Tommy DobczykOpportunity Zone Advisor, OZ Wizard · Director of Development | Certified Opportunity Zone Advisor

Real Estate Investment: Is 2.1M Too High? #shorts

17 May 2026 · 2 min

Watch on YouTube

2:04

In this YouTube short, Tommy Dobczyk evaluates a 7‑acre industrial property listed at $2.1 million. He compares recent nearby sales—one at $495 k (~$70/acre) and another at $290 k (~$29/acre)—showing a wide price spread. Dobczyk argues the $2.1 M ask is excessive for a straight investment acquisition. He outlines three potential buyer types: an owner‑user (requiring interstate access and yard utility), a land‑banker/development play (needing confirmed zoning and site‑plan feasibility), and a pure investment buyer (who should walk away). He flags LoopNet’s flood‑zone alerts and stresses confirming prior sale prices with the title company. His negotiation tip is to offer the seller the exact amount they previously paid ($487,500), turning any excess into the seller’s “house money.” Based on the comps and diligence, Dobczyk recommends a defensible offer range of $1.0‑$1.3 M, stretching to $1.5 M only if due‑diligence validates the higher price. The overall verdict: the property is a no‑go at $2.1 M for a straight investment.

Chapters

Are you a land shark doing deals? 2.1 for a straight investment acquisition. So the nearby market signal shows that there was a 7.01, so 7-acre industrial that went for $495, roughly $70 an acre. Another one that went for $290, which is $29 an acre. So there's a significant spread there, right? Asset want 2.1 unless there's rarefied air. As an owner-user buy, maybe but only if interstate exposure and yard land utility solve the business problem. And then as a land banker development play, workable only if you can confirm zoning use and path. So, uh, LoopNet flags portions in the BX flood areas. So site planning matters. The Shark Verdict is no-go at 2.1 for a straight investment acquisition. A more defensible range looks at 1 to 1.3. With a stretch around 1.5, only if diligence confirms. So not sure where it got the 2.1, except for maybe it's going off of the comp, right? I think that's where it's coming up with it. So shows the market value at $833,000. It shows prior sale at $487,000. This is for everybody in the room to understand. When you, when you have a previous sale, you always want to confirm with the title company, call the title company and say, hey, can you validate that this property sold for this amount? I don't ever want to take what it says for granted, but what it does signify and show is that this individual again wants to get out of this. So the negotiating tactic Daddy always taught me, offer them at least what they have in the property. So if they bought it for $487,500, offer them exactly $487,500. Right. And so then at that point, all the rest of that money is what they call house money, right? It's extra money for them. They got, they got their money back unless they owe, unless they went leveraged it again. That's none of my concern. But anyway, bottom line, this is not a buy at, at ask deal because again, it's, you going off of that 2.1 thing. But the target offer here says 1.0 to 1, you know, 1 to 1.2. And I think that's a fair situation.