368 Prentiss
It was “a rare opportunity to own sunny cottage with separate artist studio in desirable Bernal Heights neighborhood” for $599,000 in July. And while it’s still “a rare opportunity” (their words, not ours), it’s now for “the creative handyman” (euphemism alert) and available for $569,000. Oh, and on lock box and “offers anytime.”
∙ Listing: 368 Prentiss (2/1) – $569,000 [MLS]

15 thoughts on “A Rare Opportunity Returns In Bernal (368 Prentiss)”
  1. In case you were wondering why: There is an extremely foul odor permeating the house, probably due to a severe mold problem: it’s openly visible throughout the house and it felt dangerous to even be in there. Hence the lockbox. It’s hard to sell a house while standing outside, so it’s probably better to not be there at all.
    Aside from the imminent health dangers, there is also the matter of an $80k pest report in the disclosure package. The place is tiny, so we are talking a severe infestation, and judging by the droppings and visible damage I’m guessing a combination of cockroaches, rats, and termites. And then there is the layout: the second “bedroom” is only accessible by drop down ladder conveniently located in the middle of the living room. The bedroom opens directly into the galley kitchen, as does the bathroom. The detached “artist studio” in the back has severe rot in the floor. Several large holes have been helpfully covered by duct tape (some of which are visible in the MLS pictures). A sign posted by the realtor advises you to not step near those areas. It appears to be in need of being torn down. It’s on the least attractive side of Bernal, within smelling distance of the freeway, has no parking, no garage, no basement, the “backyard” is a two foot wide strip between the detached building and the house. There are no views to acquire by changing the structure (unless you want a better look at the 101).
    In short you will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars making this house livable and you will still have an unsellable dump. And of course by then you may be able to buy a much more livable place for the same amount of money. Heck if you are willing to suffer a little bit of a commute there are 3/2s within half an hour that actually look nice and well cared for and are $100k less.
    IMHO this property needs to be in the 300s to be even close to being worth the risk and effort.

  2. I can see the nest wave of reality real estate shows – “The Previous Owner” or “What use to live here.”
    It amazes me the conditon these places reach…

  3. So, with a teardown property like this… how long does it take to get zoning permission to demolish it? Is it faster if, say, while doing “structural renovations,” (with a permit of course) the whole place mysteriously collapses?
    How long does the permit process take in SF anyway? I hear its around 2 years.
    It brings to mind that guy whose house collapsed down a hill earlier this year… (lucky for him– it sounded like it was another decaying POS like this one).

  4. Did SF not hear about the SCOTUS decision in Kelo vs. New London?
    If a home in good condition can be seized for private development through eminent domain simply because it will then deliver more property taxes then a home bordering on a public health hazard should have no problem qualifying for this kind of treatment.
    In fact, doesn’t the city have a responsibility to tear this thing down?
    If the city can crack down on homeless people over quality of life issues certainly it can crack down on decrepit homes for the same reasons.

  5. The scope of the Kelo case does not apply to a property like this. Sure if it was right next door to Moscone Center and they wanted to expand it, or if it was next door to a large proposed mixed use development, it may apply, but this place is surrounded by a bunch of existing houses and an active neighborhood group that’s not going to let a large re-development of the area occur, so Kelo has nothing to do with this. And yeah, 1-2 years is a good estimate to get a demo permit, but the thing is, it’s going to take you most of that time to get a ruling if you can or can’t demo it (search for Demolition Ordinance in the SF Planning Department website for details). Basically, if it is cost effective to repair the existing structure, you can’t demo it (and you have to wait a year+ until they will tell you this). The formulas are not very straightforward to make that calculation and you need to hire a contractor to prepare a “fitness report” – and then you wait a year+ to hear a yay or nay. Fun – give it a try.

  6. some of these anti-growth policies are just insane!
    I mean, why even buy if you can barely change anything to YOUR property? It’s like an HOA on steroids.
    I think we should shrink wrap all of SF. Maybe use a Food Saver (powered by solar and wind energy of course)
    This way we would never have to worry ever again about any new growth or any change in the city.

  7. I rarely feel this way about even slightly older homes but it would be no loss to SF if this place were torn down and replaced with new construction.

  8. Bernal has a ton of these. Unfortunately, some of the old Earthquake Cottages fall into this category. Good luck ever tearing them down.

  9. We looked at this place in ’03 and walked away. Not only was there the issue of the huge pest infestation but the floor in the bathroom actually sank when we walked on it. While I’m a big guy I’ve never had a floor visibly sink under me. LOL
    This is defnitely a tear down. The artist studio is in better shape than the rest of the house.

  10. if this was my only housing option, i’d live in my car or move to a more affordable town. this place is a pos and will always be!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *