The Neumanskys already covered 1831 San Jose Avenue, but I figured I'd throw my bonnet into the ring because this listing is so completely out of touch with the market it deserves an award.

1831 San Jose is a very pretty Victorian (although I personally ogled its roof and siding a week or two ago, and let me tell you neither looks all that great, but then again I'm not a roofer, sider, or home inspector, so for all I know it's all brand new and I need new glasses). It sits semi-grandly in the famed Leonardville district, named after a prolific and talented builder of the late-ish 1800s, surrounded by other Victorians with varying degrees of grandness (the corner-lotted one east of today's property is particularly magnificent, and huge).

It's large-ish (2,072 sqft) on a decent sized lot (6,600 sqft) and sports 5 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms, which is nothing to sneeze at. The listing claims 3 levels, but it's not clear whether the "lower level" (frequently, and equivalently, referred to as "basement") meets all the city's criteria for regular living space (e.g. the city has stringent requirements on parking availability for any unit or subset of a larger home to be counted as living space, over and above what the building code requires in terms of ceiling height and such). 2,072 sqft isn't a small home, but by way of comparison its prenominate easterly neighbor at 1835 San Jose is over twice as large, with 8 bedrooms in 4,761 sqft of Victorian goodness standing unarguably grandly on a large corner lot.

The property does look very pretty in its Craigslist photos, and the yard is quite a sight (the agent calls it "magical"). The listing agent also describes the kitchen as "French-infused", which may have been achieved by steeping French chefs in hot water for some period of time and spraying the infusion throughout the room using elegant little perfume spritzers (the listing doesn't specify if that is indeed the process the owners used to French-infuse their kitchen). However that French infusion was arrived at, it seems to involve hanging your pots from a ceiling rack, commissioning your appliances from Solingen, and julienning your veggies on very shiny stone slabs. In other words, French infusion is indistinguishable from every other splurge kitchen financed by home equity withdrawals between 2003 and 2006 in the continental United States, at least to the untrained eye:

The price tag for this medium-sized hunk of gorgeosity is a mere $1,390,000. The current owners (over)paid a cool million back in 2004, and proceeded to sink beaucoup bucks into la maison to make it all grand and gorgeous and warm and custom-sound-systemed and French-infused. A good foundation job doesn't come cheap, and neither does finishing a basement-media-room-au-pair-wine-cellar deal, getting Harry Potter to bless your yard, or French infusion, so I wouldn't be surprised if the home improvements since 2004 total north of $150,000, which is again nothing to sneeze at.

The problem, however, is that $1M + whatever French infusion et al. cost bring the total amount to recoup when you want (need?) to sell way, way, way out of line with, well, pretty much anything on the island. One issue the owners may not have planned for is that the lower level improvements don't count towards your legal square footage if they're not, well, legal, as in tall enough and/or accompanied with whatever the city wants you to provide when you make yourself a big ol' house (I'm not implying the owners didn't do this by the book; there's an extensive permit history available over chez the 'skys and I'm not seeing anything untoward here; you may want to check for yourself at www.velocityhall.com; no direct link). But as far as I can tell from the language in the foundation permit, the basement job was never intended for living space (emphasis mine):

(ALL WORK IN BASEMENT) R/R FOUNDATION, BRICK TO CONCRETE; EXCAVATE BASEMENT TO 8'2" CEILING HEIGHT FOR STORAGE ONLY (ONE LIGHT, ONE SWITCH AND ONE PLUG IN STORAGE AREAS); DIVIDE LAUNDRY AREA & INSTALL UNDERGROUND PLUMBING FOR FUTURE FULL BATH; BUILD NON-BEARING WALLS TO CREATE UTILITY ROOM & WINE STORAGE ROOM; ADD 2 STEPS TO EXISTING INTERIOR STAIRWAY; INSTALL NEW WATER HEATER, FURNACE & SUMP PUMP - NO EXTERIOR CHANGES (BLDG/ELEC/PLUM/MECH)

What that means is that your price per sqft isn't $1.39M / 3,100 = $448 (assuming the basement is the same size as the main floor, roughly), but instead a much less palatable $671, which I don't believe has been fetched by any property of any size at any point in the past four years (and almost certainly not the past two). For context, it is 12% higher than the next-highest listings (on a per-sqft basis) currently on the market, one of which has been sitting there unsold for 75 days. At any rate, however, even $448 is pushing the envelope given recent market trends. And there's no garage.

Another way of looking at this issue is by comparing this property to its aforementioned neighbor. Let's do some comparison shopping:

• To my right, a beautiful 4,761-sqft, 8-bedroom Victorian on a 8,800-sqft corner lot, sold for $1,390,000 near the peak of a bubbly real estate market
• To my left, a beautiful 2,072-sqft, 5-bedroom Victorian on a 6,600-sqft lot with neighbors on both side, listed at $1,390,000 near the trough of an epic, unprecedented nationwide real estate meltdown accompanied by substantial price cuts in essentially every neighborhood in every city in every state.
  

If you identified the contestant to my left as the better deal, I don't believe there's much even modern science can do for you.

That's a really long way to say the odds this listing will fetch anywhere close to its asking price are below zero.

Update 8/1/2010: Price dropped to $1,200,000. It needs another $400,000 at the very least to be competitive.

The recent bump in home prices has some sellers seeing dollar bills again, as evidenced by a large number of new listings in January and February and some truly silly prices.

Today's inflated asking price belongs to 847 Santa Clara Avenue, a pretty Victorian triplex with the following specs:

3 units (studio + 1-br + 2-br), 2,230 sqft, MLS(r) #40452574 (Redfin doesn't have the active listing yet)

Queen Anne cottage residence [...] great conditiion with lots of amenities everyone loves. Hardwood floors in lower units. Studio with large kitchen & spacious bath. Upper unit w foyer, high ceilings, quait balcony off bedrm, [...] Close to school, libra. shopping

I saw this property when it was on the market in late 2006, and can confirm it is very pretty on the outside, but the lot is minuscule, the inside was less than inspiring at the time (it may have been improved), and the property is wedged between its two neighbors, one of which is a church.
 

View Larger Map

I don't remember there being any deeded parking or garage, either, which is somewhat of a problem for a triplex.

The property last sold for $700,000 in late 2006, and given what's been going on in the real estate market, you wouldn't necessarily expect to see it again for... $850,000. Yet that's exactly what the sellers are asking as of February 28. I'd wish them luck, but that would be disingenuous.

I wonder who the first part of this "new" listing is directed to. 1419 Cottage Street, a cute overpriced cottage that failed to sell last year, is back on the market for a lower, still-too-high price. The specs, as a reminder:

3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 1,289 sqft, 5,000-sqft lot, built in 1895, MLS(r) #40442977, $619,000 ($480 / sqft)

The agent helpfully confirms this is the same property one may have seen last year (emphasis mine), which saved me a couple of minutes. Thanks!

Yes, this one was on the market last year. New low price and additional work to the finished basement. Square footage will be approx double with some extra work. Quiet neighborhood. Great value.

The Zestimate a year and a half ago... (screenshot taken in Spring 2008; note the owner-inflated estimate):

was close to the then-asking price (screenshot taken today, 12/23/09):

The price has come crashing down to $619,000 and claims to be a great value, even though the renovations are still not finished. Note to agents and sellers: "less than I paid" does not equal "great value" to other people.

Date	Event	Price	Appreciation	Source
Dec 21, 2009	Listed	$619,000	--	EBRD #40442977
Aug 17, 2005	Sold (Public Records)	$700,000	13.4%/yr	Public Records
Aug 09, 2002	Sold (Public Records)	$479,000	--	Public Records

On a per-square-foot basis, $480 / sqft is a full $130 / sqft more than the going price these days, which in your case translates to about $170,000. In other words this property should be priced around $450,000. Sure, the agent claims there's a full floor's worth of square footage available, but 1) it's not verifiable unless you look at the permit status and 2) the work isn't finished yet. Expecting a $130 / sqft premium in advance for the promise of square footage when the next owner will have to fork over extra money to be able to live in that square footage is moronic.


So welcome back and happy holidays, little house. Happy new year, too.

Hi everybody!

1304 Morton Street finally sold in early December for $938,000, according to Redfin.

In summary:

• April 2008: 1304 Morton St appears on the market, listed at $1,250,000
• July 2008: the price is dropped to $1,199,000
  
• September 2008: the price is dropped to $1,150,000
• March 2009, almost a year after the initial listing, the property is relisted for $975,000
• August 2009: the price is dropped to $949,999
• December 2009: the property closes for $938,000

The extent and quality of the renovation work on top of the previous sale price (above $500,000) means the now former owners likely didn't make their money back on the transaction.

The moral of the story? Don't over-improve, and don't spend 6 figures on your kitchen.

That's a $312,000 price drop from the initial list price (about 25%) and 20 months on the market. I trust Redfin won't begrudge me a full history:

Date	Event	Price	Appreciation	Source
Dec 02, 2009	Sold (MLS)	$938,000	--	Inactive MLSListings #80911577
Nov 12, 2009	Delisted	--	--	Inactive MLSListings #80911577
Sep 22, 2009	Delisted	*	--	Inactive EBRD #4
Aug 21, 2009	Price Changed	*	--	Inactive EBRD #4
Aug 21, 2009	Price Changed	$949,999	--	Inactive MLSListings #80911577
Mar 10, 2009	Listed	*	--	Inactive EBRD #4
Mar 06, 2009	Listed	$975,000	--	Inactive MLSListings #80911577
Jan 01, 2009	Delisted	*	--	Inactive San Francisco MLS #1
Nov 21, 2008	Delisted	*	--	Inactive EBRD #3
Nov 20, 2008	Delisted	--	--	Inactive MLSListings #2
Jul 22, 2008	Listed	*	--	Inactive San Francisco MLS #1
Jul 21, 2008	Price Changed	--	--	Inactive MLSListings #2
Jul 19, 2008	Price Changed	*	--	Inactive EBRD #3
Jun 11, 2008	Price Changed	*	--	Inactive EBRD #3
Jun 11, 2008	Price Changed	--	--	Inactive MLSListings #2
May 02, 2008	Listed	*	--	Inactive EBRD #3
Apr 25, 2008	Listed	--	--	Inactive MLSListings #2

There's been a fair amount of activity lately, what with the renewal of the irresponsible tax credit and idiot agents cheering for the second coming. Here's a messy summary of interesting happenings in our little town.

• 452 Santa Clara: here's a bank that's not messing around. 31 photos, nice property, 2,800+sqft Victorian fourplex, REO, listed super aggressively for $400,000. It'll be gone for way over asking in just a few days.
• 2267 Clinton is back, yet again, with a puny price drop (now down to $1,369,000). The idiot perma-sellers will never get their asking price and are wasting everybody's time. Remember this is the listing that claimed rents were rising just a year ago in spite of a mountain of evidence to the contrary.
• 3246 Liberty is a very pretty, large bungalow in a part of town that has people go ga-ga and overpay on a regular basis. This is one of the larger houses on that block, and it's priced comparably to what smaller bungalows were listed for this year ($599,000). Still too much, but some idiot buyer will probably pay that much.
• 1312 San Antonio is an expensive Tudor on a tiny lot in an excellent Gold Coast location. A short sale at $819,000 (previous transaction $869,000 in late 2005), it's unlikely to sell for over $800,000.
  
• A cute little Victorian 891 Oak Street just dropped its price from $575,000 to $475,000 in one fell swoop after remaining unsold for over a year. It's now a short sale.
  
• The unsellable duplex at 1626 Alameda Avenue dropped its price by a whole $1,000, to $942,000. Lovely price history:

03/24/09 -- $1,145,000 to $1,095,000
05/12/09 -- $1,095,000 to $1,049,000
06/23/09 -- $1,049,000 to $999,000
07/23/09 -- $999,000 to $950,000
08/25/09 -- $950,000 to $945,000
09/21/09 -- $945,000 to $943,000
10/25/09 -- $943,000 to $942,000

• 1304 Morton is finally pending! What price did the stubborn kitchen-pimping sellers accept? We shall see.
  

A glance at Zip Realty will indicate the market is still littered with listings in various stages of foreclosures, and the market appears to be poised for a second wild ride starting early next year with tens of billions of dollars in bad loans coming home to roost (notice the inverse shape of the graph below and the Case-Shiller home price index):



Yes, I did use the word "idiot" an inordinate number of times in this post.

The trashed two-houses-on-one-lot dealio at 547 Pacific Avenue is back as MLS(r) #40435505 with the following description:

Fixer---two houses on one lot. Second is stripped to rafters. First needs major repairs. Great for the investor or handyman. Live in one-rent the other.

I wonder if you're you expected to live in the "stripped to rafters" unit while renting the unit that needs major repairs, or the other way around? Either way, it sounds like a great-quality-of-life, high-cash-flow situation, doesn't it?

The transaction history is amusing:

Date	Event	Price
Oct 23, 2009	Listed	$485,100
Aug 19, 2009	Sold	$412,000
Jun 29, 2006	Sold	$655,000
Apr 03, 1987	Sold	$175,000

It looks as though the repossessing back is trying to turn a slight profit on the sale this time around.

A little Victorian cottage at 1209 Eagle Ave just came on the market with the following specs:

2 bedrooms, 1 bathroom, 1,161 sqft, 4,125-sqft lot, MLS(r) #40434764, $499,000 ($430 / sqft)

Queen Anne high basement cottage by Marcuse and Remmel built in 1891. Traditional charm w/ loads of permitted upgrades, and a kitchen for today! Period full bath. Plus room for office? [...] Tankless water heater, newer furnace. Nice yard!

View Larger Map

It looks empty with nice period details and hideous modern kitchen updates apparently made on the cheap (or with no taste). The property is listed for just a hair more than its last sale price in 2003. It'll probably sell quickly in spite of its sub-prime location.

Date	Event	Price
Oct 20, 2009	Listed	$499,000
Dec 30, 2003	Sold	$465,000

You'd think agents selling houses in Alameda would know the difference between the many architectural styles that grace our little town. Heck, in any town I'd expect a Real Estate Professional (tm), someone who makes a living helping people buy and sell houses, to have a modicum of sensitivity to building styles, or at least some knowledge of chronology. But that's not the way Marcus and Millichap rolls, evidently.

Today's property at 1012 Walnut Street has the following specs:

5 bedrooms, 4 bathrooms (4 units), 5,001 sqft, 3,132-sqft lot, built in 1896, MLS(r) #40434353, $849,000

Detailed & well-maintained Craftsman with significant renovation-new roof, siding, paint, electrical, plumbing. [...] Large renovated Owner's Unit w/ 2 car garage & storage. All units sep metered/sep hot water heaters. Coin-op W/ D owned by landlord. [...] Perfect for Owner-occupant. Large backyard. [...]

First off, as far as I can tell, the agent screwed up the details in the MLS(r) listing; the lot is ~5,000 sqft and the house is 3,132 sqft, not the other way around, at least according to Zillow and Trulia. This ain't Bayport, thank you very much. Second, if we are to believe the agent, this property is a rare example of a 1896 Craftsman, complete with bay windows and a second story like so many Craftsman houses of the era.

The one part of the listing I can't argue with, though, is the "perfect for owner-occupant" bit. That's because the only owner for whom this property makes sense is the owner who lives on the premises and doesn't mind paying twice the market rate for the privilege of enjoying one fourth of their house and sharing the yard with a handful of strangers; because this house sure doesn't make any sense as an investment property. Take a look at these numbers, provided by the owner:

Unit 1: 1+1, $1,495 / mo
Unit 2: 1+1, $1,050 / mo
Unit 3: 1+1, $1,000 / mo
Unit 4: 2+1, $1,200 / mo

Gross rent income: ~$56,000
Expenses (repairs, taxes, vacancy, etc): ~$22,000
Net income: ~$34,000

A 6% fixed mortgage on a $849,000 property with 20% down comes out to about $49,000 / year. So you're $15,000 in the red every year from the get-go.

"But what if you're living in the property?" you ask. Let's see.

Assuming the 2-bedroom unit is the "owner's unit", the numbers come out to ~$42,000 gross / $20,000 net income (remember you lost $1,200 a month by kicking one tenant out). This means you're paying $2,400 / month ($49,000 mortgage - $20,000 net income, divided by 12) to live in a 2-bedroom unit in a shared house (with shared yard) that normally rents for $1,200 / month.

What an incredible deal!

"But rents aren't always going to be this low!" you retort.

Maybe not, but they're not exactly going up either.

"But real estate doubles in value every 10 years!" you persist.

I suppose it all depends which 10 years you're looking at:

ZESTIMATE^®: $873,50

• Value Range: $515,365 - $952,115
• 30-day change: -$2,000
• Zestimate updated: 10/16/2009

Last sale and tax info

Sold 06/17/2005: $856,000

2009 Property Tax: $11,866

If this property is supposed to double in value by 2015, it might want to get started soon.

Some sellers don't mess around when it comes to pricing their properties aggressively. Not enough of them, mind you, but the new listing at 2151 Alameda Avenue gets points for trying extra hard. The property has the following specs:

3 bedrooms, 1 bathroom, 1,596 sqft, MLS(r) #40431652, $300,000 ($188 / sqft)

[...] Contractors Special. Great Alameda Location with Living Room & Fireplace, Family Room, Victorian Style Home, Close to Town!!

You read right; this property is listed for $300,000. Of course there are no interior pictures in the MLS(r) listing, so who knows what condition it's in and how much work it needs. But considering its previous sale price, this certainly qualifies as an almost bargain, at 57% off:

Date	Event	Price
Sep 29, 2009	Listed	$300,000
Aug 22, 2005	Sold	$705,000

Of course we'll have a feeding frenzy and this property will sell for way over asking, which will prompt enlightened local real estate agents, buoyed by the recent increase in the Case-Shiller index (full data set in Excel format), to call the bottom of the market and a return to good times.

A cute little Victorian cottage built in 1885 just came on the market this week. 1230 College Avenue has the following specs:

3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 1,641 sqft, 6,348-sqft lot, MLS(r) #40431531, $745,000

completley restored historic victorian. [...] plank floors and high end designer kitchen. Period detail throughout with a wonderful formal dining room. High ceilings built-ins and a family room off the kitchen. [...] There is an over sized usable landscaped yard

At $454 / sqft it's largely overpriced, although its East End location will probably have someone go ga-ga and pay full price. The lot is large and the house looks beautiful from the outside, although the Terminator kitchen is a disgrace and completely incongruous in a 124-year-old house.

At any rate, the owners are probably already losing money even if the house sells at full price, having paid close to $700,000 five years ago:

Date	Event	Price
Sep 29, 2009	Listed	$745,000
Nov 23, 2004	Sold	$697,000
Aug 04, 1998	Sold	$278,500
Mar 03, 1988	Sold	$178,500

If the 16.5% yearly appreciation rate between 1998 and 2004 doesn't convince you we were in a bubble of immense proportions (compare to the normal 4.5% y/y appreciation between the previous two sales in 1988 and 1998), I can get you an incredible deal on a gross of tulip bulbs.

Tis the season to be relisted. 2017 Lincoln Avenue disappeared a few months ago, but came roaring back this week, with new MLS(r) #40431603 and a slightly reduced price ($549,900, down from $560,000).

The description is cute:

[...] hardwood floors, Just needs a new owner to place the final touchs on this gem.

As is the house (it's the little blue one, not the pretty yellow one):

As for the location, it's cute mostly if you enjoy a high-traffic thoroughfare and a schoolyard across the street.

It appears this property took a detour through the bank before coming back on the market this time around:

Date	Event	Price
Sep 29, 2009	Listed	$549,900
Jul 10, 2009	Sold	$658,445
Oct 29, 2004	Sold	$509,000

Anyone care to speculate where the $150K increase between the initial loan in 2004 and the (ostensibly) repo price in July 2009 came from?

Look who's back! Lagoon-access Victorian triplex 1904 Clinton has been relisted at a lower price ($899,000 down from $949,000, or $351 / sqft; MLS(r) #40431282) with a new agent, our good buddy Jose Cerda-Zein. Please refer to the original post for specs.

One factor that might be contributing to this property not selling is the fact it's been chopped up into three small units--neither of its two buyer pools can possibly be interested. Investment property buyers don't really want a luxury home in a prime location with three small units in it, because it doesn't make sense to pay a large location and architectural premium for three little apartments. And well-heeled Victorian aficionados interested in a lagoon property don't want a triplex; they want a large single-family home that's ready to move in as is.

So much for my prediction this thing would sell quickly. 

Losing your home to foreclosure when you paid too much near the peak of the market is one thing. Losing your home when you bought it over a decade ago for a very reasonable amount is another. Today's new listing at 1427 Bay Street seems to fall in the latter camp.

The specs:

2 bedrooms, 1 bathroom, 951 sqft, 3,750-sqft lot, MLS(r) #40430283, $424,800 ($447 / sqft)

[...] plenty of living space & even more room to expand on this generous lot. [...] newer windows & an attached garage. At this great price this one will not last. With a little TLC this house can be restored to its original beauty. [...]

From what I can tell, this house was purchased in August, 1993, at a time when prices were considerably more reasonable than they are now; in fact, August 1993 was the bottom of the second trough after the last housing runup in the late 1980s:


Yet somehow this property managed to be sold at auction in March of this year for almost $350,000, suggesting a considerable amount of equity was "liberated" over the years:

Property History for 1427 BAY St

Date	Event	Price
Sep 20, 2009	Listed	$424,800
Mar 06, 2009	Sold	$348,925

At $447 / sqft it is significantly overpriced, but some idiot will probably pay close to that--"look honey, it's under $450,000!" Never mind it will be years before they can recoup that price if they need to sell. Let's just hope they don't have unreasonable expansion plans--3,750 sqft is only "generous" if the expansion you build houses chickens.

The pointy-hat Victorian at 1009 Central is back as MLS(r) #40429761 with a new, slightly lower price of $460,750, down from $499,000 last March. Please refer to the original post for details.


Here's a summary of the listing activity since 2005:

Date	Event	Price
Sep 16, 2009	Listed	$460,750
Jul 31, 2009	Sold	$432,000
Jun 04, 2009	Delisted	*
May 27, 2009	Relisted	*
Apr 01, 2009	Delisted	*
Mar 21, 2009	Listed	*
Aug 04, 2005	Sold	$700,000

While we're on the subject of financially-inept imprudent home buyers, this week's new post-Victorian "duplex" at 1549 Bay Street stands as another fine example of what not to do when considering a home purchase. First the specs:

3 (or 5?) bedrooms, 1 (or 1 1/2) bathroom(s), 1,398 sqft, 3,300-sqft lot, MLS(r) #40430026, $534,900 ($383 / sqft)

REO bargain priced below comps. Move in condition, [...] Victorian era home with 4 bdrms, 2+ baths, full height attic with extra room, plus a 1 bdrm unit below. [...] a remarkable find.

The discrepancy in the number of bedrooms and bathrooms between the listing and the public records is likely due to a conversion of what once was a modest single-family home to a duplex in 1940, presumably not permitted, which was amnestied by the city in 1999 (permit #B99-1696) but not reflected in the county records To their credit, the house's successive owners over the years appear to have obtained and finaled permits for a lot of the work performed on the house, which sadly can't be said of a lot of properties in Alameda. Of course a permit alone doesn't guarantee quality or durability, but at least it safeguards the next owner from having to clean up the permit history with the city or having to tear down a bunch of unwarranted improvements.

The MLS(r) photos show a pretty house in good condition, but fail to point out its proximity to large-ish buildings on both sides of Bay Street (Pagano's hardware mart on the same side and a market/liquor store across the street).

The tiny 3,300-sqft lot doesn't provide much protection against the elements and the very busy section of Lincoln just a few hundred feet to the north.

Having established all that, then, you may be interested to know the previous owner, just 4 years ago, spent $810,000 to purchase this property ($579 / sqft).

Date	Event	Price
Sep 18, 2009	Listed	$534,900
Jun 04, 2009	Sold	$496,100
Jun 23, 2005	Sold	$810,000
Jun 27, 1988	Sold	$170,000

I wish that were a typo. Maybe it is. Assuming the house sells near asking price, which it just might (although spring fever has died down considerably), we're looking at a 34% drop in value in just 4 years. Alameda is different, innit?

Update 1/10/10: Sold to a newborn sucka for $555,000.

This is getting ridiculous.

A Victorian semi-wreck in a hideous location (if you're a single-family home), cozily nestled betwixt a laundromat and a tailor, standing directly across busy lower Park street from a party store and a stone's throw away from my favorite tire shop (perfect for those mid-afternoon nitrogen cravings), came back on the market for the third time in 18 months, and once again it is listed for more money that the last time around.

More money. Not less. And from walking past this property at least once a week, I can tell you its exterior looks haven't exactly improved with the passage of time. Here's what it looked like to Google's Street View van a little while ago:


Here's a handy summary; please refer to the previous post for details on the property.

• In May, 2008, 1192 Park Street hit the MLS(r) as #40340126, listed at a grotesque $925,000. It had been on Zillow prior to that for $898,000 or so, if memory serves, and failed to sell, so the seller raised the price in a bid to attract more potential buyers.

• Then, in October, 2008, the property came back, presumably bank-owned by then, listed at $708,500.

It didn't sell then, for obvious reasons, and now it's back, with timing so perfect it seems to have been carefully chosen to completely miss the peak of the selling season. And it's listed for $1,400 more than last year.

The sale and listing history are amusing; I suspect the June, 2008 transaction is the bank taking it back:

Property History for 1192 PARK St

Date	Event	Price
Aug 26, 2009	Listed	$709,900
Aug 16, 2009	Delisted	*
Jun 11, 2009	Price Changed	*
May 12, 2009	Listed	*
Apr 18, 2009	Delisted	*
Apr 17, 2009	Price Changed	*
Oct 18, 2008	Listed	*
Oct 01, 2008	Delisted	*
Jun 03, 2008	Sold	$644,100
May 02, 2008	Listed	*
Dec 07, 2005	Sold	$163,000
Apr 18, 2003	Sold	$112,000
Jun 29, 1990	Sold	$56,000

Another little house came on the market this week, so far north on Schiller you can probably smell the truck fumes from the comfort of your breakfast nook. Behold the end of the block at Clement:

In addition to its unfortunate location, 1904 Schiller Street has the following unappetizing specs and description:

2 (3?) bedrooms, 2 (1? 5?) bathrooms, 1,066 sqft, 4,104-sqft lot, MLS(r) #40427280, $412,900

MAKE ME BEAUTIFUL AGAIN. Public Record show 3 beds 1 bath, but home is being used as 2 beds and 1 bath [...] finished basement with bonus room and half bath. Permit unknown. Buyer(s) are advised to inspect and check with City.

1304 MortonSt has been on the market for ages--I first wrote about it in April 2008, and again in March of this year. It still hasn't sold in spite of multiple, significant price drops and an obscenely over-the-top kitchen renovation (I wouldn't be surprised if the sellers paid more for their kitchen than a number of people paid for their condo here just 10 years ago).

It appears the agent still hasn't come to terms with the two most recent price reductions and can't really decide how much the house should be priced, though.

(from today's Craigslist post)

(from the current listing on Redfin as of 8/27/09).

It's nice to see the attention to detail the agent lavishes on a million-dollar listing.

Update 11/13/09: Pending.

My oh my, prices have been busy dropping left and right while I wasn't paying attention writing about them. Here's a selective summary.

• The ugly custom Scarface house at 514 Westline Drive dropped its price multiple times. It's now a new (hah) listing with MLS(r) #40421430, priced at $1,098,000, and a short sale. Its last sale date when it was brand new just three years ago was $1,488,000. I guess that wasn't one of those lucky 8s. Assuming it sells for the current list price, that's a 26% loss, in case your calculator is broken.
  

• A newish listing at 1221 Sherman St, huge and overrun by expensive clutter inside and out, was initially listed for a hilarious $2,488,905 (note the extra five bucks tacked on at the end there) with MLS(r) 40418269 and dropped its price by almost a million all at once in mid July, to a still-too-high $1,569,000. The description is amusing as well:

[...] Lots of living space; great for entertaining: wedding, tea party, wine tasting... [...]

Given how often people tend to have weddings, it makes you wonder if the agent is suggesting a side business for the would-be owners to help pay the oversized mortgage. Dan and Irene have a writeup on their blog that seems to agree with my horror at the clutter oozing from the MLS(r) photos. Packing and moving all that stuff out is going to cost a fortune. And as for the initial $2.5M price tag, perhaps the owners and the agent realized that of those few people who can drop that kind of money on a house, not a whole lot of 'em decide to live in our little town. The highest-priced sales I can remember are the enormous bocce ball court on St Charles and the gigantic, fantastically laid-out Victorian compound at 1723-1725 Central, and those were only about $2M (each, sadly). Update: a short sale (?!?).

• The apparently unsellable "mansion" at 1626 Alameda Avenue miraculously dropped its price and now stands unsold at $950,000. Dan and Irene have a writeup on this one as well that points out some serious potential issues with the property's permit history, among other things.

• The super-classy trailer park Victorian at 1609 Lincoln (the one with the coin-op laundry facilities) has dropped to $899,000. It's been on the market for ages now. $899,000 is only $9,000 over the last purchase price back in 2005. 

• The oddly-shaped 709 Haight Avenue is sticking to its highly-successful strategy of multiple, itty-bitty price drops:

07/21/09: $419,900 to $414,900
07/21/09: $414,900 to $399,000
07/29/09: $399,000 to $389,000

We know how well that worked out back when it was $624,900 $614,900 $609,900 $589,900 $569,900 $504,900.

• The giant red-tagged wreck at 855 Cedar Street dropped its price from $935,000 to $885,000. There is no chance in hell this is selling for a penny over $500K, and even that would be completely insane given how much work it will require. Check out the big photos on Zillow to get a sense of how ruined this property is. I walked by a few months ago and was struck by what looks like years, if not decades, of complete neglect and abandon, sealed by the red tags on the boarded-up front door. It's a real shame, because the woodwork in the interior photos looks as though the house could be truly magnificent (not to mention huge; 4,810 sqft of living space on a big lot). This one breaks my heart a little. Zillow has it listed at $790,000, so at this rate there's hope for a more reasonable price in 10-12 years or so.

There are more, of course, but more on that later.

A beautiful, odd-looking Victorian on the east side of Encinal is on the market again in early July 2009, not very long after its previous sale. 3241 Encinal has the following specs:

3 bedrooms, 1 1/2 bathrooms, 1,675 sqft, 5,500-sqft lot, MLS(r) #40419044, $729,000 ($435 / sqft)

Beautiful! Unique Ext. architecture. [...] walk to all! Spacious kitchen and garage. Light filled with high ceilings and original details. [...] A small plus room can be used as an office or storage/coat room...

That right section with the pointy roof reminds me of this:


If memory serves, this was Julius Remmel's own home (he of the Marcuse and Remmel architecture firm), which may explain some of the home's more interesting architectural touches. Its exterior is really quite something in person (especially the entryway and the Germanic-looking roof extension) and I encourage you to check it out. Here's another view from the right:

The inside, however, is another story. It may have been changed significantly since it was last purchased, but when I toured it in 2006, I remember it having a bizarre layout: the front parlor was used as a bedroom, the kitchen was extremely large, and the bathrooms were in odd places. There was also an odd mixture of wood and carpeted floors. I haven't seen it since, so again the inside could be very different now.

The buyers are listing the property for just $1,000 under what they paid three years ago. It was too much then (as they found out, apparently) and it's still too much today.

Date	Event	Price
Jul 10, 2009	Listed	$729,000
Nov 28, 2006	Sold	$730,000
Nov 05, 2006	Delisted	*
Oct 15, 2006	Listed	*
Oct 16, 1992	Sold	$250,000

Update 11/4/09: Finally dropped to $698,000.

Yay! A great big huge pretty expensive Victorian! Let's check 1126 Union Street out:

5 bedrooms, 2 1/2 bathrooms, 2,386 sqft, approx. 5,200-sqft lot, MLS(r) #40405159, $948,000

Exquisite Queen Anne Victorian [...] Foundation replaced by Gutleben, 3 floors of living space, updated electrical & plumbing. Tasteful period lighting fixtures and moldings, finished full basement includes 5th bedroom & full bath [...]

It's gorgeous from the outside, and based on the MLS(r) photos, the inside ain't too shabby either. The location isn't exactly fabulous, what with busy Encinal right there, but at least there's a cute widdle fence all around.

Now, I'm all for encouraging people to take good care of their Victorians, and I'd pay a premium for a nicely-preserved specimen like this one, but $948,000 is just too high. And it's not just tightwad L. Opine speaking--the market is. Behold:

• A much larger 7-bedroom Victorian (3,500 sqft after basement remodel, 4 stories thanks to a usable attic) on a larger lot (6,300 sqft) down the street at 1716 Encinal, which was almost completely renovated with all the expensive stuff done, failed to sell a year or two ago after one price drop to around $950,000.
• Gorgeous, über-tricked-out 1304 Morton is languishing on the market at $975,000 after a combined $275,000 in price drops.
• A much, much larger Queen Anne (granted, it's been chopped up into multiple units) with lagoon access at 2140 Clinton has been sitting around since late last year and is still unsold at $995,000.
• Another beautiful Queen Anne in great condition, 1904 Clinton, with lagoon access as well (and chopped up into three units), has been sitting on the market for over 3 months at $949,000, and isn't moving.
  
• A larger, extraordinary Italianate on a giant lot with a separate studio, in the best location in town, 1724 Alameda Ave, sold for $870,000 a few months ago.
• A comparably-sized Marcuse and Remmel at 1616 Lafayette (photo below) was on the market for ages in mid-2007 for around $800,000 and didn't sell. It only had a perimeter foundation job, and the basement wasn't quite of legal height, but it was also $150,000 less and for sale during a period of relative financial stability.
  

While we're on the topic of successful real estate investments, the little big Victorian at 2117 Encinal comes to mind.

5* bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, 3,500-sqft lot, MLS(r) #40405054, $579,900
* or 4, depending on where you look

Bank owned Victorian with lots of upgrades. Property [...] including a large master suite on a main level. Full basement [...] 3 bedrooms and 1 bath. A must see!

Property History for 2117 Encinal

Date	Event	Price
Apr 15, 2009	Listed	$579,900
Aug 30, 2008	Off Redfin	*
Jul 22, 2008	Price Changed	*
Jun 14, 2008	Listed	*
Jun 14, 2008	Off Redfin	*
Mar 14, 2008	Listed	*
Jan 12, 2004	Sold	$648,000
Jun 12, 2002	Sold	$340,000

*Per MLS rules, we cannot display prices from inactive listings.

Ah, the fabled MLS rules, as truthful as Правда, as transparent as Гла́сность, as friendly as a Стул ведьмы. But thankfully we have them internets to help us out. It's not perfect, but it's something:

So we know this house was on the market at some point in 2008 for $1,000 over its previous sale price in 2004. If the basement is fully built-out, I'd guess it's on the order of 2,200-2,500 sqft based on many similar high-basement Victorians I've seen, and so at just under $580,000 this property is now priced around $230-$265 / sqft, which means it'll likely sell quickly, especially if the inside is in good shape. Looks like the banks are finally getting it.
 

Update: After a little more checking, I found this house is 2,400 sqft (not bad for an armchair guesstimate) and the inside was "completely renovated," including a foundation job. This one won't last long, in spite of its small lot and its location on a busy (but not awful) stretch of Encinal.

While we're revisiting old favorites, I submit that the overpriced cut-up Victorian jigsaw puzzle (9 units? Give me a break) at 2267 Clinton will be on the market well beyond its owners' lifetimes. Heck, the way it's going, the owners' children might die of old age still clinging to their $1.5M price point.

It's back as MLS(r) #40402191, at the new, low, low price of $1,425,000.

Based on the MLS(r) photos, there isn't much left of the property's much-vaunted Victorian character. Carpet, carpet everywhere, and not an unrented square inch to breathe. The (terrible) MLS(r) photos suggest some of the units are empty (so much for $114,600 yearly income), the two photographed kitchens look incredibly cheap, characterless and cramped, and other than the picture and chair rails and some woodwork that would take some effort to remove, there doesn't seem to be anything remotely Victorian left in this once-glorious carved-up house. And remember these are the official, cherry-picked photos aimed at representing the house in its best light to prospective buyers.

I am thoroughly underwhelmed. I could see paying $600,000 for the (enormous) building, lot and location, maybe, and spend another $200,000 turning it back into a real house. Not a penny more.

Update 1/8/10: And again, for a little less this time ($1,369,000).

Speaking of fake wealth destruction, today's little Victorian at 1009 Central is up there with the best of them.

4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms (+ 2 non-permitted bathrooms), 1,365 sqft, 5,440-sqft lot, MLS(r) #40401382, $499,000

Beautifully maintained Victorian [...] lot of charm. Hardwood floors, updated kitchen [...] 2 bathrooms without permit [...] no garage but huge driveway for plenty of parking.

The pointy roof looks odd to me--I could be convinced it's original to the 1891 building, but something tells me it was added later on, based on countless other little Victorian cottages sprinkled all over the island.

The listing claims this is a two-story home, but it looks like a one-floor, high-basement cottage with a finished (or not) basement. There's what looks like a permit ready to go to convert the basement back to storage, so I'm not sure whether all four of the bedrooms (not to mention the two stowaway bathrooms) would stay:

Case / Application / Permit Number			CB07-1243
Type / Classification			Building
			Combination Building Permit
			Residential / Over the Counter
Address			1009 CENTRAL AVE ALAMEDA, CA 94501
Parcel Number			073-0392-015-00
File Date			11/16/2007
Status			B_OTC -  Ready to Issue
Status Date			2/15/2008
Valuation			$0.00
Fees			$7,107.35
Payments			$3,553.50
Balance			$3,553.85
Description			CODE ENF:X04-0395 & X05-0222(MM)CONVERT BASEMENT BACK TO STORAGE AREA BY CAPPING OFF BATHROOMS & KITCHEN -PLBG/MECH/ELE FROM ORIGINAL SOURCE & CONVERT ATTIC BACK TO STORAGE AREA (BLDG/PLBG/MECH/ELE)

I didn't find a permit for foundation work; one other recent permit indicates some sheetrock had to be removed in the basement to ascertain whether basement walls were load-bearing and bring the basement up to code. All of this suggests to me the foundation might need some work, but again I'm happy to be corrected if anyone has credible evidence to the contrary (one wishes more homes would make that determination as easy as 2323 Buena Vista).

Now, what about that phantom wealth destruction?

Property History for 1009 CENTRAL Ave

Date	Event	Price
Mar 21, 2009	Listed	$499,000
Aug 04, 2005	Sold	$700,000

That's about 29% off its 2005 sale price. Of course, I expect some agent to chime in triumphantly when it sells quickly after multiple bids over asking. They can cling to their denial of the inevitable return to normalcy that's hitting the Bay Area for as long as they want. 

Update 9/19/09: Relisted for $460,750.

You may remember the "painted lady" Victorian on Morton that was bragging about its "unheard-of" price (and then its unheard-of price drop). It disappeared without a sale last last year, and with good reason--it was overimproved (if you can say what looked like a $75,000 tricked-out kitchen is "improved") and overpriced.

I heard through the grapevine the owners had bought a new house before selling the Morton property, and were in a bit of a bind.

Well, it's back (MLS(r) #40399138), for the even more unheard-of price of $975,000.

If I may quote myself:

Assuming an appreciation that matches historic trends (i.e. around 5%), today's price should be about $830,000.

It was listed for $1,250,000 at the time, which means it's down about 65% of where it needs to be.

Now consider that Lehman Brothers and relatively easy credit were still around then. The rhetorical question at the top of my original post now seems to be answering itself:

Why can't this house come on the market in a year or two, for $500K less?

Update 8/25/09: Still on the market with a really idiotic price drop from $975,000 to $949,999. Not only is "$949,999" a truly meaningless discount from $950,000, it also shuts out all the buyers who start looking at $950,000 using various real estate Web sites. Well done, genius(es).

Update 8/27/09: Still on the market for any one of three prices.

Update 11/13/09: Pending.

A gorgeous 1880 Victorian at 2323 Buena Vista came on the market a little while ago, and I'd been waiting to take my own pictures so I could write a post worthy of the structure and its current condition. A reader (who shall remain anonymous; no, it wasn't I who took the pictures) was gracious enough to send me their own photos, used here by permission, so there's no reason to wait.

Today's glorious wreck has the following specs:

multi-family (beds, baths unknown), 3,514 sqft, built in 1880, MLS(r) #40394635

Contractor needed to start and complete lower units of East End Victorian. Much potential. Plans and permit history unknown. No inspections or reports. Bank/ Seller will consider all offers.

(Description excerpted from listing on Trulia).

I couldn't find the lot size anywhere, but its neighbor to the east at 2327 Buena Vista is listed as sitting on 6,800 sqft (green border), and this property's lot (orange border) looks about one third larger (from Zillow):

Whoever is representing this property is likely from out of town, as it is not an "East End" Victorian--it's to the west of Park Street. The agent also conveniently omitted the large Chevron gas station at the very busy intersection two doors down (clearly visible in the Zillow map above).

It was once a fantastic, well-preserved, enormous house:

But somebody ran out of money, apparently, and left before completing renovation work in the back:

... or on the side:

The foundation work appears to be done:

But the lower level has no walls. And it's been raining. A lot.

The running-out-of-money hypothesis appears to be supported by the sale history:

Sale History
10/29/2008:	$466,200 *
06/17/2004:	$745,000 *
No other sale data is available
* Transaction not included in Zestimate. More info

Yet another West End Victorian on the market today. It will be familiar to those of us who've been watching Alameda Victorian sales for a couple of years, as we shall see directly. 461 Santa Clara, depending on who you ask (public records or the current listing) has the following specs:

MLS(r): 4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 1,962 sqft, 5,904-sqft lot, MLS(r) #40395507, $780,000
Public records: 2 bedrooms, 1 1/2 bathroom, 1,074 sqft

Gorgeous 4 bedroom 2 bath Victorian [...] Completely remodeled first floor with permits. High ceilings, wood floors, spiral staircase, updated bath upstairs and new bath downstairs. [...]  grand formal dining room. Nice landscaping.

Why is this a familiar sight? Turns out this property appears to be a flip:

Last sale and tax info

Sold 01/08/2008: $630,000 *

2008 Property Tax: $3,173

It's not clear why Zillow doesn't include that last transaction in their Zestimate--maybe the price is anomalous on the high side, considering Zillow only knows about 1,074 sqft and 2 bedrooms?

That last transaction is recent enough to still appear on various sites.

Full remodel or not, $780,000 is much too high ($398 / sqft) given the property's location and the fact that its "ground floor" (the one at the bottom end of the hideous, très non-period spiral staircase) actually started out as a high basement. It also has some competition from an architecturally similar Vic near the lagoon that's been on the market for almost six months around $600,000 and still hasn't sold (I might post about this one at some point; I'm very curious about the garden gnome playing hide and seek against the wall in the bottom right-hand corner):

1527 Willow is one of those two-houses-on-one-lot deals that fell through the cracks and was neglected when it came on the market in November 2008. A reader contacted me through Trulia with questions about this property, so I drove by and collected various tidbits to share. Here are the specs:

4 bedrooms (2+2), 2 bathroom (1+1), 9,750-sqft lot, MLS(r) #40380010, $749,500

One Victorian-era Home and One Cottage - All on One Very Spacious Lot

Location: Central Alameda

A Victorian-era home sits admidst a landscaped front yard and offers two bedrooms and one bath, formal parlor and dining rooms, and a deck off the back of the house.

A Cottage sitting at the back of the spacious front yard has its own front garden and patio, and offers two bedrooms and one bath.

Expansion possibilities are numerous on this 9000+sf lot.

Bring your creativity!

The listing above is from Craigslist. I wish the agent would drop the faux poetic tone ("sits amidst a landscaped front yard" isn't really English, even if you spell "amidst" properly).

This listing has already been dropped once, from $775,000, in mid-January. It does sit on a giant lot, but that block of Willow (indeed most of Willow down to the hospital) is very, very narrow and inconvenient. There's what looks like an enormous high school playground in back (map), and a Montessori school next door, so you can forget about peace and quiet. On top of those lovely amenities, the aforementioned reader reports $70,000 in termite damage (gasp!) and possibly a new roof job required in the near future. I don't know what material or shape the foundation is in, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was all brick; I found exactly zero permit applications for either unit (although I don't know that for a fact; I'm happy to correct this post if someone knows whether this house has a concrete foundation).

All in all, $750,000 is far too much. I wasn't able to find a sale history, so perhaps the seller can drop the price to a more reasonable level, say, $450,000 or so.  

I might start a "Mullets" category for this kind of properties--Victorian in front, cottage in the back. Or maybe not.

Update 3/7/09: Back on the MLS(r) as #40398697, with a teensy bitsy price drop to $724,500.

Update 4/15/09: Dropped to $699,500. Why the $500?

Reader veenstr noticed 1833 San Antonio had been relisted at a new, lower price. It is now known as MLS(r) #40392956 and listed for $1,055,000, down from its previous price of $1,175,000.

I happen to agree with reader LesBesTes that it's grossly overpriced (by several hundred thousand dollars) and horribly redone inside. Let's see what happens with the new year.

Note: Good news, thanks to Matt from Redfin. I'll be adding links back to MLS-related sites (Redfin property pages, specifically), since they're obviously not imbeciles like the nincompoops over at EBRD.

Sometimes a cluster of homes within spitting distance of each other seem to come on the market at the same time. Last spring, a string of Gold Coast properties got listed and sold shortly thereafter. This January appears to be the West End's turn, with at least three properties in the 400-500 block range coming on the market at once, adding to an already sizable inventory.

Today's Vic is a sad, naked duplex that most likely wasn't born that way.

2x2 bedrooms + "bonus rooms", 1,597 sqft, ~6,000-sqft lot, MLS(r) #40389963, $479,900

Duplex [...] Each unit has 2 BD+ Bonus room. Lots of old details, E. G. antique fixtures, claw foot tub. Large yard for children to play. [...] Room in front yard for small garden. 

A friendly reader pointed out that 1350 Broadway was back on the market at a slightly lower price. I toured that dump property when it was on the market a year or two ago (unsuccessfully, and for good reason, for it reeked of age, neglect and cooking oil) and was thoroughly unimpressed. Agent Kirk Knight picked it up, repriced it, and thankfully published no photos of the inside on any MLS sites (as of today, anyway). My gut tells me he's going to wait as long as Griselda Bissett did the first time around.

On to the specs.

2 units, 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 1,381 sqft, ~7,000-sqft lot, MLS(r) #40390078, $600,000

Classic Americana [...] Farmhouse. Legal duplex - convert back to single family? Excellent Otis Elementary (880 API) [...] Huge lot, park-like back yard, [...] sep office bldg + detached garage. [...] Neighboring 1885 fixer now transformed for inspiration.

(here's the "Neighboring 1885 fixer").

You can see this property's slow price descent here:

I dug up my notes from my 2007 tour of the place. I haven't seen it since, so for all I know it's fabulous and all new inside now, but this is where it started from:

• Some hardwood floors, in bad shape
  
• Horrible old stinky carpet elsewhere
  
• Floors have noticeable tilt
  
• Downstairs bath: no sink, only a tub
• Upstairs kitchen looks like converted sun porch
• Tiny bedrooms
• Pronounced traffic noise in front living room
  
• Foundation is old, brick-cement mix
• Legal little building in yard has 2 big rooms, but no bathroom or kitchen
• Huge detached garage for 2 normal cars (probably)
• Listed at $699,500 as of 12/16/2007.

The yard is indeed very large, but there's nothing "park-like" about it. And as our friendly reader points out, an 880 API score is nothing to write home about.

The sale history certainly doesn't show anything that justifies a price above $250,000, which is about as much I'd be willing to pay:

Sale History
06/12/1998:	$102,000 *
No other sale data is available
* Transaction not included in Zestimate. More info

$600,000 is obscene.

Another day, another pretty, old West end 2-story house going back to the bank. 452 Santa Clara joins 450 Taylor in our rogues' gallery of failed real estate experiments. Here are the specs:

4 units (3x1BR 1BA, 1x2BR 1BA), 2,836 sqft, 7,810-sqft lot, MLS(r) #351187, $699,900

Large 4 plex in the heart of Alameda. Victorian Home built in 1900 converted to 4 units. Garage parking in the rear. Separate Meters. Short Sale! Grab this great deal! 

The property has a long history of multiple sales in the past 20 years, courtesy of Redfin for a change:

Property History for 452 SANTA CLARA Ave

Date	Event	Price	Appreciation	Source
Jan 15, 2009	Listed	$699,900	--	San Francisco MLS #351187
Jan 15, 2009	Listed	$699,900	--	MLSListings #80902277
Sep 09, 2004	Sold	$738,454	11.1%/yr	Public Records
Dec 30, 1999	Sold	$450,000	51.5%/yr	Public Records
Sep 15, 1994	Sold	$50,000	-36.7%/yr	Public Records
Oct 26, 1993	Sold	$75,000	-24.2%/yr	Public Records
Dec 18, 1992	Sold	$95,000	-30.5%/yr	Public Records
Jan 31, 1989	Sold	$390,000	--	Public Records

Whoever bought it last for $738,454 didn't appear to mind the 11% annual appreciation since the previous sale or the fact that the rental income doesn't come close to covering the costs:

Financial Information

• Tax Amount: $11,074.70
• Gross Rent Multiplier: 26.51
• Rental Income: $26,400
• Net Income: $6,381
• Gross Scheduled Income: $26,400
• Gross Annual Income: $26,400

(for reference, a 6.5%-interest, 80%-LTV loan for a $740,000 house comes out to about $3,700 a month exclusive of property tax).

Oh and by the way, $699,900 is still nowhere near cash-flow positive, either, so anyone buying at today's price is just as much of an idiot as the current owner. But I suppose they may have felt they were getting a great deal then too, since it was apparently listed at $895,000. Interestingly the agent's trophy page for the last sale mentions greater square footage, an owner's unit, and a sale price of $820,500.

Today's new listing is a pretty Victorian on the lagoon on the 1900 block of Clinton. Handy if you need to run to the hospital. The specs:

4 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, 2,563 sqft, 7,420-sqft lot, triplex, MLS(r) #40389387, $949,000

Gorgeous "turn of the century" victorian on lagoon on gold coast [...] Owners unit is 2 bedr/1 bath w/formal dr, sunporch,etc. All units have access to backyard, deck and lagoon. Updated triplex with original charm. [...] One of a kind! Must see

The postman always rings twice. Opportunity is more old school, and it knocks. Twice.

3221 Encinal is back on the market as an REO, known as MLS(r) #40388418, and listed at $429,500. The last time it was on the market a few months ago, it was listed at $650,000 and looked like hell from the outside (it probably still does). If it was...

[...] a great opportunity for first time home buyers and investors

at $650,000, then it truly is an...

[o]pportunity in coveted Alameda!!! Single family home with nearly full legal height basement [...] Needs work [...]

... at $429,500.

I often wonder about how folks who came close to buying but decided against it must feel when they see the property they almost bought come back for over $200,000 less than they may have paid just a few months ago, had common sense not gotten the better of them. Survivor's guilt, maybe?

One of my favorite failed sales from a year or two ago is about to come back on the market--you read it here first, folks (well, if you don't read anything else, really, since it's on the front page of the local rag's real estate section this week). 450 Taylor is a magnificent 2-story Italianate Victorian in a crummy part of town (for Victorians, that is).

3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 1,798 sqft, 7,000-sqft lot, MLS(r) #TBD, $749,000

Description TBD as well--the MLS(r) sites or craigslist don't have it yet.

I'll drive by later and take a better picture because it's worth seeing.

The interesting story here is that this property was on the market in 2007 or early 2008, if I remember correctly, for $839,000 ($466 / sqft) and failed to sell. It had sold not once but twice in the previous two years, once in December 2005, another in September, 2006 (Zillow page):

Sale History
08/21/2006:	$839,000
12/21/2005:	$675,000
No other sale data is available

The newspaper description suggests someone went wild with "modern comforts" (granite everywhere, Terminator appliances, etc), which might account for the crazy $164,000 gain between those two sales.

A third sale was attempted at some point in the past couple of years, perhaps as a short sale (my memory for details is fuzzy on this one), but I wasn't able to find any trace of that sale completing. I did find an old listing price ($849,000) and MLS(r) number (40281736) on an agent's site, but there's no date there other than the "Copyright 2007, Lucian Trif" at the bottom of the page.

It's going to be listed at $749,000, which is still way too much considering how close it is to some high school and miscellaneous ugly houses, but an interesting trajectory:

early 2006: $675,000
late 2006: $839,000
2007/2008: $879,000 (no sale)
early 2009: $749,000

Buy now or be priced out forever, because real estate is a great investment that always goes up.

Today's Victorian is a "contractor's special" in the West end. Per public records, it has the following specs:

4 bedrooms (3+2 per listing), 2 1/2 bathrooms, 2,415 sqft, 5,620-sqft lot, MLS(r) #40385895, $620,000

[...] contractor's special. Two homes on one lot. [...] front [...] charming victorian style home with [...] partial basement. The rear cottage was gutted and ready for completion. Off-street parking. Nice yard and great location [...]

Something tells me "rear cottage was gutted and ready for completion" is code for "we ran out of HELOC money before we finished the job" given:

Last sale and tax info

Sold 06/29/2006: $655,000

2008 Property Tax: $8,629

Way to add value.

Can you actually claim the gutted cottage's bedrooms and bathrooms in the listing if it's actually been gutted (which in my book means it's not livable as is)?

Update 12/18/08: I drove by and verified that the block is moderately nice, except for the high school down the block and the house right next door to this property at 549 (you can see a piece of it in the picture above), which seems to be in pretty bad shape.

Update 9/28/09: Sold for $412,000. Not a typo. Outstanding 37% drop in 3 years earns the property an "Epic" tag.

This week's Victorian made me laugh.

4 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, 2,494 sqft, ~6,000-sqft lot, 3 units (2x 1BR, 1x2BR), MLS(r) #40380511

Darling Victorian Triplex [...] Magical garden w/ space galore! [...] units all with large kitchens and lots of original details. A must see!

It certainly doesn't look like a house that started out as a triplex--more like a high-basement cottage whose lower half was put to use. I'm happy to be corrected if that is indeed one big Victorian with 2,494 sqft of above-ground living space (thanks to reader T. Fergusen for the tip; I might verify it if the agent holds an open house).

What made me laugh, exactly?

They're asking $1,150,000 ($461 / sqft). Assuming 6.5% interest and 10% down, we're looking at a $6,500 mortgage, with another $1,000 for property tax. How exactly do you expect to cover that with 2 1-bedroom and 1 2-bedroom units' rents?

What is it about big lots and "magical gardens" in the west end that causes owners to lose their minds over the value of their properties? What is it about the current market that leads people to believe they'll be able to unload their houses at these delusional prices, especially considering many of the comps haven't exactly set the market on fire?

This property has no business being priced in the seven digits.

Update 12/28/08: Price dropped to a still-too-high $1,095,000 two weeks ago.

Today's newest Victorian has a mysterious obsession with water.

6 bathrooms, 4,501 sqft, 12,660-sqft lot (!), MLS(r) #40378361, $1,150,000

Great water income property. [...]  victorian w/full basement and finished attic, 3 story water tower for future use, 6 off street parkings, 2 newer units in back [...] on lagoon. Approx. 300' deep [...] 

The public records say nothing about bedrooms; only bathrooms matter in this "water income property" with a "water tower for future use" (is that when the aliens have invaded Earth and turned all our water into liquid hydrogen?) "on lagoon." Regardless, it is a striking building: 


The sale history suggests an intra-family transfer of some kind--a plot of land that size, with lagoon access, was worth far more than $56,500, even without a beautiful Victorian sitting on it.

Last sale and tax info

Sold 03/21/1997: $56,500

2008 Property Tax: $5,218

Without any information about the layout, it's hard to even guess at what kind of income the property might bring in, but at $255 / sqft in that location, it's a steal and should go in a heartbeat, assuming the property's inside matches its exterior. And guess who's not too happy about this listing?

Update 4/25/09: Price dropped to $995,000 several weeks ago.

You know the old saw--you're better off with a modest house on a great block than the best house on a sketchy block. Today's repossessed Victorian fixer doesn't have any qualms about admitting it's squarely in the former category:

3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 1,249 sqft, 3,000-sqft lot, MLS(r) #40378425, $394,900

REO bargain priced below comps. [...] fixer needs work but priced to sell! [...] full basement [...] Ideal neighborhood of much more expensive houses makes this a worthwhile investement.

You may remember this property from when it was known as MLS(r) #40287584 and trying to sell itself honorably in the mid $500s (here's the current Trulia page with a wonky prior transaction price of $6,130,182 back in April, 2007):

If you've been to that part of town, you know the only reason the other houses on the block are more expensive is because this one is cheaper, which is not completely tautological--it's like saying the clearance aisle at the Dollar Store is in an ideal store of much more expensive items, as opposed to, say, strolling through Saks and finding an ever-so-slightly scuffed pair of Dior pumps with a 10% off tag.

The sale history is a bit odd:

Sales History

Sale History & Tax Info

Sale History
09/23/2008:	$427,979 *
04/16/2007:	$61,301 *
05/14/1999:	$275,500
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.

Whatever actually happened in 2007, it's certainly remarkable to have added $150,000 to the loan balance in just 9 years and still have a "fixer" that "needs work." Sure, foundations don't come cheap, and the previous listing claimed the property's was just ten years old new, but there's no way this little house got a $150K foundation job, especially considering it had sold for $275K in 1999--I don't know about you, but in 1999 I wasn't about to pay that much for a house I knew needed 10 Honda Civics' worth of foundation work. But then again, maybe the buyer overpaid for a dilapidated hovel and then proceeded to overpay for a new foundation.

The previous listing also noted a remodeled kitchen with new tile floor and cabinets; just how much more work is needed in this house? And if it needed everything redone, why pay that much in 1999?

A closer look at one of the pictures reveals an interesting taste in door and window designs (note there's no date available, so for all I know the picture is old and the house looks much better now; but if that's the case, why use it in the current listing? I drove by on 10/30/08 and the house is indeed boarded up (i.e. the photo below is current as of late October, 2008). It's also around the corner from a nail salon:


The little house four blocks away we looked at a few weeks ago now has a friend in misery. Expect more as the winter frost starts biting.
 

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.

Update 1/11/09: Back on the market with new agent, new price ($380,000), and old musty smells. Thanks to the commenters who pointed this out.

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

The art of flipping is still alive and well, in spite of the market's current malaise. Today's flip is a large Victorian in an area noted for its small lots and tiny homes, the 400-500 blocks of Santa Clara. First, the specs:

4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 2,366 sqft, 7,120-sqft lot, 1x2BR, 1x3BR units, MLS(r) #40374744, $819,000

Gorgeous Victorian on a huge lot. Totally remodeled from top to bottom with permits. New appliances, flooring, granite counter tops, cabinets, fresh paint in and out, etc. [...] Long driveway parks many cars.

I don't know about gorgeous, but there's photographic evidence it was being worked on not terribly long ago, thanks to Google's ruthless street view camera:

I can't vouch for this, but this property doesn't look like it was born a multi-family residence. I'd bet it was raised and chopped up into two units at some point in its long history, and as a result it looks just wrong, especially when you compare it to real two-story Victorians on the island.

The sale history reveals truly inspired financial reasoning on the owner's part:

Last sale and tax info

Sold 11/15/2006: $560,000

2007 Property Tax: $2,023

I suspect it went something like this: "Let's buy this place, spend a hundred K fixing it up, and flip it! We're gonna be RICH! MUAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAAAA!"

Except there are a lot of other pretty Victorian MFHs, some with 4 units (and therefore much better rental upside potential; at least you're not losing 50% of your revenue when one tenant moves out), many in better areas, most about the same size, that just aren't selling, even when listed for a lot less than this property's delusional $819,000 asking price.

Did anyone do a cash flow analysis of this beast? A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation puts the mortgage alone at $4,700 / month (assuming 10% down and 6.5% loan); add $700 for property tax and $500 for maintenance (a low estimate to reflect the fact the house was just renovated) and you need $5,900 / month in rent just to break even. I don't know about you, but I ain't paying $3,000 a month to live in a Vic basement in that part of town, even if I can use the long driveway to practice my bowling skills all day. And if all you want is a big house to live in for yourself, you can rent one just 5 sqft smaller for $3,500 a month. That's close to $30,000 savings every year, or tuition and board at any good 4-year public college in California.

Restoring old homes is a wonderful, laudable enterprise. Expecting to flip them for a massive profit is not. I just hope this doesn't cost these idiots' kids a chance to get the good education their parents obviously didn't get. Or maybe they skipped the intro math classes.

Update 10/31/08: It didn't take long for the first price drop. We're down to a still excessive $780,000. I'm almost ready to bet there's going to be another one before the end of November.

Update 9/30/09: I missed the sale--evidently this property sold in May, 2009 for... $500,000. REO? Distress sale?

It always amuses me to read descriptions of properties going into foreclosure describing them as great investments. It reminds me of those old high-mileage Buick Regal beaters with "RUNS GOOD" painted on them. If it RUNS GOOD, why sell it, really? And if it's such a great investment, why is it back on the market a few years after its last purchase, and being foreclosed on?

Today's brilliant financial move is what looks like a small Victorian chopped up into two units, on the 1500 block of Santa Clara. I can't tell from the Google Street View picture whether it's the little rickety one on the west side or the tall Italianatey-sticky one just inches to the east of it (my bet is the former). The specs, such as they are:

2x 1 bedroom, 1 bathroom, 1,572 sqft, no lot size available, MLS(r) #40374298, $449,000

Appealing investment opportunity! Upstairs [...] 1 bedroom and 1 bath with 2 bonus rooms, [...] updated kitchen and bathroom. Downstairs [...] updated kitchen. [...] Desirable location!

Interestingly, the previous sale price wasn't all that high, especially for 2004. It makes you wonder how much of the "updated kitchen(s)" was financed using a HELOC.

Last sale and tax info

Sold 05/14/2004: $405,000

2007 Property Tax: $5,797

I don't know what's going on in that part of Santa Clara, but it seems to be a hotbed of foreclosures and dilapidated houses. Maybe it's the bend in the street just a block to the east? Or the church across the street?

One of four listings to hit the market all at once this week, 1724 Alameda Avenue is also the most interesting. I wasn't able to find any public domain pictures, so I'll probably shoot a couple this weekend and post. First, the specs:

4 bedrooms, 1 bathroom, 2 stories, unfinished basement, 2,652 sqft, 13,200-sqft lot, MLS(r) #40373116, $899,999

Sonoma in Alameda? [...] 4 bedroom Italianate style home [...] huge double lot with gardens, it also includes a spa like studio cottage. Main house needs cosmetics.[...]

You read right. 13,200-sqft lot, in a great location, where they truly aren't making any more land. Built in 1889, it's also been owned by the same folks for a long time, judging by the low property tax ($1,774) and absence of sale history on its Zillow page.

I took a look at this property; the lot is so big you can't really take good pictures of the building without trespassing, which I wasn't interested in doing, so here's what you can see from the street:

$339 / sqft for a big, beautiful house with bonus cottage on a giant lot in the Gold Coast means it's not going to last.

You know the market is down when you can buy a Victorian duplex for under $500,000. Either that or the house is a wreck. Or maybe both:

Opportunity knocks to restore this Victorian duplex [...] The property needs LOTS of TLC. Upstairs unit is 2 bedroom/1 bath, downstairs is 1 bedroom/1 bath. [...]

1538 Schiller Street, 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 2,078 sqft, 3,538-sqft lot, MLS(r) #40368892, $499,000

It appears the owners were among many Alameda property owners who had delinquent waste management accounts with the city last summer (pdf). Other than that, there isn't much about this property on the Web.

It was purchased 15 years ago for a tiny amount, and because it takes a while to ruin a property such that it needs "LOTS of TLC" (not just "TLC" or "lots of TLC"--real estate agents are case-sensitive), I'm wondering if it was already a wreck then and has only been minimally maintained (if at all) since that last purchase:

Sale History
08/31/1993:	$85,500

It's hard to imagine how a property in bad shape that cost $499,000 would cash flow as a duplex with only 3 bedrooms, but the savvy real estate investors in Alameda have proved time and time again that cash flow is totally passé, so I suspect somebody will pick this one up in short order.

In real estate, it's all about location, location, location. And when your location blows, your sale prospects are grim. This gorgeous, amusingly described "stoic" Italianate Victorian is nestled amidst auto body shops, dilapidated warehouses, graffitied corrugated fences and a number of home-based businesses in the industrial area of Alameda:

Its specs are mouth-watering:

4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 2 stories, 2,183 sqft, 6,750-sqft lot, MLS(r) #40349929

Stoic italianate victorian in mixed use area. [...] office-lower and residential income upper. [...]

The MLS(r) pictures I'm not allowed to show suggest it's in great condition, at least the outside. But not great enough to warrant its current asking price of $695,000 ($318 / sqft), or its previous list price of $719,000 (the price drop occurred in early September, 2008). Certainly not on that block with its dilapidated, train-track-encrusted blacktop.

But it's not clear the owner has much room to budge on the price, given:

Last sale and tax info

Sold 10/04/2006: $650,000

2007 Property Tax: $6,276

Note to "investors": paying $650,000 for a duplex does not make sense, especially when said duplex's location knocks a good 25% off the price of any comp you might be looking at for your CMA.

I'd hate to see this fabulous-looking house on a big lot go to pot, though. Maybe someone can come in, buy the whole block, and raze those businesses to build a latter-day Fernside estate.

WTF is up w/ those abbrev. posts on MLS(r) sites? Today's listing has "ez acces to parks."

Excellent Home buying opportunity [...] Adorable 1 bed and 1 bath fully detach victorian nestled on a traquil tree line st with ez acces to parks, [...] one of the LOWEST priced homes is Alameda and a great condo alternative on a Huge lot.

This abbreviated listing is for an abbreviated home with the following abbreviated specs:

1 bedroom, 1 bathroom, 888 sqft, 3,750-sqft lot, $276,500, MLS(r) #40368605 and #346373

I remember seeing this mini Vic on the market not that long ago, and indeed it has sold twice over the past 3 1/2 years, not counting its latest run-in with the bank (data courtesy of the excellent Bay Area Sold Homes site):

08/12/2007	2253 Clinton Avenue	$525,000	1	888	1895	Alameda	94501
05/29/2005	2253 Clinton Avenue	$475,000	1	888	1995	Alameda	94501

The earlier transaction made the agent proud:

We sold it for way over asking! Yay us! Of course that was the responsible thing to do, since $475,000 for 888 sqft (a mere $535 / sqft) is such an incredible deal. Things had turned sour a couple of years later, as the property sold for $525,000 (a steal at $591 / sqft) after being listed for $549,000 in late 2006; it didn't sell until August, 2007 (my emphasis):

Open Homes for the Weekend of Oct. 7 and 8, 2006

Written by Alameda Sun    Published: Friday, 06 October 2006

Information on open homes listed below was gathered by the Alameda Sun for the purposes of providing prospective real estate buyers a place to start their search. The Sun does not guarantee the accuracy, timeliness or completeness of the information. To list your property on this page or www.alamedasun.com, call 263-1472. 1437 Morton St. $259,000 Sunday 2-4 1433 Morton St. “B” $315,000 Sunday 2-4 955 Shore Point Court #212 $325,000 Sunday 2-4 2133 Santa Clara Ave. #212 $398,000 Sunday 2-4 1533 Pacific Ave. $450,000 Sunday 2-4 2137 Otis Drive #209 $475,000 Sunday 2-4 1816 Chestnut St. $495,000 Sunday 2-4 1033 Verdemar Drive $520,000 Sunday 1:30-4:30 1033 Verdemar Drive $520,000 Saturday 1:30-4:30 2253 Clinton Ave. $549,000 Sunday 2-4

I always get very excited when a Victorian or a Gold Coast house comes on the market. The way I see it, there isn't much point in owning your own home in Alameda unless it's a Victorian (or a really nice Craftsman). So when I saw this new one show up today I thought "Yay! a Gold Coast Victorian!". 1833 San Antonio Avenue, Alameda has the following mouth-watering specs, in addition to a great address and a respectable MLS(r) #40367794:

3 bedrooms, 1 1/2 bathrooms, 2,192 sqft, 4,320-sqft lot (per public records)
4 bedrooms, 2 1/2 bathrooms (per other places I was chastised for mentioning)

Beautiful, spacious home [...] Gold Coast. Granite, stone, marble, custom paint and moldings [...] Pocket doors, formal dining room [...] a home you have to visit the inside to really appreciate. [...]

Then I saw the street view photo. They're not kidding about the "home you have to visit the inside to really appreciate," wonky grammar notwithstanding. What happened to all the siding?

Then I saw the price: $1,175,000, or $536 / sqft, which is way too high.

Then I saw the sale history and did some math.

Last sale and tax info

Sold 03/19/2004: $660,000

2007 Property Tax: $8,48

$660,000 to $1,175,000 in 4 1/2 years represents a rate of appreciation of about 17% y-o-y, every year, since it was last purchased. I realize the owners may have done significant improvements to the place, but nearly doubling the price of a home? Give me a break. If it was such a wreck they did bring it back to life, why on earth did they pay $660,000 for it in the first place?

Update a few hours later: I drove by and confirmed the street view photo. There's no siding on the front of the house, even though there is some on the east side of the house. The bulgy tower seems out of place, even though towers are common in houses from that period; it just looks funny all naked like that without any wood siding, especially compared to two dozen Vics on the same block in full wood siding attire. And if you chance on the photos that just appeared on various MLS(r) sites, which EBRD objects to my posting here, you'll see the inside has essentially zero Victorian character (but a lot of Terminator-clad kitchen toys).

Update 10/26/08: Price dropped to $1,095,000 on 10/22.

Update 2/3/09: It's back.




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

This property somewhere in the "HEART" of Alameda just appeared on Craigslist.

HANDYMAN SPECIAL CASH _ CHEAP $$ (alameda) (map)

---

Reply to: see below
Date: 2008-08-28, 7:27PM PDT


Check out this lovely Victorian Home , in the HEART of Alameda
A MUST SEE, you don't want this one to pass you by !

The inside will blow your socks off !
3 Bed
4 Bed
living area 1.520
Lot size 3.800
Built 1921
CALL LINNARD NOW 510 927-1416

There's no address, no price (other than "CHEAP $$"), and there appear to be 3 bedrooms and 4 bedrooms. It also looks nothing like a house built in 1921. Maybe the poster was impaired when they composed that post.

It doesn't look like much on the outside (the house appears to be listing to the left):

So I don't know whether to take "The inside will blow your socks off !" as an exciting promise or a veiled threat.

Does anybody know where this property might be?

Update 8/29/2008: They're not kidding about the inside. *Shudder*. And I would really like to know who was building Victorians in 1921.

Update 9/5/08: The address is now official, as is the price. I like how the seller is dictating the terms: all cash AND the buyer pays all closing costs. $610,000 for what looks like a smallish (1,520-sqft) fixer-upper with no concessions makes you wonder whether Linnard (or the seller) is truly an idiot or merely a complete moron.

$610000 HANDYMAN SPECIAL CASH _ CHEAP $$ (alameda)

---

Reply to: see below
Date: 2008-09-05, 3:20PM PDT

Check out this lovely Victorian Home , in the HEART of Alameda
OPEN HOUSE 1PM --3PM SUNDAY, 09-07-08 A MUST SEE, you don't want this one to pass you by !

The inside will blow your socks off !
4 BATH
4 BED
living area 1.520
Lot size 3.800
Built 1921
CALL LINNARD NOW 510 927-1416
A ALL CASH DEAL, Buyer pays all closeing cost 1228 high street   google map   yahoo map

• it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests

PostingID: 829124481

The specs don't match the public records at all, but the photo does.

1228 High Street, Alameda, CA

Public Facts:

• Single family
• 2 beds
• 2.0 bath
• 1,718 sqft
• Lot 8,000 sqft
• Built in 1894

Last sale and tax info

Sold 01/31/1989: $249,000

2007 Property Tax: $4,612

Update 9/23/08: Price dropped to $585,000, still with that bizarre requirement of a "cash deal". Do they seriously expect someone to have $585,000 in cash burning a hole in their pocket and to be willing to spend it on their Victorian hovel?

$585000 HANDYMAN SPECIAL CASH / CHEAP (alameda) (map)

---

Reply to: hous-851886834@craigslist.org ^[?]
Date: 2008-09-23, 7:31AM PDT


Would you like to own this lovely 1896 Victorian in the heart of Alameda
2 Bedroom
4 Bathroom, One on each floor. Hard wood floors thru out first floor.
Nicely finished rooms in Attic.
New roof spring of 2007,30yr shingle.
Full unit in Basement that could be Rented, A MUST SEE !
House will be sold as is. Out side needs love and some care !!
lot size 8,000 Sq ft House,1,758 Sq ft
A CASH DEAL, CALL LINNARD @(510) 927-1416

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

The market runup gave rise to a new class of imbecile, the "weekend real estate investor." Now, real estate investors have been around for millennia, I'm sure, and as a group they're not imbeciles. But the newly-minted, self-appointed investors of recent years are a different breed. Risk isn't really a factor for them--real estate always goes up. Neither is cashflow, because even if you're losing 5 figures because your rents don't pencil out, you'll make a killing selling the place in a couple of years--real estate always goes up.

Today's stellar example of financial savvy is a lovely 2-story Victorian duplex, with two 2-bedroom, 1-bathroom units in a 2,104-sqft building sitting on a 5,250-sqft lot (MLS(r) #40365778; no link until EBRD issues are resolved).

Renovated [...] both 2bdrms 1 bath. Separated laundry rooms, & meters. [...] granite countertops, mini golf course in backyard, & fish pond. [...] close to schools, main library, theatre, etc. Move in condition.

In honor of our new Lifers category, we present to you a large Victorian on Clinton Avenue, which seems to have been on the market forever. Its 5,348 sqft have been chopped up into eight units. One site I'd never seen before has this to say:

2267 Clinton Yesterday's Charm, Today's Lifestyle

Beautiful 8 units--Rising rents. 1 large two bdrm, 4 one bdrms, 3 studios Roof in '02, foundation 1999-2000, updated electrical, new sewer, sep. meters [...] Tastefully painted halls, attractive, durable hall carpet. Most apartments have updated kitchens with granite counters. [...] moldings, skylights. Penthouse apt is one bdrm is large with skylights. [...] Front yard is landscaped and sprinklered. [...]

Are they seriously calling the top floor, presumably former attic a "Penthouse apt"?

The property is listed at $1,495,000, down from its previous $1,559,000 since mid July. There is no record on Zillow or Trulia even of the property's existence, so one assumes it's been owned by the same family for decades (or at least since before the earliest record in Zillow's dataset):

Showing:

2167 Clinton Ave, Alameda, CA 94501

Were you looking for:

• 2257 Clinton Ave, Alameda, CA 94501
• 2261 Clinton Ave, Alameda, CA 94501

The Loopnet page gives a breakdown of the income you can expect this property to generate:

Financial Summary

Actual

Year:	2007
Scheduled Gross Income:	$101,460
Operating Expenses:	$16,070
Net Operating Income:	$87,130

But if you finance this puppy at 7% with 20% down, you're stuck with yearly costs of about $112,680 ($8,000 monthly mortgage + about $1,390 in property tax every month, assuming $1,495,000 value and average 1.16% property tax), which means you're about $25K in the red every year. What an amazing investment indeed.

This property is a Lifer on this blog because it was Alameda Sun's Property of the Week back in April, 2007:


I have found no evidence of the property being on the market prior to April, 2007, but I have memories of it in 2006. Can anyone confirm this?

In the meantime, this property is enjoying some measure of fame in China.








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

The Victorian at 1823 Encinal Avenue has been on the market for ages, and only recently did it finally drop its price significantly. First the publicly available info, with excerpts from the description on Zillow:

4 bedrooms, 4 bathrooms, 2,704 sqft

Fourplex with two 1+ bedroom units up & two 1 bedroom units down. One upper unit completely remodeled. [...] other has some remodel work [...] Carpet & linoleum floors [...]

Currently listed at $598,850, it had been languishing at $715,000 for a good long time--even the agent's own site still has the old price as of 8/23/2008:




I'm almost certain I saw it back in 2006, in the $700s, with the same photo it's still using and no interior photos. The oldest evidence I have found of the property being on the market goes back to August, 2007 (my emphasis); I didn't remember that even higher price:

This property is the first second inductee in our new category, Lifers. That category will include only those extra special properties that have been on the market for a year or more. Congrats!

Maybe that black cat on the front stairs is the reason this listing has had such bad luck getting sold.

Update 1/10/09: Miraculously, this thing finally sold, for $560,000. Holy mackerel.




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

Today's new listing doesn't deserve a silly pun on account of its plainness (MLS #40362975). First, the usual publicly-available specs:

2 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 1,128 sqft, approx. 4,800 sqft lot, listed at $614,000

At $614,000 it is grossly overpriced ($544 / sqft) and should drop significantly.

The only thing recommending it for me is its location across the street from the magnificent Victorian at 938 Taylor Avenue, which was on the market a couple of years ago.


I toured it and was completely blown away by the magnificent exterior, mature tree in the yard, original hardware and built-ins, and large amount of space inside.

I was less blown away by its list price at the time (started above $800K, if I remember correctly, and eventually sold for $715,000 or a much more reasonable $304 / sqft).

Update 11/7/08: Sold for $598,000.

This listing was on the market for a while earlier this year, then disappeared. It's now back with a virtual tour and a new price of $648,000, down from the original $649,998. Here's the original listing:

And here's the new one (MLS #40360165; no link until EBRD issues are resolved):

Victorian duplex.[...] replaced foundation 2000 [...] sewer lateral 1996 [...] nearly 12' ceilings, picture moldings, vintage light fixtures, ornamental fireplace [...]

What bothers me about this listing is the addendum to the vflyer post (my emphasis):

Maybe the listing is not an REO or short sale in this incarnation, but it sure looks as though it was just a few months ago:

Sales History

Transaction Not Included in Zestimate

This transaction was not used in computing the Zestimate for this house due to anomalies [... which] 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.

Sale History & Tax Info

Sale History
04/01/2008:	$249,708 *
05/31/2000:	$150,000 *
04/30/1999:	$272,000
No other sale data is available
* Transaction not included in Zestimate.

REO or short sale listings are often considered to be a pain because the buyer has to deal with slow-moving banks and sometimes the property itself has been neglected for months due to the owner's fatalism ("I'm losing this house anyway") and/or inability to afford maintenance. If a human buyer bought this house from the bank in an REO transaction back in April, then yes, it's not an REO as far as transaction annoyances go, but the question of neglect remains, unless the new owner spent the time, money and effort addressing any such issues after s/he purchased the property.

Now, I don't know for a fact that the 4/1/08 transaction was an REO, nor do I know whether the house had any structural or neglect problems. For all I know it's a gem in fabulous condition. But if it was an REO just a couple of months ago, trumpeting "NOT an REO" doesn't seem kosher to me.

Disclaimer: I don't know the details of this transaction beyond what I remember from its being on the market a few months ago and what's available on Zillow. In other words, this is an opinion piece that's not guaranteed and not even necessarily deemed reliable, and I'll be happy to post clarifications and corrections if anyone submits verified information.

No silly title for this little 2+1 bungalow on Fountain Street (MLS #40352091):

General Information
City/Town Alameda State CA Zip 94501 County: Alameda SubDiv: EAST END Price: $568,000 Bedrooms: 2 Full Baths: 1 Half Baths: 0	SQFT: 1116 Lot Size: 0.07 Basement: unfinished basement Stories: 1 Story Style: bungalow
REMARKS
East end location 2 bed with den. Close to shopping,cafe's,transportation,schools (verify availability with school district). Sunny, close to parks. Formal dining room,updated appliances,inside laundry,built ins. Fireplace,office,kitchen,family room/den.

Nothing too remarkable about it other than its sale in 2004, which highlights what happens when you buy in an overheating market:

Last sale and tax info

Sold 05/24/2004: $489,000

2007 Property Tax: $6,575

The list price expects $79,000 in appreciation over 4 years, or about 4% a year, which is about normal; but once you subtract the 3% under asking homes in this price range are typically selling for, and the 6% commission and fees, you wind up with a barely-squeaking-by break-even in real terms. And at $509 / sqft, I don't see this place selling for close to the asking price.

Expect to see a whole lot more like this one as more ARMs reset.

Update 7/27/08: Not wasting any time, price dropped $33,000.

ZipRealty Price Track

Price Reduced: 07/23/08 -- $568,000 to $535,000

On Market:  31 days

I missed this listing on Cedar Street when it appeared 4 weeks ago, on 6/27/08 per Zip Realty (MLS #40352510):

Well located duplex with 2 bedrooms 1 bath each. Recently remodeled with new kitchens, new bathrooms, new interior paint, new landscape, new flooring and many many more. Clean & neat, shows well. Oh 7/20 1:00pm - 4:30pm.

It's certainly well located, and if it was in the $500Ks in might even "cash flow," to use the jargon.

The only problem is that it's listed at $795,000.

I've discussed the math at length (see this post and references therein), so I won't rehash it here. It still boggles my mind to see someone expecting to sell what looks like a small duplex for close to $800K, especially in this market.

What boggles my mind even more is that this property looks like a quick flip:

Last sale and tax info

Sold 10/05/2007: $700,000

2007 Property Tax: $1,681

Assuming a 6% commission, it looks like the owners are looking to make $47,300, not including any expense incurred during the remodel, property tax for almost a year, and any interest shortfall on whatever they put down. If the unit does have new kitchens, bathrooms, landscaping and floors, I don't see any profit in the sale, even assuming it goes through at the wishing price.

So I'll just be blunt: what kind of an idiot does this? And what kind of an idiot perpetuates the cycle by buying such an overpriced property guaranteed to be cash-flow negative for at least 10, if not 20 years?

It's easy to see how folks who bought overpriced homes between late 2004 and last summer could wind up in short sales: they bit off (way) more than they could chew, and by the time their ARM resets and they really, really can't afford the payments (i.e. right about now), their home value has dropped 10-20% and they're screwed.

It's a little harder for me to fathom what the heck happened to this property (MLS #40353580) on Broadway, which recently appeared for $799,000:

General Information
City/Town Alameda State CA Zip 94501 County: Alameda SubDiv: alameda Price: $799,000 Bedrooms: 4 Full Baths: 1 Half Baths: 1	SQFT: 2487 Stories: 3 Story+ Style: victorian
REMARKS
"Short Sale" 3 story victorian home. Needs some TLC.

(no photo yet).

What boggles my mind is that the owners bought this home 17 years ago (i.e. their mortgage should be more than half paid off) for a hair over a quarter mil:

Last sale and tax info

Sold 08/19/1991: $277,000

2007 Property Tax: $4,942

In other words, under non-egregious circumstances, they should owe about $120K (plus interest, of course), and have a $1800-a-month mortgage payment (plus $400 a month for property taxes), which is pretty cozy for a very large Victorian house.

Yet they're in a short sale situation and listing the home for $799,000, which means the outstanding balance is north of $800,000.

What in the holy hell does one do to add $523,000 (188%) to one's principal? Certainly not fix up said house, which needs "some TLC"--in Alameda parlance, that means "Tons of Labor, Chump" (or "Terrifying Labor Costs").

Sadly, this isn't the sole example of inexplicable financial disaster. Let them fall, I say.

No photo yet for this "bright and cheery" Victorian on San Antonio (MLS #40352353):

NEW LISTING! FiRST TIME OPEN Sat & Sun 7/5&6 2-4pm. MUST SEE this beautiful, bright & cheery Queen Anne cottage with spacious rooms on a HUGE lot! Formal Entry, Living & Dining rooms with original trims, Tall ceilings, Built-ins & Hardwood floors; Very large eat-in kitchen;Laundry;Garage; MUCH MORE!

It's nice and big (though the listing shows exactly 100 sqft more than the public records), with 4 bedrooms and a large lot indeed, and a price to match ($798,000):

General Information
City/Town Alameda State CA Zip 94501 County: Alameda SubDiv: central alameda Price: $798,000 Bedrooms: 4 Full Baths: 1 Half Baths: 1	SQFT: 1823 Lot Size: 0.17 Basement: unfinished basement Stories: 1 Story Style: victorian

The lack of a second full bathroom is a bit of a letdown, but then it's hard to expect 2008 comforts in a 133-year-old house. That said, one wonders why the owners are letting go of it just 2 1/2 years after purchasing it:

Last sale and tax info

Sold 11/15/2005: $770,000

2007 Property Tax: $9,417

Assuming a 6% commission and full purchase price, we're looking at a $20K haircut. At $438 / sqft (i.e. essentially a 2006 asking price) I don't see how this one's going to fly.

The past couple of weeks have seen a flurry of new listing activity: as of today, 6/25/08, 19 new properties had been listed on the MLS for 7 days or less, and that's just in 94501. To be fair, quite a few of them don't appear to be distress sales, including a couple of big proud Victorians, and I do pick and choose which ones I write about.

That being said, there are still a lot of screwy transactions to pick from. Today's selection is a 1922 "Victorian" on the north end of Saint Charles, listed at $659,000 (MLS (r) #40351721):

Handsome home [...] Great light throughout, roomy 2-story layout, deep lot w/ plenty of off-street parking. [...]

There's no photo, just a silly artist's rendering, and I couldn't spot a property that looked like the hand drawing on Google Street View or Live Maps' Bird's Eye View, so this is all we have to work with:

This block of Saint Charles is not one of the most desirable parts of town. It's not as hideous as Clement or Blanding, but it's also nowhere near as nice as most areas 5 blocks or more south of it. Given its location, $413 / sqft is a little steep, but then it appears the owners don't have much of a choice:

Last sale and tax info

Sold 08/15/2005: $690,000

2007 Property Tax: $8,598

Sometimes the sale history of a home just doesn't make a lot of sense. Today's new property on High street (MLS #40351239) is one of those homes:

Lovely, light-filled Fernside Colonial Revival with bay windows in LR/DR; decorative fireplace; built-ins; sunny kitchen w/ss appl.; hardwood floors, study; plus room w/dormer; huge bsmt. Plus room & attic not incl. in sq.ft. Sewer lateral replaced. 2004 roof. Historic list.

On the face of it, it's very pretty, large, in good shape, and located in a popular part of town:

1607 HIGH STREET, Alameda, CA 94501

Beds:	3	Type:	SFR	Sq. Ft.:	1,835	Lot Size:	4,720 Sq. Ft.	MLS #:	40351239
Baths:	2/0	Built:	1898	$/Sq.Ft.:	$490	List Date:	06/23/08	On Market:	0 day

It's on the market at $899,000, which is high but sadly in line with what East End homes have been listed for. But what puzzles me is this:

Sales History

Sale History & Tax Info

Sale History
07/03/2007:	$940,000 **
07/03/2007:	$940,000
04/11/2006:	$720,000
12/24/1996:	$70,000 *
Show all sale history See less sale history
* Transaction not included in Zestimate.
** Transaction provided by seller

First of all, the owner has owned it for 10 months. Second, s/he is listing it for quite a bit less than s/he paid for it. Third, the previous owner only owned it for 15 months, yet sold it for a huge premium. Fourth, even though Zillow already has public record information for that recent transaction, the seller went to the trouble of providing the date and price of a purchase they have every reason not to be particularly proud of.

So, what gives?

Update 9/18/08: Sold for $855,000.

I just saw this Santa Clara listing in the real estate section of this week's newspaper. It's "coming soon" according to the broker's Web site and so there is no price or MLS number, but the pedigree, size, location and picture already have me salivating.

Using generous assumptions (30-year, 6% fixed-rate mortgage, 20% down, 1% of purchase price for maintenance, 90% occupancy), it takes a fair amount of money to make a $730,000 fourplex cashflow-positive. You need at the very least $3,500 a month for the mortgage alone, plus $600 a month for maintenance, plus insurance and an extra 10% as a cushion in-between tenants. Add $800 for property tax. And because you put down 20%, you need to make up for the $146,000 you no longer have earning interest at 3%, i.e. $365 a month you're not earning anymore. The ballpark numbers remain conservatively valid if you put down less, because your interest shortfall is more than absorbed by the higher mortgage.

So let's be generous again and assume you can break even with $6,000 in rental income per month, or $1,500 per unit. Given the rental comps (in 2005, you could get a nice 1,000+ sqft townhouse by the beach with a pool and various other amenities for under $1,500), each one of your units would have to be a 1,000-sqft 2-br 1-ba or better, each with a parking space. So we're talking about a 4,000-sqft Victorian mansionette in good condition with a big lot to accommodate the parking situation.

Right?

Not quite (MLS #40347587). 4 units (3x 1-bedroom, 1x 2-bedroom), 2,345 sqft, $749,000

[...] Victorian fourlex [...] in good shape [...] concrete foundation added in 1993. All units are currently rented. There is one attached garage.

Sure, it's pretty, but not by the beach, and smaller than our comp-based projection by about a third.

Where did I get the $730,000 from?

Last sale and tax info

Sold 08/03/2005: $730,000

2007 Property Tax: $9,722

You can get a calculator for $1 at the dollar store, and anyone with an 8th grade education can do the math above. Why not avail yourself of that before you put yourself on the hook for three quarters of a million dollars?


Update 8/8/08: Dropped to $719,000.

$719000 Fully rented Four Unit Building in the Heart of Alameda (alameda) (map)

---

Reply to: hous-788639691@craigslist.org
Date: 2008-08-08, 12:48PM PDT

Mark Playsted | Harbor Bay Realty | 510-917-8072 919 Central Avenue, Alameda, CA Victorian Conversion Fourplex ideally situated in the heart of Alameda

Update 9/16/08: Dropped to $699,000. Projected income is a measly $42,900, almost $30K below my estimate earlier.

Update 9/24/08: Dropped another $1,000 to $698,000.

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

This big house at 1609 Lincoln (MLS #40346822) was on the market for a while in 2006 or 2007, and it is now back at a similar price ($1,099,000). There's no description in the MLS listing, but these specs are interesting:

Total Units:4
Unit 1 Bedrooms:2
Unit 2 Bedrooms:1+
Unit 3 Bedrooms:1+
Unit 4 Bedrooms:2
Laundry: in basement
in laundry room
community facility
coin operated
owned laundry equipment

Note the super-classy coin-op laundry. If I remember correctly, there's also a storage area that you can rent to your tenants. The house has a carport-like thing sticking out of its left side, which goes really well with its 1895 Victorian architecture.

Zillow's Zestimates the house at $847,500, and the transaction history reveals the following:

Last sale and tax info

Sold 06/17/2005: $890,000

2007 Property Tax: $11,718

I'm not sure what made the owners think they'd have a cashflow-positive rental for that purchase price (I'd guess the rent comes out to $5,000 a month, if that, not counting the proceeds from the laundry facility), or that they'll be luckier in mid-2008 than they were the last time they tried to sell this place.

Update 8/18/08: Still on the market at $1,099,000. My guess of $5,000 monthly rental income was almost right on the money--the listing claims to be a...

$1099000 Low Maintenance Good Income Eastlake Victorian Fourplex in Alameda (alameda)

with $63,960 rental income, i.e. $5,330 / month.

Let's see what a great investment this property is.

First, the tenants pay for all utilities except water. According to Alameda County's Water District, the average water bill is about $37 a month; because we have 4 units but only one yard to keep hydrated, let's make that an even $100 for the whole house.

And what's the monthly payment on a $1,099,000 assuming 20% down and a generously low 6.25% interest rate? Just a hair over $5,413.

Add $976 / month in property tax, .5% a year for maintenance (which is really low, but what the heck), i.e. $458 / month, some kind of insurance at, say, $100 a month, and we have a nice round fixed $7,047 monthly with no plumbing disasters or roof leaks.

How exactly is a $1,717 monthy loss ($20,604 a year) a "Good Income" property? Is everybody out there a complete imbecile?

You don't have to answer that.

Zillow's claim to fame is their "Zestimate" (tm), an automated valuation of your home based on comps and various other data points. If you claim your home and enter certain facts about it (e.g. fill out size and number of bathrooms that might be missing from the county records), you can obtain a revised "Zestimate" that gets displayed as the "owner's estimate" next to the official one.

One presumes this is used by sellers tryinto justify their asking price when the plain old Zestimate is too low for their taste (or the amount they owe), and sure enough this pretty Victorian (MLS #40346792) that just came on the market has a big fat custom owner's estimate:

Great central alameda home with extensive renovations almost complete. 3 bedrooms, 1 bath upstairs along with formal dining room, eat-in kitchen and living room. Build-out of lower level underway with 6 more rooms, including bath and laundry room. New foundation. Open sunday

Note the "extensive renovations [are] almost complete," which might be code for "gosh, we ran out of HELOC money, let's get outta here."

This house is listed at $739,000, right around the current Zestimate, but quite a bit less than the owner's estimate. What a deal!
 

Owners who take good care of their property should be commended. A house requires upkeep, and better materials usually mean the maintenance or upgrade will last longer.

That said, some listings look like that million-dollar home page from a few years ago.

Traditional 3 bedrm 2 bath home. Gourmet kitchen w/Viking Stove, Bosch DW, copper plumbing, updated electrica svcl , dual pane windows, sewer lat done, bolted & seismic retrofitted foundation, landscaped front & bckyrd w/auto sprinklers; County rec show 1.5 bath, but 2nd bath added with permit.

(826 Oak Street, MLS #40345819)

This listing has been threatening to divulge its address for a while, and only tonight did it show up on MLS sites (MLS #40340785). The Craigslist post doesn't say where exactly on Park Street it is, but the size (1,100 sqft), lot size (2,925 sqft) and other specs match the MLS data for 1102 Park Street:

Location: Central

Such a cutie pie...2 bedrooms and 1 bath, beautiful backyard, private and fenced...perfect for entertaining! Walking distance to all shops and restaurants on Park. Just blocks to Trader Joes, Bed Bath & Beyond and the BEACH! All original detail is intact, hardwood floors throughout, formal dining room..lots of light.....much more. Please do not disturb occupants...thanks!

It is listed at $580,000 ($527 / sqft on a tiny lot), which is way too high, but the seller might be flexible:

Pricing

Asking Price: $580,000.00

Flexibility: You never know!

Not too surprisingly, this is a mid-boom purchase that may be trying to get out before it's too late:

Last sale and tax info

Sold 12/22/2004: $500,000

2007 Property Tax: $6,499

Sorry, folks, but the area doesn't have all that much to recommend it other than proximity to the beach and Trader Joe's. The lots are tiny, the houses are close to each other, there's a lot of traffic and buses on Park Street, and KFC and other lovely upscale fast food joints are within sniffing distance. Good luck.

It takes a special kind of chutzpah to list a home for more than twice its previous price when that last transaction occurred just over two years ago. 2152 Pacific Avenue (MLS #40340522) just showed up on the market listed at $1,570,000, or $523 / sqft (aka way too much):

Remarkable remodeled central alameda triplex. Suitable for owner occupants. Fabulous kitchens, bathrooms, floors, paint & light fixtures. Elegant kitchen & bathroom tile. Foundation replaced in 2007. Lots of updated electrical & plumbing. Separate gas, electric and water meters.

SQFT:	3000
Lot Size:	0.14
Building Description:	Total Units:3 Unit 1 Bedrooms:3 Unit 2 Bedrooms:4 Unit 3 Bedrooms:1

The previous transaction closed in January, 2006 for $690,000:

ZESTIMATE^®: $719,500

• Value Range: $618,770 - $805,840
• 30-day change: -$20,500
• Zestimate updated: 05/02/2008

Last sale and tax info

Sold 01/18/2006: $690,000

2007 Property Tax: $9,171

Yes, replacing a foundation is very expensive, and building "fabulous" kitchens and all the rest isn't cheap, but one has to wonder what kind of a Wunderrenovator creates $880,000 worth of value in 27 months (that's over $30K a month). One also wonders how a $1.57M triplex is ever expected to be cashflow positive when a 90% LTV loan at 6.5% interest comes out to about $9,000 a month.

Update 5/4/08: My, oh my, it's a HGTV special floating-sink-travertine-granite extravaganza. They must be trying to grab the high-end rental market, which as we all know is simply booming in Alameda. Or maybe they're trying to appeal to the incredible pent-up demand from buyers who are waiting the market out and want to rent it style. Or something.

Usually, when an item can't sell, its price is reduced to entice potential buyers.

Sometimes, however, it is put up for sale again at a higher price. It must be reverse psychology.

A large Victorian on Park Street with no picture showed up in the MLS again today at $925,000 (MLS #40340126):

This property was being renovated and owner states that she has spent over $120K on renovation. Owner states that the sewer plumbing was redone recently. THIS PROPERTY NEEDS FURTHER RENOVATION AND IS BEING SOLD AS IS. This home sits at the end of the commercial and is a prime real estate area

One trivially finds that its former incarnation languished on Zillow for over 2 months at $27,000 less:

While the owner's renovation efforts and contribution to the maintenance of Alameda's cultural patrimony are commendable, knowing how much she claims to have spent is not only completely irrelevant to the next buyer, it's in poor taste and smacks of desperation. "I'm not going to give it away! I just spent $x! You shall reward me for my efforts!"

No.

This "fantastic" Victorian on a reasonably nice block of Lincoln showed up in my mailbox courtesy of Trulia last night:

This grand victorian, like a great wine, stands nobly with time. Crafted in 1885 with choice materials this home has been remodeled to welcome you and provide you with years of comfort, The original charm has not been distorted but improved upon. Hardwood floors and large kitchen echo years of great..

I suspect the whole "original charm has not been distorted but improved upon" bit is a reference to the decidedly non-period brick skirt and iron railings everywhere. Whether it's an improvement really is a matter of opinion.

It's currently listed at $644,000, which is about right for a 1,200+ sqft 3+2 Victorian in Alameda these days if it wants to sell, although there are others at that price point that have been sitting around for a while. The specs are comparable to that Willow house:

• Single family
• 3 beds
• 1.0 bath
• 1,227 sqft
• Lot 5,540 sqft
• Built in 1885
  

This Victorian with a whopping 7 bedrooms and 5 bathrooms in only 1833 sqft is back at $625,000 (MLS #40339457):

This victorian home has great potential: can be very easily turned into a duplex for extra income. It feels much larger than records show.

(no photo yet)


It was on the market for what seemed like an eternity in 2006 and 2007 and was one of the earliest exemplars of the market's collapse. The records suggest it was finally repossessed and it's now on the market for over $100,000 less than the previous price.

Sales History

Close

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.

Sale History & Tax Info

Sale History
08/15/2007:	$620,500 *
06/01/2005:	$727,000
No other sale data is available

Makes you wonder what to tell realtors when they tell you now is a great time to buy. 2005 was, too.

Update 11/1/08: Sold for $670,000 on 7/16/08. Zillow isn't including that transaction in their Zestimate either, so I don't know if it's a real purchase or some repossession/auction/foreclosure/whatever.

Whee! A new Victorian on Mozart (MLS #40339304; link won't work until Pacunion makes the listing live) for $760,000:

Lovely 1895 victorian on a tree lined street in a neighborhood filled with victorians. Home has original details, hardwood floors, cobblestone paths & pond in yard. Ceilings 12 ft high with medallions. Claw foot tub in bathroom. Full basement with water filtration system

Mozart is definitely a fabulous "tree lined street"--you can barely see the houses from the sidewalk. It's a lovely block. There's no photo of the home yet, but the specs are nice: 3 bedrooms, 1 1/2 bathrooms, 1,658 sqft, 7,600 sqft lot.

The only problem is the $760,000 price tag, which is a bit high considering the last 3 sales on that block (private data set, which I will make available to the public shortly):

1537  Mozart St.	3	2	1,650	22-Jun-06	$749,000	$755,000	$458
1553  Mozart Street	4	2	1,407	10-Oct-06	$694,000	$700,000	$498
1535  Mozart Street	3	2	1,959	29-Apr-08	$619,000	$652,000	$333

I vividly remember 1553 Mozart because it was fabulous, fairly big, with 4 bedrooms and a daring price (at the time) that got it sold within days. So 18 months later I'm not convinced a comparable neighbor priced at $760,000 is going to go all that quickly.

Given the previous transaction, though, the owners should have some wiggle room to drop the price a bit:

ZESTIMATE^®: $683,000

• Value Range: $566,890 - $751,300
• 30-day change: -$7,500
• Zestimate updated: 04/28/2008

Last sale and tax info

Sold 10/14/1987: $61,000

2007 Property Tax: $1,922

This cute little home on Chester has a cute little square footage and a cute little price of $475,000 (MLS #40312876):

Adorable Bungalow on a quiet street in the East End! Newly refinished hardwood floors & new tile along with a gas insert in the fireplace make this home sparkle! Refrigerator, washer & Dryer all stay as well! Open House this Sunday 3/23/2008 from 2pm to 4pm!

It is adorable:

I remembered it starting out a bit higher than that, and sure enough Google still has a trace of its recent price history:

It makes one wonder how many more tiny 3% to 5% price drops it will take to sell, and whether the owners will make their money back. At $475,000 it's only about 30% above what they paid almost 6 years ago.

Last sale and tax info

Sold 07/31/2002: $360,000

2007 Property Tax: $5,056

Why can't this house come on the market in a year or two, for $500K less?

Queen Anne style victorian in desirable Alameda! Upgraded electrical, plumbing,roof,foundation. Spectacular gourmet kitchen remodel with state of the art appliances, wolf stove,sub-zero refrigerator, hidden drawer dishwasher. Custom artisan stained glass windows, hand stenciled, painted walls and ceiling. Truly one of a kind property. One public Open House on Sunday May 4, 2008 from 1-4pm or can be shown by private appt - pre-approved buyers only please-agent debbie 650-619-2790

Location? Check.
Looks? Check.
Maintenance? Check.
Size? Check.
Price? $1,250,000.

Zillow shows the following:

At $1.25M, this means the seller is expecting about 9.9% y-o-y appreciation every year since they purchased the property, which is completely unreasonable. Assuming an appreciation that matches historic trends (i.e. around 5%), today's price should be about $830,000.

Update 4/29/08: This is what it really looks like without Photoshop.

 

I completely missed this one when it came on the market 16 days ago. A multi-family Victorian in the East end, this home (MLS# 40334154) listed at a mere $650,000 is described as follows:

This is a great opportunity for first time home buyers and investors

which I believe is code for "you'll be working on this house even after your ARM resets for the 3rd time." The ZIP Realty listing shows seven pictures, all of which are variations on this one:

Every single picture is a front view of the exterior of the house (what's left of it), from various angles, including not one but two daring across-the-street shots:

If the house didn't look so derelict, it might actually sound decent (except lots in that part of town are typically small, and the pictures suggest there isn't much land around the structure):

Bedrooms:	0
Full Baths:	0
Partial Baths:	0
Square Feet:	N/A
Lot Size:	N/A
Year Built:	1895
Listing Date:	04/03/08
On Market:	16 days
Type:	MFR
Status:	ACTIVE
MLS #:	40334154

But the best part about this great opportunity is how great an opportunity it was for the lesser fool trying to get rid of it:

Last sale and tax info

Sold 11/01/2006: $679,000

2007 Property Tax: $1,564

I was very excited when this listing came on the market a few days ago: a big 1890 Victorian in the far East end, on a big lot, with a big price tag of $959,000 (MLS #40335927).

Classic Victorian beauty East end. Brand new gourmet kitchen and Master BR/BA suite (converted from an organ studio) with permits, oversized LR/DR on the first floor. Polished hardwood floors throughout, fresh paint. Large landscaped rear yard.

The specs had me interested:

List Price: $959,000
ZipRealty will give you up to $5,754 cash back.*

Bedrooms:	4
Full Baths:	2
Partial Baths:	1
Square Feet:	2,541
Lot Size:	6,300 Sq. Ft.
Year Built:	1890
Listing Date:	04/10/08
On Market:	9 days
Type:	SFR
Status:	ACTIVE
MLS #:	40335927

As happens often, there was no picture for a while, and I was growing impatient--show me the big beautiful old house, dammit!

Well, I just checked Zip Realty (they often display pictures sooner than pacunion, which still doesn't have one as of 4/19), and... there goes nothing.

Come on! At a hair under a million dollars, and given the competition, at least have the decency to put on a show of extravagant excess, like, say, this one:

or this semi-recent comp:

There's no sale history on Zillow, so I predict this house will be taken off the market in a few months when its outraged owners (who won't reduce the price significantly at any point) don't get the million dollars their house is "worth." Either that or they'll slash the price by $200,000 and it'll be gone in a week. Who knows.

Update 4/25/2008: MLS #40335927 is, well, not on the MLS anymore, and I can't find the property on either Zip Realty or pacunion.

This listing isn't a loss leader or particularly remarkable in any way other than its pricing (MLS #40336355):

Traditional home in lovely neighborhood. Open floor plan [...] easy and casual living. Street level recently built out consists of 1 bedroom [...] one full bath; laundry area; garage has loads of storage.

It does look nice, and it's in one of the better neighborhoods, but it also looks like dozens, if not hundreds, of other homes just like it built in the early 20th century. The house isn't very big, the lot is tiny, and the sellers are asking an early-2006-vintage price of $721,000 for a 3-bedroom, 2-bathroom, 1,322-sqft home on a postage-stamp 2,970-sqft lot.

We'll have to see how long it stays on the market before they drop it to the mid 600s, where it might have a chance of attracting buyers.

Update 8/29/08: Talk about being right on the money with my prediction above--this home sold for $660,000 with a closing date in late July, 2008.

There's no description on this property (MLS #40327779), so I'll keep the editorializing short and let the numbers speak for themselves.

List Price: $548,000

Bedrooms:	0
Full Baths:	0
Partial Baths:	0
Square Feet:	N/A
Lot Size:	N/A
Year Built:	1930
Listing Date:	03/04/08
On Market:	40 days
Type:	MFR
Status:	ACTIVE
MLS #:	40327779

Price Reduced: 03/18/08 -- $668,000 to $548,000

On Market:  40 days

(that's $120,000 off) with a recent history:

Last sale and tax info

Sold 10/28/2005: $610,000

2007 Property Tax: $7,997

Assuming a 6%, $32,880 commission, we're looking at a $94,880 loss. Whee!

Browsing for a completely different property on Zillow, I was alerted to the fact a large East end Victorian was apparently back on the market:

Located on a quiet block near Alameda’s desirable East End schools, this unique and stately Victorian duplex has been structurally overhauled with careful attention paid to its many rich architectural details.

[...]

Currently divided as two equal but separate units of approx 1500 sq ft each (1: 2+BD/1BA and 1: 3++BD/1BA), this property seems an obvious conversion back to a magnificent single family home with 6+ bedrooms, 2 baths, sweeping staircase, and grand rooms. 

This property was on the market last November and the price was $920,000 then:

Per Zillow's property page this listing is now active again, as of 2 days ago, and listed at $895,000. The agents are internet-savvy cats and I doubt this is an error, even though the postlets link on the Zillow page is dead:

The complexity of this listing amuses me to no end:

[...] Buyer must be willing to put $30k-40k down and qualify for a mortgage of approximately $450,000. Owner will carryback balance of loan for 10 years, interest only, negotiable depending on credit of Buyer. Good renters, nice neighbors. If Buyer prefers not to participate in an installment arrangement, he/she must agree to a 1031 exchange at no cost to Buyer. Owner will consider selling for higher price and credit back to Buyer for additional upgrades. [...]

I suppose because it reminds me of this minor John Cleese classic:

Humphrey: All right, settle down. Settle down... Now, before I begin the lesson, will those of you who are playing in the match this afternoon move your clothes down onto the lower peg immediately after lunch, before you write your letter home, if you're not getting your hair cut, unless you've got a younger brother who is going out this weekend as the guest of another boy, in which case, collect his note before lunch, put it in your letter after you've had your hair cut, and make sure he moves your clothes down onto the lower peg for you. Now...
Wymer: Sir?
Humphrey: Yes, Wymer?
Wymer: My younger brother's going out with Dibble this weekend, sir, but I'm not having my hair cut today, sir.
Pupils: [chuckling]
Wymer: So, do I move my clothes down, or...
Humphrey: I do wish you'd listen, Wymer. It's perfectly simple. If you're not getting your hair cut, you don't have to move your brother's clothes down to the lower peg. You simply collect his note before lunch, after you've done your scripture prep, when you've written your letter home, before rest, move your own clothes onto the lower peg, greet the visitors, and report to Mr. Viney that you've had your chit signed.

It's pretty and shows no obvious sign of trouble, so assuming a buyer comes along who understands the terms, it should go ok, ever though $699,000 is a bit steep.

I paid attention to the multi-family home at 2134 Lincoln Avenue only peripherally when it was on the market, mostly because of its location. I vaguely remember it being listed over $800,000--the number $850,000 is what comes to mind when I look at the picture and try to remember the details:

One of the most beautiful Queen Annes to hit the market in a long time just appeared on Craigslist (MLS #40334907) and various MLS sites:

It looks glorious on the outside, the lot is large, and it seems to have been very nicely kept up.

Located a half block from Edison School, this Elegant Queen Anne Victorian has been lovely maintained w/magnificent detail. Come see the enchanting garden in full bloom.

I saw this house last summer and wanted to cry. It's now back on the market at the same price, $599,000 (it started over $600,000):

When I toured it, it was a complete wreck, with rotten holes in the walls and ceilings, peeling paint outside, awful floors, and an old tub full of black sludge. Rumor has it the termites moved out. I'd guess you'd have to drop a good $250,000 before the house was even fit to move into. If the house were in 100% great shape, it might fetch $700,000.

This begs the question: what is the matter with the agent?

This is being flipped so fast they must have used a centrifuge. 2049 San Antonio Avenue (MLS #40331913) is already back on the market in late March, 2008, for a low, low asking price of $749,000.

Rear Two houses in one HUGE lot, long drive way. New roof paints, new kitchen cabinets. Addt' den in 3bedroom and 1 bath rear unit. A victorian house with 2bedroom and 2 bathrooms with formal dining rm in front unit. Livingrm is use as a bedroom in front unit. Each units have its' own indoor laundry

I knew I'd seen it recently:

Last sale and tax info

Sold 10/26/2007: $640,000

2007 Property Tax: $4,133

$109,000 in 6 months for new roof paints and cabinets? Sure thing.

Update 5/4/08: I just ran into the property's Web site, but I can't tell if it's current or from the last transaction. The list price is $649,000, and the MLS number doesn't work (neither does the one I listed above). It's still listed on the agent's site but we all know how up to date those are.

A new Victorian! Yay! (MLS #40327725) Looks like a big house on a tiny lot for $780,000. The publicly-available specs first:

4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 2,167 sqft, 2,700 sqft lot

(photo provided by the new owner and used by permission)

[...] Spacious rooms [...] Some tlc needed. Very motivated seller.

I wonder why the seller is so motivated, and how low they'll go.

Let's see.

Last sale and tax info

Sold 06/30/2006: $685,000

2007 Property Tax: $8,659

Now, unless that house was a wreck (which seems unlikely, given the sale price in 2006), the whole "Some tlc needed" suggests to me they haven't done much to maintain it or fix it up in the whole 18 months they've owned it, or that it was going to be a luxury flip that they weren't able to complete. Either way, expecting a $95,000 appreciation in 18 months, or $5277 a month, seems a little obscene to me, especially considering how much houses have been appreciating since summer 2006.

This one should be interesting to watch.

Update 3/22/08: Price dropped $100,000 all at once, to $680,000, heralding this home's induction into our loss leader category.

Update 4/12/08: Still not sold.

Update 4/20/08: Holy mother of cow. Relisted at $550,000 with MLS #40337496. You've got to give the sellers credit--when they say they're very motivated, they're not kidding. I wonder if that'll be enough.

Update 6/2/08: Guess what, it's back on the market, disguised as a new listing (MLS #40346226). $515,000. That's $170,000 up in smoke in less than 2 years, or $7,391 / month. It's also a $265,000 price drop since the first time it was listed (34% off!), and it is now at a much more reasonable $238 / sqft.

Update 10/31/08: The new owner and I have been exchanging the occasional status email, and I can confirm this home is now owned by real people who took possession some time last summer and are busy restoring it the old-fashioned way. Yay!

Number three in the "not even trying" section is a small house on a huge lot:

It just appeared on the market on 2/25/2008, listed at $548,000. Lo and behold, that's just about what it was bought for about 3 years ago. Whee!

Last sale and tax info

Sold 01/11/2005: $545,000

2007 Property Tax: $7,014

I was excited earlier this week because a big Victorian (a Marcuse and Remmel, no less) came on the market at $993,000. I've been pining for cool Vics, and this looked like just the ticket, which a drive-by confirmed. Nice specs and pretty pictures:

LIGHT & BRIGHT! TERRIFIC Marcuse & Remmel Queen Anne Duplex in the edge of the Gold Coast. UPPER: 3/2 w/Family Rm, laundry & attic storage. LOWER: Large 2/1 single-level w/Laundry. Both have large kitchens. Existing door between units = 5/3 single home w/lots of plus space. Garage w/workshop space.

Much to my surprise, it showed up on Craigslist today, just 4 or 5 days after it was first listed, with a $60,000 haircut. Yay! That's $12,000 to $15,000 a day. I suppose it could be a typo, but the Craigslist header does match the postlets price, so I have to assume either it's legit or it's been languishing in the MLS with the wrong price for a week. Whee.

Finally a new Vic on the market!

Pretty, historic Victorian listed around 2/1/2008 for $679,000. Pimped-out kitchen and lots of new things (plumbing, granite, Terminerator, etc) they're very proud of.

Location, location! Historic updated Victorian just moments from Park Street shops and restaurants. Granite kitchen counters, energy-efficient stainless appliances. Formal dining room, bay window, soaring ceilings, spacious backyard!

Not clear how they paid for all of it.

Last sale and tax info

Sold 05/12/2005: $620,000

2007 Property Tax: $7,873

But $679,000 - $620,000 - 3 x $7,873 - 6% = (-$5,359), so after a full kitchen redo these gourmets are effectively upside down by 5 digits. Homeownership is so awesome.

Update 3/3/08: Price dropped to $649,000. Whee!

Update 4/11/08: Price dropped to $619,000, and official induction into loss leader category.

Update 6/2/08: Still on the market at $619,000. "OPEN SUNDAY - Ready for Offers!" Teehee.

Update 8/29/08: Quinn Stone says this property finally closed on 7/29/08 for $600,000 after 133 DOM at $619,000. Of course this very post shows this isn't completely accurate--by my reckoning, this home was on the market for close to 6 months and started out at $679,000.

This trailer house has been listed before, and I vaguely remember it being a bit above today's fire-sale price of $804,000, but  I couldn't find the old listing:

Originally built in the 1890’s, this home was brought back to life in 2005. New roof, heating, electrical, dual pane windows and upgraded kitchen and baths to name a few!!

Don’t let her simple, clean exterior fool you! Inside you'll find 4 bedrooms, 2 baths, eat-in kitchen, living, room, family room and bonus room and, to top it off, half the large attic is finished off still leaving a huge unfinished attic for storage!

Add to that granite kitchen countertops, new cabinetry , custom window dressings and landscaped yard with
redwood deck!!

Gotta LOVE those "window dressings" on a Vic.

The "brought back to life in 2005" comment smells of flippage. Let's see...

Well! Something tells me a roof, windows, electric, heating, kitchen, baths, landscaping and those gorgeous awnings cost a little more than, what, $804,000x0.97 - $735,000 - 2.5x$9024 = $22,320 (net sale with 1-way commission - purchase price - 2.5 years' property tax). Even if the FB owner flipper is a Realtor (r) with connections.

Anne Debardeleben - Realtor
510-407-0175
For sale by individual owner

Will we see a short sale by spring?

Career-wise, this isn't Anne's best move. I can't fathom how anyone would want to be represented by an agent who got him/herself into a stupid flip like this. If the agent can't protect their own best interest in a transaction, how can they be trusted to protect their clients'? 

But of course no-one will know, and she'll be able to carry on as an agent after this storm is weathered (unless of course she's working at McDonald's, although I don't know if she should be allowed to flip burgers either). Maybe there should be a rule mandating full disclosure by agents of their own RE investment stats to protect clients from malpractice. I'm half-tempted to respond to that old favorite on Trulia Voices ("how do you select an agent?")  with a snarky "I ask them how many bad flips and foreclosures they've personally been involved in."

Nothing says Victorian charm quite like the cozy protection of large warehouses and the constant flow of cement trucks. Plus you get the added benefit of very short trips when you redo your foundation in concrete.

In an impressive show of glass-is-half-full chutzpah, this poor little old 1895 Vic comfortably nestled deep in the industrial district is described as follows:

Charming 1895 queen anne victorian 3br/2ba, w/industrial zoning has the perfect location for storefront use or live/workspace. Brazilian hardwood floors,w/upgraded windows,kitchen/ba - elect. & plumbing. Deep back yard/lot.

A Victorian storefront! What a brilliant idea! Imagine the foot traffic you'll be getting on this block!

It's also well-known Bay Area live-work aficionados really look for period detail in their lofts, like (you know it) granite countertops everywhere.


Did I say granite? Could this possibly be a flip? Let's see. Sold 01/05/2005: $435,000. Add new 'tops, the worst possible location on the island, and "upgraded windows,kitchen/ba - elect. & plumbing" and you get a sad listing indeed. $520,000 and no takers after 56 days.

Update: drove by today and found out the large building to the right is an auto repair shop. There's also a towing company right around the corner. Yay.