On the way back from the grocery store, I started to wonder about one long-term consequence of the foreclosure crisis that I haven't seen discussed explicitly in any of the various economics and real estate blogs and media sources I read.

The issue I have in mind is the protracted shortage of qualified buyers we're likely to have for several years in the future as a result of the foreclosure mess.

Let me explain.

We've all seen the mortgage reset graphs from the IMF and Credit Suisse, which indicate we're in for several years of distress. Here's one from Calculated Risk:

And one from the Irvine Housing Blog:

The graphs are normally discussed from two angles:

• The impact of defaults on the financial system (bank collapses, worthless mortgage-backed securities, etc)
• The impact of defaults on housing inventory (lots of foreclosures = lots of homes on the market = downward pressure on prices = more upside-down mortgages = fewer refinancings, wash, rinse, repeat)
  

But another consequence of these huge numbers of foreclosures is that millions of people's credit scores will be significantly damaged, and so unable to secure a home loan for several years (assuming the banking and financial sectors have learned their lesson). I therefore predict the pool of eligible home buyers will be diminished for many years after the incoming glut of foreclosure filings has been completed.

You might argue a lot of those people probably shouldn't and wouldn't be in the buyer pool in the first place, ever; the fact they entered it is only an artifact of the mortgage market's insanity in the first few years of this decade. But one might counter that some of them would eventually have become eligible after a few years of employment and credit history, except they bought houses in 2002-2007 and screwed themselves up for five to ten years.

You might also point out the buyer pool shrinkage is independent of whether today's distressed owners stay in their homes or not, as they wouldn't buy a new house for the next 5 to 10 years anyway: either because their FICO score is shot, or because, well, they already own a house. That's fair enough, but again I don't recall seeing a discussion of the inevitability of a buyer pool shrinkage as a result of the high levels of home ownership we saw in the past few years.

I'm going to try to get in touch with various RE economy bloggers to see if they can help me quantify this.

Of course, this specific point might have been discussed all over the place and I might just be uninformed. If anyone has any articles you know about, I'd love to see them.

We've seen a lot of delusional asking prices in this town, but today's listing takes the cake, fruitcake, pumpkin pie, and bûche de Noël all at once. 3045 Marina Drive has the following specs:

3 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, 2 stories, 1,600 sqft, approx. 5,660-sqft lot, boat dock, MLS(r) #40385068

Fabulous waterfront home [...] boat dock. Updated boathouse w/ kitchen & bath. [...] Putting green, 13 fruit trees, brick bbq. [...] totally one of a kind with finest appliances, family room of glass-ready for the most discriminative buyer. Great central location.

This property is reportedly in the DEEP WATER DOCK subdivision of Alameda:

why the gray, retouched picture?

I'd like to know what the heck a "family room of glass" is, and in what universe that address is a "central location."

Keen-eyed readers will have noticed that I left the price out, except for the hint in the gray picture above the map.

For the benefit of large-print book aficionados, let me take a moment to display this property's price in a font size that fits its standing as The Most Grotesquely Inflated List Price In All Of Alameda. Drum roll please, as we reveal this home's list price of...



It comes out to $1,122 / sqft, in case you're too flabbergasted to do the math in your head or too blown away to pull out your desktop calculator.

I understand the house has been pimped out upgraded with "finest appliances" and that even your boat gets its own little house with bathroom and kitchen (boats are known to get peckish at odd hours). I also understand the dock and great central location mean there's probably a pretty good view of the estuary, the High Street bridge, and swathes of stunning beige storage buildings on the Oakland side (and perhaps even a peekaboo view of the Home Depot warehouse, if you're lucky), which is probably a plus if you're into that sort of thing.

I wasn't able to find any sale history, so maybe it's all paid off and the property owners will be able to drop the price by, say, one million dollars or so, to bring it in line with the market.

This is so completely, mind-blowingly insane it almost deserves its own super-epic category.

This one puzzles me. 3016 Lincoln Avenue is described as follows:

2 bedrooms, 1 bathroom, 1,426 sqft, 3,180-sqft lot, MLS(r) #40382298, $300,000
[...] Short Sale. All offers and commission is Subject to Lender Approval. [...] lovely east end neighborhood [...] Much work is needed [...] Amazing bones w/ original woodwork, boxed ceiling w/ original wood paneling in the large dining rm

There's no sale history available on Zillow or Trulia, so one has to assume the current, long-time owners have borrowed against their home's equity to the tune of more than $300,000 (since this is a short sale subject to approval listed at $300,000), yet the house looks like it's been run over by a truck and it needs "much work". So where, prithee, the hell did the money go?

You may remember 609 Fortress Isle, a lagoon rancher that languished on the market for a while last summer at a grotesquely high $1,199,000. In case you forgot, here's what Craigslist had to say about it:

Description
$290,000 WORTH OF IMPROVEMENTS/UPGRADES/RENOVATIONS!!! Georgeous 3 Bedrooms, 2 Baths Custom Estate on very large Cul-de-sac Lot on the Lagoon will leave you breathless.  Entrance has room for artifacts. Grand room w/ majestic stone, wood burning fireplace. A solid wall of Panoramic windows overlooking large deck & length of lagoon. Upgraded galley kitchen and large BR's. This home is a true showplace. Private Boat Dock, stunning large deck for entertaining with stair lighting ambience. Incredible dining room with panoramic windows, A/C, central heating, track lighting, and skylight. Remodeled kitchen with pergo floors, Andersen Bay Window. Upgraded bathroom with pergo floor, light fixtures, and mirrors. Relaxed Living on the Water! Convenient to Alameda Towne, schools, and transportation. Close to the Beach. Quiet South Shore neighborhood.

Well, it's back (MLS(r) #40376581), and you can have it for...

$850,000.

That's right. A $349,000 haircut all at once. That's 29% off. And yes, it's the same house:

One of the largest lagoon homes on the South Shore, [...] water views from many windows, its own private boat dock and a large sunny wraparound deck, grassy play/garden area. [...] stone fireplace, updated kitchen, bonus sunporch. Many upgrades.

I can only imagine what it must feel like if you were a buyer who lowballed at, say, $1,099,000 and got rejected.

Notably, this is one of three relists in today's batch of four "new" MLS(r) listings (although one of those has apparently been foreclosed on since I wrote about it, so it's technically not a relist, I suppose).

An adorable Victorian at 1514 Minturn showed up in my email box today courtesy of Trulia. It's a pretty "duplex", which really means "high-basement conversion" based on the square footage and the high-basement look of it (photo below) with the following specs:

4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 1,300 sqft, MLS(r) #, $599,000

Victorian Duplex Pride of Ownership , 2 floors, harwood floors

The location is great if you like peace and quiet--it's at the end of a cul-de-sac--but less so if you like large lots. I couldn't find the lot's square footage anywhere, but judging by the Google map's aerial view, it doesn't look too big. The property (or part thereof) appears to have been used as the headquarters for a painting business named Grand Finishes.

Listed at $599,000 ($461 / sqft), it's probably going to sell reasonably quickly, although the current credit contraction + holiday season combo is not exactly playing in its favor. It's also not clear how it would be cash-flow-positive as an investment property, given that a 6.5%-interest mortgage assuming 20% down is at least $3,000 / month, not counting maintenance or property tax, and I have a hard time imagining either unit in this house renting for much more than $1,500 $750 a month (turns out each unit is about 650 sqft).

It certainly hasn't been a terribly cash-flow-positive investment for the current owners:

Last sale and tax info

Sold 09/30/2005: $720,000

2007 Property Tax: $9,404

Who exactly thought this little house justified paying almost three quarters of a million?

Update 11/3/08: Here's a bank that doesn't mess around. Priced at $420,000 today.

Update 11/20/08: A reader reported this property sold for $476,000, a 34% drop in value from its previous transaction just three years ago. Yay (and thanks for the tip)!

Update 11/25/08: Back/still on the market?

Update 1/2/09: Still on the market.

You may remember a hapless Victorian on a busy block of Park street nestled amidst such lovely amenities as a party store, a tire store, and a laundromat. It was on the market last spring, for no less than $925,000, and the owner was making a big deal of having spent over $120,000 on renovations. Well, what do you know, it's back as MLS(r) #40376306 for considerably less, $708,500, which is still obscenely high for that poor old wreck in that wretched location.

As much as I love Victorians and want to see them preserved, I'm afraid there isn't much to save here, even though the building itself has appealing specs (except for the tiny lot):

4 bedrooms, 2 1/2 bathrooms, 2,672 sqft, 3,744-sqft lot

[...] As is sale. Upper level,, with hardwood floors [...] Lower level under construction, designed and approved for another 3 bedrooms.1 bath

The sale history is edifying: not a single arms-length transaction in the bunch.

Sale History
06/03/2008:	$644,100 *
12/07/2005:	$163,000 *
04/18/2003:	$112,000 *
No other sale data is available

Pacita Dimacali is one of Alameda's most active agents. She posts on craigslist, Trulia, and this little blog. We've had our disagreements about marketing fluff, but we have a very cordial relationship. Today I want to recognize Ms. Dimacali's talent for embellishing the unembellishable, pitching the unpitchable, and listing the unsellable, by reproducing her latest Craigslist post in its resigned, shoulder-shrugging entirety. Brace yourselves, because it's a doozie.

1715 Schiller
Help beautify Alameda --- fix up this home!

2BR/1BA Single Family House
       
Year Built     1925
Sq Footage     856
Bedrooms     2
Bathrooms     1 full, 0 partial
Floors     1
Parking     Unspecified
Lot Size     2,520 sqft

DESCRIPTION
Help make Alameda look beautiful and fix up this house!

Not the worst of the worst, but close to it. This is a home a contractor would love. Spanish bungalow needs a total makeover. (Yes, it’s a fixer.)

The dining room was turned into a bedroom 30 years ago, without permits.

The roof leaks. There are holes in the ceiling, the walls, and the floor. Wood floors need refinishing. Paint is peeling inside and out. The bathroom and the kitchen are not pretty. The appliances stay, if you want them. Rickety back stairs. There is no heat, no cooling.

It is chockfull of stuff, including an abandoned Silverado truck in the driveway, a VW Convertible in the garage, and a jet-ski in the backyard.

Its real value lies in the fact that it is a detached single family home on a small lot, albeit a fixer, in the beautiful city of Alameda.

After I was done laughing, I asked myself the following questions:

1. what would possess any sane agent to take on this listing?
2. how does being a tiny fixer on a tiny lot in a crappy part of town constitute "real value"?
3. why on earth is all that junk still on the premises?
4. if the dining room is a bedroom, where does one eat?
5. when was the last time anybody lived in that hovel (anybody human, that is)?
6. what the hell is wrong with whoever priced that monstrosity at (drum roll) $350,000?
   

You read right: three hundred fifty thousand dollars. For a leaky, unpermitted, junk-filled, 856-sqft dump on a cocktail-napkin lot on the north end of civilization. $409 per miserable, rotten square foot. This monstrosity was last sold almost 40 years ago for 2 grand, and sadly it really isn't worth much more than that now. Heck, I'd be half tempted to ask for a property tax refund. Like hazard pay.

Last sale and tax info

Sold 11/10/1969: $2,000

2007 Property Tax: $1,265

Ms. Dimacali: Are you bored? Desperate for a challenge? Doing a friend a favor? What is going on here? 

The fall is one of my favorite seasons. It's also a great time to buy real estate, especially if you're a bank.

Sometimes it feels as though whoever named the streets in 94502 was mildly dyslexic. They're all sort-of spelled the way you would expect, but with a strategic typo for whimsical effect: Mecartney, Parodi, Bismark, and now Camellia. Today's bank-owned Craigslist listing at 1012 Camellia Drive has the following specs:

3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 1,623 sqft, lot, 5,096-sqft lot, $659,900

$659900 Large 3 bedroom in Bay Farm BANK OWNED (alameda) (map)

---

Reply to: philip@kaakeproperties.com ^[?]
Date: 2008-10-13, 9:19PM PDT

1012 Camellia Way

This home is in need of a little TLC, however it could represent a good value to the right buyer. Close to Harbor Landing shopping center.

I love the non-committal yet threatening "it could represent a good value to the right buyer." I also like the fact it was purchased for a song many years ago yet still managed to be repossessed:

Sale History
01/18/2008:	$551,807 *
10/12/1994:	$63,000
No other sale data is available
* Transaction not included in Zestimate.

I would like it very much if someone could explain to me how you go from a $350 / month mortgage to a loan balance that's almost $490,000 higher in just 14 years and subsequently lose your house.

Is every homeowner a complete imbecile?

Oh, and to the people at the bank: $659,900? For a property that "could represent a good value to the right buyer"? You'd have more success selling whatever you're smoking than selling repossessed homes. Idiots.

I don't know what's going on today, but all of a sudden we have not one, not two, but FOUR big apartment buildings for sale.

$10,850,000 564 Central Avenue MLS(r) #40375220

$6,800,000 2020 Santa Clara Avenue MLS(r) #40375183

$1,350,000 1526 Everett Street MLS(r) #40375235

$8,300,000 1901 Shoreline Drive MLS(r) #40375161

Is it possible these are all owned by the same individuals or corporations and they're getting out of the apartment rental business all at once? It's pretty extreme.

Catchy title, eh? Everywhere on the web you see real estate professionals claiming it's a great time to buy, the market is picking up, buy now or be priced out forever, etc--the same garbage the industry has been spewing since 2001 (well, since the beginning of time, but the industry wasn't quite as big and loud as it is now). Well--the Bianchis posted their September sales summary on the Alameda Sun site, and if people actually believe the following indicates that "the values will continue to go up within the next 1 to 2 years," then maybe we do deserve Palin as president, intelligent design in science classes, and an oil rig in every yard.

Number of sales above asking price	4
Number of sales at asking price	3
Number of sales below asking price	20

Gory details on the original site.

You may remember a pair of properties on Pacific that used to spam the heck out of craigslist a few months back. "Possibilities!" and "Build your own MTV Crib" were some of the slogans they used to try to unload them onto unsuspecting buyers.

Thankfully they disappeared for a while, and I assumed they had finally sold--the bigger one had dropped its price by $650,000, after all.

Well. It's back. No price. I think my favorite part of the listing is "Abundant room for 30+ car parking and areas for Bbq's and entertaining with friends"--it is indeed awesome for those parties with 50+ people you're certain to be throwing on a very, very regular basis.

Large Property! Huge Double Lot ! Best Park St. Location! (alameda) (map)

---

Reply to: see below
Date: 2008-09-29, 11:34AM PDT


Fantastic Alameda, California Best Trendy Location

Attention Professional's, Contractors etc. build your own MTV's Crib!!!!

I have a unique house in Alameda, @ Park St.The house is walking distance to Alameda's popular cafes, Trendy bars, The Marketplace, Havana, La Pinyata and just about everything.Only 10 minutes drive to San Francisco and any Bay Area destination.

The property is Large and the house is 4+ bedrooms (approx 1833 sqft)with a large formal living room and large formal dining room .High 10ft Ceilings,refinished woodfloors. Downstairs there is (approx 1833 sqft)of space (rooms,2 Bathrooms) Unique Zoning for possible Commercial shop or many uses even build work/live loft etc. Great for owner user business and write off mortgage. What also makes this place special is that it's on an 10877 sqft lot. The lot is half cemented for parking etc. Abundant room for 30+ car parking and areas for Bbq's and entertaining with friends.This is a must see and could be a "one of a kind" place for the right person.

please call 510-575-6099

Update 10/4/08: Marketing hyperbole is one thing, but lying is another. And "Only 10 minutes drive to San Francisco and any Bay Area destination." is a lie. You're lucky if you can get into the city in 25 minutes. And "any Bay Area destination" includes, say, San Jose, which you can only reach in 10 minutes if you're already there. Aren't FSBOs supposed to abide by the same advertising rules as brokers?

Update 10/9/08: This is getting better and better. The last time this orange-cream elephant was on the market, back in July, it had dropped down to $840,000 (from $1,450,000). This round of craigslist posts started off coy, with no price on the listing. Perhaps it was trying the old "if you have to ask, you can't afford it" method. Well, today they dropped that strategy and came out with a brand new price of...

(drum roll)

$975,000.

It also has an agent, Kelly Foreman.

Kelly Foreman | Pacific Sales & Management | kellyforeman@pacificsmi.com | 510-501-2302

2318 Pacific Avenue, Alameda, CA Unique Owner user Property off Park St. Extra Large 10,877 +/- sqft Lot . Flexible "CM" Zoning

4BR/3BA Single Family House offered at $975,000

I don't know whether Ms. Foreman or the owner came up with that brilliant number, but they're both responsible for agreeing to it. How exactly do they expect to fetch $135,000 more than the last unsuccessful price, arrived at after at least three months of successive drops in the middle of the hottest selling season, when the Dow Jones has lost over 2,200 points in less than a week, at least a dozen major financial institutions have failed, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been nationalized, GMAC's rating is under review for a possible downgrade, unemployment is over 6%, and we're entering the slowest selling season for real estate?

MORONS.

Update 12/13/08: Just to drive home (no pun intended, and certainly not two) the point the lot is large and accommodates a lot of cars, here are the photos attached to a recent craigslist post:

This is rich. Jose Cerda-Zein, a local Realtor(tm), wants to do lunch with me and coach me so I (he and I, really) can create a great life for me and my family. To be a more successful real estate agent. To be less negative. Somehow José appears to believe I'm a Realtor(tm). 

Jose Cerda-Zein to me

L. Opine... i have a few questions...

 

1. I am curious are you a REALTOR?

2. What is your name?

3. If you are a Realtor... What is your production level? Spending your time being negative and researching must directly impact your production. I can help you increase your business so you dont have so much time on your hands.  

4. Lets grab lunch Tuesday or Wednesday at noon... We can discuss how I can coach you to become postive and succesful. and together we can create a great life for you and your family... That is what you want... isnt it? We could meet at... Toomies or Linguinis? Which one works for you.

 

Thank you so much for your time and giveing me the opportunity to work with you....  

Here's a question, Jose: what in my 220+ vitriolic posts makes you think I am a Realtor(tm)? Do I sound like a Realtor(tm)? Do I spend my time saying "interest rates are at historic lows" or "it's a buyer's market" or "buy now or be priced out forever" or "it's a great time to buy" or "prices are low" or "we've reached the bottom"? Do I capitalize random words? Do I paint an ever-rosy picture of the real estate market in Alameda?

You don't know me from Adam; I can tell you that we have never met. Yet why do you so readily offer to "coach me" so that you can take credit for the "great life for [me] and [my] family" that you and I will achieve together?
Are you in a cult, Jose? A Scientologist, perhaps?

Maybe you're not in a cult. You're a Realtor(tm). I get those confused.

Thanks for the email and for the laughs.

There are so many foreclosures hitting the market this month I'm wondering if we've crossed a threshold where home"owners" aren't even trying anymore and walking away is now the first-resort option.

A duplex at 1828-1830 Buena Vista just appeared on the market with no description in the MLS(r). The publicly available specs:

4 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, 1,960 sqft, 4,080-sqft lot, 2 units, currently $589,900

I didn't remember the address, but the Google Street View looked very familiar:

Indeed I almost went to its open house in the spring of 2007, noting that this particular building was one of the nicer houses on an otherwise so-so block of Buena Vista. The house was listed at $715,000 in May of last year, and I decided against going because the market just wasn't ready for the kinds of cashflow-positive offers I would have made. And sure enough, a year after it was purchased for way over asking (almost to the day), a foreclosure-like transaction was recorded:

Sales History

Sale History & Tax Info

Sale History
07/28/2008:	$502,181 *
07/26/2007:	$795,000
08/15/2002:	$115,000 *
No other sale data is available
* This transaction was not used in computing the Zestimate for this house due to anomalies we detected with this transaction. These anomalies can include unusual document or transaction types, sales between possibly related parties, unusually high or low transaction prices, or other data irregularities that might indicate the transaction is not a full-value, arms-length transaction.

The current list price still doesn't cash flow, but it's TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS LESS than the property was purchased for A YEAR AGO.

Let me repeat that.

$200,000.

Less.

Than last year's price.

On a relatively small, unassuming house.

My mind is blown. I think this might be the fastest foreclosure I've written about on this blog. Considering it takes anywhere between 150 and 300 days to complete the process in California, it means the "owner" of this home may have made two or three payments before things went south.

It's been a while since I blogged about a condo, and the history on 960 Shorepoint Ct #208 is worth blogging about. The unit itself is not particularly inspiring, other than the fact it's about a block away from the beach and the park.

1 bedroom, 1 bathroom, 798 sqft, built in 1972, $240,000, MLS(r) #817140

This house is situated in a very desirable neighborhood. [...] Must see to appreciate.

An East Bay MLS(r) yelled at me under the DMCA (PDF) for posts they claim infringed on their copyright, in spite of the fair-use doctrine and without specifying anything. They still haven't responded to my requests for details, so as far as I'm concerned they voided their own request. Details and contents of my last email here. Please comment in that thread if you're so inclined.

A huge modern Craftsman revival with Bay views has been on the market for a while, and today it has reminded us of its latest big price drop. 6 Callan Place has caved (MLS(r) #338507 or #40327569). First, the outsized specs:

4 bedrooms, 3 1/2 bathrooms, 2 stories, 4,695 sqft (or 4,536, depending on the MLS(r) number), approx. 5,749-sqft lot, $2,095,000, on the market for 6 months as of 8/31/08

$2095000 Over $500k in reductions for this San Francisco bay and downtown view! (alameda)

---

Reply to: hous-821786147@craigslist.org ^[?]
Date: 2008-08-31, 11:36PM PDT

Principles only, no agents, e-mail for a private tour of the special property.
Custom-built Craftsman with well over 4600 sq feet +/- reduced from the over $2.6 Million dollar price tag makes this your dream come true! Make us of a slow sellers market and sell when the tables turn!

The price has already been dropped multiple times and add up to $533,000):

$2,628,000 to $2,490,000 in late April, 2008
$2,490,000 to $2,295,000 in mid July, 2008
$2,295,000 to $2,095,000 in late August, 2008

"No agents"--could the seller be going FSBO? They might need all the commission-cutting they can get given the sale history:

Last sale and tax info

Sold 06/22/2004: $1,900,000

2007 Property Tax: $22,954

6% of $2,095,000 is a substantial $125,700, so they'd net $1,969,300. That's not a heck of a lot more than the last purchase price, but still respectable. And even if they have to drop the price again and lose money on the transaction, I doubt it'll be an amount someone who lives in a $2M house really cares about.






Announcement: read about EBRD, Inc.'s DMCA content removal complaint against this blog

This is the first, and undoubtedly the last, non-Alameda property on this blog, but I simply could not pass up an opportunity to share this story.

You may remember the "possibilities!" property on Pacific that was spamming the heck out of craigslist last Spring. It dropped its price repeatedly until the combined drops added up to $650,000, starting from $1.45M. The big house on Hawthorne started out in the mid-$2M range and was last seen begging for backup offers at $1.9M.

Well, I just ran into a property whose current price is $800,100 less than its purchase price in 2002. The best part is that its 2002 price was $850,000.

You read that right. 221 Carson Street in Hercules (MLS(r) #40292664) is now listed for $49,900. It's no postage stamp, either:

4 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, 2,171 sqft, approx. 7,800 sqft lot, built in 1989, listed in late August, 2007

PRICE REDUCED! [...] NEEDS MAJOR WORK! GREAT FOR AN SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR DRAINAGE CONTRACTOR. REQUEST[...] ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, PLEASE DO NOT CALL UNTIL YOU HAVE [...] REVEIWED THE INFORMATION.

The photos on various MLS(r) sites don't reveal any fire damage or anything obviously wrong. For all I know it was some crystal meth kingpin's main lab for years, or it slid down some hillside during a wintry mudslide and came to rest 100 feet away from where it's supposed to be. Something must be seriously wrong with this property, but what in the world would cause a 94% loss in value in 6 years (other than being in Hercules, but it's always been in Hercules, so that doesn't count)??!?

The sale history is edifying:

Sales History

Sale History & Tax Info

Sale History
06/04/2007:	$468,948 *
04/29/2003:	$396,500 *
05/21/2002:	$850,000 *
No other sale data is available
* Transaction not included in Zestimate. This transaction was not used in computing the Zestimate for this house due to anomalies we detected with this transaction. These anomalies can include unusual document or transaction types, sales between possibly related parties, unusually high or low transaction prices, or other data irregularities that might indicate the transaction is not a full-value, arms-length transaction.

And the price drop history is sobering:

Listed at $579,000 on 8/23/07
Dropped from $579,000 to $539,500 on 10/04/07
Dropped from $539,500 to $99,900 on 4/22/08
Dropped from $99,900 to $49,900 on 8/2/08

Not surprisingly, it's a foreclosure and might even be fully REO by now, which begs the question: why not have someone tear it down, let them keep the materials as their payment (copper is expensive), and try to resell the plot of land? Surely 8,000 sqft in the Bay Area should be worth a little more than $49,900?

I guess not:

citizenlen said:

Major TLC is an understatement. The house is about to be swallowed up by the hill just like it’s neighbor which is completely demolished. The house on the right has been abandon as well because of the landslide. The whole block is a major natural disaster waiting to happen. A $200-300k construction loan won’t even cover the geological engineer and workers hired to fix this mess.

July 18, 2008 6:57 PM

citizenlen said:

Just wanted to add: NO insurance will cover you if you purchase this house. I’m sure the home insurance for the entire neighborhood has skyrocketed.

Land measurement and evaluation of inclinometer and ground water data obtained from piezometer and horizontal drains are an integral part of conducting landslide monitoring and repair. A recent example is the Carson Street Landslide in Hercules, California. (PDF)

Announcement: read about EBRD, Inc.'s DMCA content removal complaint against this blog

I just got a notice from my ISP that EBRD is threatening to sue me for copyright infringement demanding in no uncertain legal terms that I remove content they feel infringes on their intellectual property, under the DMCA.

This isn't worth the fight for me, so expect to see some content disappear this afternoon. I'll get on the phone with them and find out what exactly they want removed.

I believe quoting excerpts from property descriptions and public records is fair use, but I'm not a lawyer, so stay tuned.

Update 1: Here's an email I sent to Becky Tobin, President & CEO of East Bay Regional Data, Inc, the person from whom the complaint originated (here it is: O1367 - knifecatchers com.pdf):

Your DMCA infringement notice

Hello,

I own and operate the knifecatchers.com blog. I have received a DMCA removal request from my ISP and wanted to let you know I have removed all content that I understood to be covered by your request.
 
Because most of the content on that blog is opinion-based and public records, I would like to restore as much of it as possible while remaining in compliance with your request. To that end, I would appreciate clarification from you about what exactly must be removed, specifically:

• MLS numbers themselves?
• MLS numbers associated with property addresses?
• EBRD watermarked pictures?
• Excerpts from property descriptions as posted on publicly available MLS-affiliated sites like pacunion.com or ziprealty.com?
• Excerpts from property descriptions as posted on publicly available non-MLS-affiliated sites like craigslist.org?

I believe that excerpts from copy that is publicly available on Web sites like pacunion.com may be freely posted on other publicly available sites under the fair-use doctrine, as long as proper attribution is made, which I make every effort to do whenever possible. Please let me know if you feel this is not correct.

I appreciate the courtesy of a reply.

L. Opine

I read up on fair use and spoke to some folks who've had to deal with similar complaints from MLS, and the general consensus is "they're full of it". I reserve judgment until I hear from Becky.

Update 2: I rephrased the title of this post and struck out some of the original language at the top to reflect the situation more accurately. As far as I understand it, I have not been threatened with a lawsuit. However, instead of getting in touch with me and resolving this issue amicably, the CEO of East Bay Regional Data, Inc. sent a 3-page DMCA complaint to my ISP demanding that a large amount of unspecified content on my blog be removed. I apologize if the language I had originally used was misleading. That wasn't my intent, and I attribute the inaccuracy to my being rather flabbergasted by the news.

Interestingly, EBRD, Inc. describes itself as "The Best MLS Value in the East Bay" yet deems it fit to spend their members' dues on legal fees to compile vague DMCA complaints against little ol' me. You'd think their members would be better served by either a discount on their dues in the amount spent on this little kerfuffle, or $x worth of promotion (where $x is what this is costing EBRD, Inc.) in some Web or print medium. I'm not linking to their site, which can be found by Googling them, because that might be prohibited by some fine print somewhere. Quoting that slogan is undoubtedly covered by fair use--what good would a slogan be if nobody was allowed to quote it without prior authorization? But if they show me a convincing precedent blocking me from quoting that slogan, I'll happily remove it.


Update 3: Here's the exchange I've had with Becky Tobin so far. I left a message on her office voice mail this afternoon as well.

L. Opine,

 

Thank you for resending the email, this is my first receipt of an email from you.   I  will forward your email on to Staff for review and I will contact you with a response as soon as we have completed a review of your site.  

 

Becky Tobin

President & CEO

East Bay Regional Data, Inc.

I wrote back:

Hello Becky,

Thanks for getting back to me. As I mentioned in my earlier email, I have removed almost all the content on my blog, so there's really nothing for you to review at this point. Would you like me to restore that content so you can review it?

Thank you,
L.

Becky wrote back:

At this time, I do not need you to restore anything to the site.   My response back to you will contain the information that you can/can’t display. 

 

Becky Tobin

President & CEO

East Bay Regional Data, Inc.

Update 8/27/08: after not hearing anything for a week, I emailed Ms. Tobin this morning. Hopefully we'll see a resolution soon.

I wrote:

Ms. Tobin,

It has been a week and I haven't heard back from you regarding the content on my blog. I complied immediately upon receipt of your complaint, and my content has been off my blog to my readers' chagrin. I have spent a good deal of time making sure what content is published does not infringe on your copyright claims to the best of my knowledge, but without a very specific list of what I may and may not display, I'm not sure that's time well spent--I might be removing too much, too little, or the wrong type of content.

I would like to request to hear from you with a very specific list within 24 hours (end of business day on Thursday, August 28, 2008). If I haven't received a detailed list of what you want me to remove, or at least a reply from you with a firm date by which you will provide me with such a list, I will consider your complaint dropped and restore my content the way it was, which I understand to be protected by the fair-use doctrine.

I would also be happy to consider other options than outright content removal, since it is difficult to justify on legal grounds (as I understand fair use), time-consuming for me (I acted in good faith and am being punished and/or censored), and essentially pointless for both of us, since I do not stand to make any money by using that content, and you and your organization don't stand to lose any money--I'm not trying to sell those homes I write about and bypass the commission-sharing rules of the MLS, for example, and I find it inconceivable (and difficult to prove convincingly) that anybody would decide not to buy a property I write about on the sole basis of my writings.

With that in mind, I am open to discussing some kind of agreement with you governing the use of photos and snippets of content from publicly-accessible MLS Web sites (which, again, would be mostly pointless due to the fair-use doctrine). For example, I am willing to consider signing a document granting me non-exclusive license to use some of that content on my blog for the purpose of market analysis, critique and commentary.

Please let me know how you would like to proceed at your earliest convenience.

Thank you.
L.

Update 8/28/08: Ms. Tobin responded. I wonder what could possibly take that long. It sure didn't take long to draft the DMCA complaint and harass me through my ISP.

Mr Opine,

I will respond to you on or before September 5^th with details on content that can be displayed on your Knifecatchers website.

Update 9/5/08: Ms. Tobin emailed back and needs a little more time. Stay tuned for (hopefully) the final word on 9/9.

L Opine,

I need a little more time before I have completed my research and response to you regarding the Knifecatchers website.   I will be in touch with you early next week, probably Tuesday, September 9^th. 

I apologize for the delay,   

Becky Tobin

President & CEO

East Bay Regional Data, Inc.

Update 9/12/08: I'm done with these folks.

Ms. Tobin,

It's been over three weeks since your request to remove content within 24 hours. I complied immediately in spite of the vagueness of the request and its cavalier treatment of the fair use doctrine.

I requested more details about what is acceptable to use, and I have yet to receive them. You claim you need more research to determine what's acceptable, yet you filed a DMCA complaint claiming my use of publicly-available content was not acceptable. This means either you're disingenuous about needing the research, or your claim was an intimidation tactic based on unsubstantiated claims.

At any rate, because I believe my use of publicly-available content is protected by the fair-use doctrine (I do not make any money from that use, and I use the content for criticism and parody, among other things), and because you have failed to provide evidence that your claim is substantiated or even matters to your organization, I now consider your request to be de facto null and void.

Regards,

L. Opine

Update 9/12/08: Gee, all I needed was to tell them I would consider their request dropped for them to finally get back to me.

Mr. Opine,

 

Thank you for your recent inquiry regarding the reproduction and use of certain material obtained from the East Bay Regional Data, Inc. (“EBRD”) website and the website of licensees of our content or other authorized users of such content.  In particular, you had asked whether MLS listing information, such as photographs of properties for sale and associated descriptions of these properties were protected by copyright law or whether such material could be freely copied and reproduced on your public blog either from our website or the websites of our licensees, without our consent or the consent of the licensee or authorized user. 

 

We have given careful consideration to your request.  Should you wish to reproduce EBRD material or content, you must first provide EBRD with a written request to use or reproduce such material.  We will promptly and carefully consider such requests in good faith.  Please identify the source from which you obtained the material or content and a representation to EBRD that reproducing or copying that material does not breach the contractual agreements entered into in using the particular website from which the material was obtained (e.g “Terms of Use” or “Terms of Service” agreements of the website).  So long as the source information is supplied, and we can verify that no legal agreements were violated, we will entertain your written request.  Consent shall be determined on a case by case basis.

 

For you information, we have confirmed with legal counsel regarding relevant copyright law, including the “fair use doctrine”, that the use of photographs are protected by copyright law.  Additionally, property descriptions accompanying photographs of a property for sale are considered original creative content and therefore protected from unauthorized use.  Finally, the compilations of factual information describing the property are likely to receive copyright protection in so far as the visual arrangement or presentation or formatting of that material has an element of uniqueness.  For these reasons, you are advised that a photograph and the accompanying property descriptions are protected by copyright law and thus the use or reproduction requires the prior consent of the owner.

 

Also, as you are likely aware, members of EBRD do pay a fee to obtain and review the MLS listing materials, and the use and dissemination of that information is protected content.   As a matter of course, we do therefore survey the public domain, including the Web, in order to ensure that we honor the commitment we make to our members.

 

I hope that this letter addresses your questions.  If not, or if you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me to discuss.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

Becky Tobin

President & CEO

East Bay Regional Data, Inc.

becky@ebrdi.com

(925) 906-5125 office

(925) 938-8337  fax

My reply:

Ms. Tobin,

Thank you for your reply. I will no longer use any EBRD-watermarked photos on my site (I have already removed them). I don't suppose there's any point in asking for a blanket agreement that would let me use, say, one EBRD-watermarked photo per property I write about on my blog, but I will anyway--will you grant me a non-exclusive right to display EBRD-watermarked photos on my blog at the rate of one per property, provided I give full credit such as a link back to the originating site? I typically refer to www.pacunion.com and www.ziprealty.com, both of which display some of your photos.

I understand any non-watermarked photo, public-records property information and excerpts from publicly-available property descriptions may be borrowed from non-MLS-affiliated sites (including but not limited to trulia.com, zillow.com, craigslist.org, google.com, etc) under the fair-use doctrine, and I intend to continue using those sources for the purpose of not-for-profit critique and/or parody.  I may also use photos of buildings I take myself during walks or which are made available by their owners under permissive licenses such as the licenses by Creative Commons.

Because that content is not your intellectual property, you have no standing to object to their use. I'm just telling you this for your information so you don't waste your time or mine by sending me spurious DMCA content removal requests in order to silence my blog, which was pretty transparently your intent in this whole situation. I haven't heard of any such complaints against other public real estate Web sites as long as they are aligned with your interests.

Regards,

L. Opine

In other words, there goes absolutely nothing. Tossers (as they say in the UK).

President Bush finally signed into law a people-pleasing, wallet-busting bill designed to help homeowners facing foreclosure. The Merc summarizes the bill's main provisions as follows:

Key provisions of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008:

• A foreclosure rescue plan in which lenders would refinance homeowners with subprime loans into fixed-rate, 30-year mortgages backed by the Federal Housing Administration.

• An increase in conforming loan limits for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to $625,500.

• Giving the FHA the ability to lend as much as 115 percent of an area's median home price up to $625,500.

• A tax credit of up to $7,500 for qualifying first-time home buyers, repayable interest-free over 15 years.

• New minimum requirements for mortgage originators.

• A bailout plan for government-sponsored loan companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, if it is needed.

I'm not one to toss the baby out with the bath water, but I still have to wonder why this ostensibly pro-market president signed this massive big-government bill to bail out a private sector that screwed itself up royally and needs to fix itself, rather than expect government handouts. At least the refinancing is voluntary:

The new housing law includes a plan aimed at helping as many as 400,000 homeowners pay off their troubled mortgages and replace them with more affordable, government-insured loans. The program is voluntary and the lenders must agree to take a sizable loss, reducing the principal of each loan, before they can be refinanced.

I do understand the catastrophic consequences an unaided unraveling would have on the economy, but I'm ok with it. It's not as if congress and the president asked for my permission to take my money and devalue it to death to rescue all those idiots.