Avenue
    • Property Type: Single Family
    • Time: 11:30AM-1:30PM
    • Price: $589,000
    • Bedrooms: 3
    • Bathrooms: 2/0
    • MLS#: 1371478

Tiverton

  • 29 William Street
    • Property Type: Single Family
    • Time: 11:00AM-12:30PM
    • Price: $549,000
    • Bedrooms: 2
    • Bathrooms: 2/0
    • MLS#: 1355742
  • 55 Pierce Avenue
    • Property Type: Single Family
    • Time: 10:30AM-12:00PM
    • Price: $439,000
    • Bedrooms: 2
    • Bathrooms: 1/0
    • MLS#: 1369414
  • 39 Hilton Street
    • Property Type: Single Family
    • Time: 11:00AM-1:00PM
    • Price: $360,000
    • Bedrooms: 2
    • Bathrooms: 1/0
    • MLS#: 1368721

Sunday, November 3, 2024 – Open House roster

Jamestown

  • 149 Hamilton Avenue
    • Property Type: Single Family
    • Time: 10:30AM-12:00PM
    • Price: $3,250,000
    • Bedrooms: 5
    • Bathrooms: 4/1
    • MLS#: 1370189

Portsmouth

  • 91 Massachusetts Boulevard
    • Property Type: Single Family
    • Time: 12:00PM-2:00PM
    • Price: $515,000
    • Bedrooms: 3
    • Bathrooms: 2/0
    • MLS#: 1370907
  • 17 Longmeadow Road
    • Property Type: Single Family
    • Time: 11:00AM-12:30PM
    • Price: $599,000
    • Bedrooms: 3
    • Bathrooms: 1/1
    • MLS#: 1372147
  • 71 Douglas Avenue
    • Property Type: Single Family
    • Time: 11:00AM-12:00PM
    • Price: $589,000
    • Bedrooms: 3
    • Bathrooms: 2/0
    • MLS#: 1371478
  • 42 President Avenue
    • Property Type: Single Family
    • Time: 11:30AM-1:00PM
    • Price: $750,000
    • Bedrooms: 4
    • Bathrooms: 2/0
    • MLS#: 1372056
  • 195 Windward Drive
    • Property Type: Single Family
    • Time: 12:00PM-2:00PM
    • Price: $550,000
    • Bedrooms: 3
    • Bathrooms: 1/1
    • MLS#: 1371912
  • 1 Tower Drive #504
    • Property Type: Condominium
    • Time: 11:00AM-12:30PM
    • Price: $450,000
    • Bedrooms: 1
    • Bathrooms: 2/0
    • MLS#: 1369823
  • 11 Narragansett Avenue
    • Property Type: Single Family
    • Time: 1:00PM-2:30PM
    • Price: $1,220,000
    • Bedrooms: 4
    • Bathrooms: 3/0
    • MLS#: 1362332

Tiverton

  • 71 Starboard Drive #440
    • Property Type: Condominium
    • Time: 11:00AM-12:30PM
    • Price: $699,000
    • Bedrooms: 1
    • Bathrooms: 1/1
    • MLS#: 1371112
  • 55 Pierce Avenue
    • Property Type: Single Family
    • Time: 11:00AM-12:30PM
    • Price: $439,000
    • Bedrooms: 2
    • Bathrooms: 1/0
    • MLS#: 1369414

Born and raised in Rhode Island, Tyler’s familiarity and passion for the Ocean State is unparalleled. Tyler is enthusiastically committed to going above and beyond for his clients and prides himself on a ‘full-service’ concierge-style approach to real estate. His business is built on a foundation of trust and communication.

Advertisement

Whether you’re a portfolio investor or purchasing your first home, Tyler is committed to making each and every transaction as smooth, seamless and enjoyable as possible. In order to best serve his clients interests, he also has deep rooted relationships with a collection of local builders, contractors and technicians to ensure that every property need is covered by a qualified professional.

A leading member of the Fitzpatrick Team, the #1 real estate team in Newport County and #1 RE/MAX Team in Rhode Island, Tyler ranks amongst the top producing agents and closed 2022 with over $25 million dollars in individual sales. He is on the Board of Directors for the Newport County Board of Realtors and is a weekly contributor for WhatsUpNewp.

Tyler is a Providence College graduate who proudly calls Newport home. When he’s not working, he’s planning his next project, enjoying time on the water or the golf course, and spending time with his dogs – Red and Freya.

More by Tyler Bernadyn

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Rhode Island

The disinformation campaign against a R.I. constitutional convention – The Boston Globe

Published

on

The disinformation campaign against a R.I. constitutional convention – The Boston Globe


The “no” campaign itself began with a broad investment in the claim that a constitutional convention could endanger women’s reproductive rights. When the constitutional convention question was last on the ballot in 2014, as it is every 10 years, the “no” campaign sent a direct mailer to registered Rhode Island voters making this argument just days before the election. Subsequently, the argument was widely ridiculed because Rhode Islanders support women’s reproductive rights, including abortion.

But what if voters could be hoodwinked into voting against their own core interests? That’s essentially what the current “no” campaign argues happened in 1986.

Advertisement

That year, the amendment approved by voters included the following clause, which, taken out of context, appears to restrict women’s reproductive rights: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to grant or secure any right relating to abortion or the funding thereof.”

What makes this argument so interesting is that the Rhode Island ACLU, a leader of both the 2014 and 2024 “no” coalitions, rebutted this claim in three legal briefs filed from 2019 to 2021 against Catholics for Life, an anti-abortion group that in 2019 brought a lawsuit making essentially the same argument the “no” coalition is now making. That lawsuit sought, unsuccessfully, to block the Reproductive Privacy Act, which had been passed by the Rhode Island General Assembly, on the grounds that the 1986 amendment made the legislation unconstitutional.

Like the “no” coalition, Catholics for Life argued that this clause restricted women’s reproductive rights.

The amendment included the following clause that explains its voter support: “No otherwise qualified person shall, solely by reason of race, gender or handicap be subject to discrimination by the state.”

Anti-abortion advocates among the convention delegates worried that a future court could interpret these vaguely specified rights as endorsing the right to an abortion. Thus, they ended the amendment with the clause stipulating the new rights shouldn’t be construed that way. As the ACLU successfully argued in its briefs, the General Assembly was free to enhance women’s reproductive rights, and the courts could protect those rights based on any constitutional provision except this new one.

Advertisement

In contrast, the anti-abortion group interpreted the clause as preventing the General Assembly from proposing any legislation enhancing women’s reproductive rights without first getting a constitutional amendment allowing it to do that. To support its argument, it observed that the “no” coalition made such a claim during its campaign against calling a convention in 2004. In response, the ACLU argued that the “no” coalition’s 2004 claims to the contrary were in an advocacy context, and should have “no independent weight” with the court.

I agree with the ACLU’s legal briefs filed in this case critiquing the anti-abortion group’s argument that the clause prevents the General Assembly from protecting and enhancing women’s reproductive rights.

I also agree with the briefs’ argument that the drafting history of the amendment shows that the convention did not intend to surreptitiously restrict women’s reproductive rights. Further, it wasn’t misleading when the ballot measure did not describe this clause in its ballot summary. That is, unlike the “no” coalition’s current implicit assumption in its advocacy claims, no conspiracy existed to hide the impact of this clause from the convention delegates and the public.

The “no” coalition will undoubtedly find reasons to dispute this analysis. I’d suggest that one of the ACLU’s legal briefs includes the best brief rebuttal of such claims: “[The choice clause in 1986] was neither understood nor intended to affirmatively restrict or interfere with the exercise of reproductive rights.”

The “no” coalition has promoted such bogus arguments to the public because the true reason its supporters oppose an independently elected convention — to preserve their power over the legislature — cannot be said publicly.

Advertisement

J.H. Snider is the editor of The Rhode Island State Constitutional Convention Clearinghouse.





Source link

Continue Reading

Rhode Island

‘Conjuring House’ owner arrested, charged with DUI – The Boston Globe

Published

on

‘Conjuring House’ owner arrested, charged with DUI – The Boston Globe


“I am not a criminal. I have never been arrested,” she wrote in a text message.

According to Police Chief Stephen Lynch, officers received calls on Monday night reporting an erratic driver.

Police found the Lexus SUV after 9 p.m. stopped on Hill Road, and as officers approached the car, allegedly driven by Nuñez, the vehicle took off, according to a police report.

Nuñez allegedly drove 51 miles per hour in a 25-mile-per-hour zone, failed to stop for a stop sign, swerved into the opposite lane, and nearly drove off the road at different times during the pursuit, authorities said.

Eventually, Nuñez came to a stop on Wallum Lake Road, and officers approached the car with their guns drawn, the report states.

Body camera video footage shows Nuñez mumbling, “What’s wrong,” as officers approach her. Officers wrote they “detected the overwhelming odor of an alcoholic beverage emitting from her breath.”According to the police report and footage from police body-worn cameras released Thursday, she repeatedly told the officers that she owns The Conjuring House, and argued with them about why she did not pull over immediately.

Advertisement
Jacqueline Nuñez, who owns “The Conjuring House,” was arrested under the suspicion of driving under the influence in Burrillville, R.I. this week. Nuñez is seen here in body camera video footage released by police. Burrillville Police

Officers attempted to perform field sobriety tests, but the video shows Nuñez not following directions and laughing at officers. At one point she told police, “You’re boring me,” and accused them of trying to “save face” by administering the tests, the report states.

Police said she later refused a Breathalyzer test, but told officers she drank three cocktails that night. She was later shackled to a bed at the police station after she refused to stop “aggressively banging on the cell door and yelling,” police wrote.

In a series of text messages sent to the Globe, Nuñez claimed she passed a sobriety test and that police did not ask her to take a Breathalyzer.

She claimed police and others are “trying to drive me out of business.”

“I am terrified of this PD. I did drive past a stop sign and then pulled over on the shoulder when they approached,” she wrote. “I remember being panicked and terrified and sped up and then pulled over. I knew I was going to be harassed and possibly taken somewhere to be killed.”

Advertisement

Lynch said Burrillville officers are sometimes called to The Conjuring House, where Nuñez also lives, over traffic caused by curious onlookers. On Saturday night, Lynch said, Nuñez called police to report seeing former employees near the woods. Police responded but did not find anyone there, Lynch said.

During the summer, officers also went to The Conjuring House twice with a health care provider to check on Nuñez, who was brought to a hospital on one of those occasions, he said.

Last month, Nuñez told The Providence Journal the hospital stay was orchestrated by former employees in an attempt to take control of the house.

In a series of texts with the Globe, Nuñez referred to several medical facilities but declined to provide details. “Being thrown into facilities because I am complaining about crimes against me and my legitimate business does not mean that I have psychiatric issues,” Nuñez wrote.

The DUI charges follow other Conjuring House-related controversies in recent months. The 18th-century farmhouse was the inspiration for the 2013 movie “The Conjuring,” about hauntings that plagued the Perron family there in the 1970s. Visitors come from around the world to tour the property, and some even spend the night.

Advertisement

Former employees have said Nuñez owes them money, including one who said he was fired after Nuńez accused him of stealing money from the business – an accusation she said was based on a tip by the ghost of a former owner.

Guests have also complained about being asked to leave based on information she seemed to indicate was from spirits. Scott Kitlarz told the Globe he and his wife paid $1,089 to stay overnight at the house on Oct. 21. The Iowa couple left within a few hours after Nuñez asked if they were content creators and accused them of not having “good intentions,” adding, “I can feel your energy,” according to an audio recording Kitlarz provided to the Globe. He told the Globe she seemed to indicate that spirits had informed her about the Kitlarzs.

He said they brought cameras and microphones to try to capture anything otherworldly, but they are not content creators. The Conjuring House’s website states that guests may bring “ghost hunting equipment” but content creators must inform staff before they arrive. Kitlarz asked for a refund, which Nunez agreed to, but he said that as of Wednesday he had not received any part of the $1,089 he and his wife had paid.

When asked about Kitlarz’s experience, Nuñez texted that she “was alerted quickly to their intentions so I acted quickly.”

“No one with intent to hurt me or my business will get a refund,” she said.“I will not reveal my sources that look to protect me and TCH.”

Advertisement

Jason Hawes, the Rhode Island-based star of SyFy’s “Ghost Hunters” television show, has also accused Nuñez of harassing him and has said he is concerned about the safety of guests who stay there.

Amidst the controversies, “The Conjuring House” has remained open to visitors, though last week, Lynch opted not to immediately approve the entertainment license for the property, citing “inappropriate” attachments with its application. Nuñez can still resubmit her application though, before her current license expires in November, Lynch said.

When asked about the license, Nuñez said she will “pursue every option to run my legitimate business.”

“Burrillville will need a compelling reason to decline it,” she said in a text message.


Advertisement

Christopher Gavin can be reached at christopher.gavin@globe.com.





Source link

Continue Reading

Rhode Island

Foulkes widens fundraising gap with McKee in Q3, has $840,000 in the bank

Published

on

Foulkes widens fundraising gap with McKee in Q3, has 0,000 in the bank


play

Potential 2026 Rhode Island gubernatorial candidate Helena Foulkes expanded her fundraising advantage over incumbent Gov. Dan McKee in the third quarter of the year.

Foulkes, who lost the 2022 Democratic primary to McKee by 2 percentage points, raised $412,164 from July 1 through Sept. 30 and now has $842,441 in the bank, campaign spokesman Jon Romano said Thursday.

Advertisement

That’s nearly three times the $144,232 McKee raised in the third quarter, according to his filing with the Board of Elections. McKee finished September with $505,031 in the bank.

Second-quarter fundraising between the two rivals was much closer than in the third quarter, with McKee holding a slight advantage in new donations and Foulkes a narrow edge in total cash at the end of June.

The latest campaign finance figures were reported on a day that McKee clashed with Attorney General Peter Neronha, whom McKee accused of conducting a politically motivated investigation into the ILO Group school reopening contract to benefit Foulkes.

Neronha, who mulled running for governor himself a year ago, didn’t raise any money in the third quarter, according to his filing. He still has around $65,000 in the bank.

Advertisement

The largest campaign warchest in the state still belongs to House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi, who raised another $73,000 from Oct. 8 to Oct. 28 and had $2.95 million in the bank. Shekarchi is unopposed for reelection to the House this year.

Senate President Dominick Ruggerio, also unopposed, raised $300 over the same period. He has $159,000 in the bank.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending