If you get a sense of deja vu from reading this coming Sunday's 'Hot Property' column in the Los Angeles Times, don't be surprised -- every single item that appears in that column has been written about already in the blogosphere, either here at Big Time Listings or over at the Real Estalker.

 

Columnist Ruth Ryon leads her column this coming Sunday with, 'If all you want for Christmas is a home once owned by a celebrity, you're in luck. There are several on the market.' We would say, however, that all we want for Christmas is original material from her. Failing that, we'd love it if she'd at least credit us in the blogosphere for breaking the news of all of these items.

The column's first item is about hip-hop star Kanye West's house in the flats of Beverly Hills, which is on the market for $8,699,000. We've written ad nauseam about that house -- including about the fact that the house, at 631 N. Crescent Drive, never was actually inhabited by West, who lives up in L.A.'s Hollywood Hills. And we noted on December 7 that the listing was 'looking for backup,' indicating that a deal was imminent (that status continues to be the case today, although Ryon also failed to mention that). We previously had written about West's listing back on November 8. (And hey, if Ryon doesn't like attributing anything to us, she should feel free to attribute the Real Estalker, which broke the story of West's listing on November 7.)

Ryon's second item is about Grammy winner Macy Gray's former home at 4322 Hayvenhurst Avenue in Los Angeles' Encino area, which is on the market for $11.7 million. Recall that we here at Big Time Listings broke the story of that listing back on November 12.

Ryon's third item is about the listing of hair and fashion maven Jose Eber's four-bedroom, never-lived-in-by-him house at 1277 St. Ives Place in Los Angeles' Hollywood Hills, which is on the market for $4,295,000. We haven't yet written about the house (which is pictured) until now, but our friends over at the Real Estalker broke the story of Eber's re-priced listing back on October 24. Check out an online listing sheet for Eber's house -- complete with photos -- here. Also, we should note that public records call the house 3,387 square feet, while Ryon and listing information state that it's 4,200 square feet. (For the record, Eber's main residence is his longtime, 1,255-square-foot condo unit at 321 S. San Vicente Boulevard in Los Angeles' Beverly Center area, which he has owned since 1985.)

Finally, in the strangest part of the column, Ryon concludes things by discussing a house at 7708 Woodrow Wilson Drive in Los Angeles' Hollywood Hills that she notes that Ringo Starr and Mama Cass both once lived in, which is on the market for $4.2 million. That's certainly newsworthy and it's all good and well, but Ryon completely omits what many readers would consider to be the most important aspect of the 4,828-square-foot house: that its current owner is actor Dan Aykroyd! We mentioned this house being on the market at its current asking price, back on December 3, and our friends over at the Real Estalker broke the story of Aykroyd's listing back on November 3.

We're puzzled as to why the Aykroyd ownership was omitted from the item in Ryon's column. Was it a deal with an agent? Maybe. But it's not exactly as if Aykroyd's ownership of the house is much of a secret; check out an online listing sheet for the house, which clearly identifies it as a 'gated celebrity compound.' Plus, the address appears as Aykroyd's on plenty of the free celebrity address lists that dot the Internet. And for that matter, it's not as if Ryon hasn't ever mentioned before that Aykroyd, Starr and Cass all had lived in the same house; her February 17, 2000 'Hot Property' column plainly states that Aykroyd's home, then on the market for $2.45 million (Aykroyd's house has been on and off the market many times over the years), 'was the home, at various times, of Ringo Starr and Mama Cass.'

We've of course written before about Ryon's 'two halves' style of reporting. If anyone has any idea why the Aykroyd ownership was omitted from her column -- or for that matter, why the blogosphere's scoops don't get the attribution that they deserve -- do let us know. We're all ears.