That's a tough one. The Dallas house is just annoying in many ways. Plus it's in Dallas. A million bucks seems like a lot for a house that clearly needs a lot of updating. It didn't have a good vibe at all.
The NY house: No way. We lived on a river in our last house and that 2K+ mandatory flood insurance check was very tough to write, year after year. And we weren't as close to the river as that house is. Plus, a 19th century home? Nothing but trouble. And I know the current owners would take away that creepy barber/dentist chair but its ghost would remain.
That leave the California house. I guess if I HAD to buy one of the three I'd channel my inner Wilma Flintstone and buy that one. I like the pool. But it seems awfully remote. And when friends come to visit, there are only 2 bedrooms and probably no decent hotels anywhere close by. Would they even come to visit?
I don't really like any of them as they are - If I had to pick one it would be the California one but I'd need a couple of extra bedrooms to fit my family in. All of them need a lot of work and look like they haven't had much love for a while (not so much the Dallas one, but it's, well, awful). I like the style of the California place (and the seclusion) though.
Around where I live, you can buy a traditional-style Australian home on 8 acres, a lovely place on the waterfront or my pick (although I'd need to change the tiles in the bathrooms!) for that sort of money.