November 20, 2008
Perhaps Not Disclosed, But We Might Suggest Some Discovery
While we do like the mention of “new concrete foundation, electrical, plumbing and heating” (and the bonus rooms), we’re not particularly keen on the lack of any recent permit history (not to mention the "Hazardous Building" complaint) online.
And unfortunately (for more than one party), it is a trust sale and emphasizing “exempt from most disclosures” in the remarks.
∙ Listing: 326 Virginia Avenue (2/1.5) - $699,000 [MLS]
∙ San Francisco Online Permit and Complaint Tracking [SFGov]
First Published: November 20, 2008 9:00 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
From the listing: "Owner in midst of complete renovation when he passed away."
I hope it wasn't the contractor's bill that did him in :) (ok, ok, bad taste, sorry...)
BTW, is this the "good" part of BH? Any pouncing clients "circling"?
Posted by: Laughing Millionaire Renter in Marin at November 20, 2008 9:50 AM
Hey, I thought there was a moratorium on fl**j jokes...
Posted by: Foolio at November 20, 2008 9:54 AM
Laughing Man, it is ok to query me and/or comment about sf r.e. without donning ye olde und magick armour ov condescension. This one is 600+ psf, on a 1500 ft lot, and it is supposedly midway thru a probably budget, possibly dangerous remodel. Let's see what happens.
Posted by: fluj at November 20, 2008 10:30 AM
It is a good part of bernal, convenient and quiet. looks like a good deal. hawks from the hill frequently circling ...
Posted by: hillychilly at November 20, 2008 10:59 AM
It is not easy to jack up an entire house and pour a new concrete foundation without a permit. My hat's off to the person who pulled this stunt...
Posted by: "Dave" at November 20, 2008 11:28 AM
"It is not easy to jack up an entire house and pour a new concrete foundation without a permit."
Yes, but it's easy to trowel some concrete over the old foundation to make it LOOK like new!
Posted by: tipster at November 20, 2008 12:30 PM
I would agree. has anyone REALLY checked into the permits for this piece of junk? Have the so called new foundations been engineered properly with the correct amount and type of reinforcing steel?
one more thing: I wouldnt trust the listing agent with that info. On more than one occasion, she has mis-quoted the building code to me, and can be misinformed on similar issues, including foundations and other building issues.
Posted by: noearch at November 20, 2008 12:39 PM
Why do real estate "professionals" get a pass in the ethics department? Isn't this false advertising? Fraud? Stealing?
If a corporate officer didn't disclose material liabilities, he'd get locked up. All Martha Stewart did was erase an e-mail or two and she got six months (insider trading never proven).
Why don't more real estate agents (and sellers) who knowingly attempt to defraud buyers with phony square footage and other omissions not get jail time? Somebody should call the Attorney General.
Posted by: DataDude at November 20, 2008 1:09 PM
noearch, how reliable and complete is the DBI online system? For this property, in addition to the active complaint for "Hazardous Building", there were a few old expired permits dating back to 2000 & 1992 - but nothing current. Do you know if there are any types of permits or situations that don't show up on the online system? I believe there is a cutoff date (early 90's?) beyond which you have to pull the microfiche hardcopy - but I otherwise I thought the system was supposed to be comprehensive.
Posted by: FSBO at November 20, 2008 1:17 PM
To wit, SS mentions no permits. Agent on MLS mentions trust sale ---> cue chorus of realtor bashing? The telephone game for grownups?
Posted by: fluj at November 20, 2008 1:23 PM
Off topic but along the same vein, are realtors required to disclose when they own the property that they're selling? Someone once posted here that they were, but I'm not sure if this is a set rule.
Additionally, I've read that many short sales are not listed as such because some buyers don't want to deal with the hassle of a short sale, so some selling agents are hiding these facts from buyers/other agents. What are the rules here, and who sets/enforces them?
Posted by: Dude at November 20, 2008 2:01 PM
Yes, but it's easy to trowel some concrete over the old foundation to make it LOOK like new!
Every non-tradesperson buyer in this market should write an inspection contingency.
As to your post, no, not really, even to an untrained eye. Commenting upon something unseen, and indeed inserting innuendo without context? You've plenty of training there Tipster.
Posted by: fluj's intrepid e-assistant at November 20, 2008 2:02 PM
It was intended as a light-hearted post. Not the least bit serious in any way. No innuendo or outuendo. No uendo at all.
Posted by: tipster at November 20, 2008 2:58 PM
Less than 150 yards, around the corner, is this seemingly nicer and larger 2/1 SFR apple-in-the-making.
Last sold 19 months ago for $801k, now listed for $775K after one reduction and 42 days on the market. It's possible the seller spent money on updates since the last transaction. Ouch!
Posted by: chuckie at November 20, 2008 3:40 PM
No garage, tho, nor chance ar one. That is not re: its apple status, but as a comp to Virginia.
Posted by: fluj at November 20, 2008 3:51 PM
But Virginia is 1150 sqft of unfinished space vs. 1570 sqft of finished space at Prospect. Virginia's pricing seems very aggressive to me.
Does 1150 sqft at Virginia include garage space? Or garage is not couted in the sqft?
Posted by: chuckie at November 20, 2008 4:12 PM
I have seen 336 prospect. Half the sq ft need to be accessed from the garden. And sight unseen I would guess Virginia has some uncaptured space down too -- its type usually does.
Posted by: fluj at November 20, 2008 4:25 PM
"uncaptured space" : excellent term, Fluj ! I've always made note of the volume of space available for conversion and now I have a name for it. Thanks.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at November 20, 2008 4:47 PM
uncaptured space: more "realtorspeak". it's all that expensive talk to try and lure a buyer into thinking that this unconditioned crawlspace, or basement..or...unused space; can be transformed with a few dollars,and oh, maybe a quick permit, or maybe, what the hell, you don't really need a permit;
into liveable rooms.
call the space what it is, in strict building or architectural terms. that's more honest, and more of a service to the buyer.
Posted by: noearch at November 20, 2008 6:58 PM
So noearch the in-"expensive talk" is using the strict architectural terms. And so, what is the correct term? How has fluj led us astray? At what point did he say don't get a permit? Are you sayinging it's not a quicker permit than a vertical addition? I'm sure you would never recommend infilling ground floor space, right. I mean that would only seismically upgrade the house and who would want to do that.
Posted by: sparky at November 20, 2008 7:15 PM
Or perhaps, noearch, the term was used to shed light on a direct comparison drawn earlier between two specific neighboring properties. One of the two had already grabbed the lower space, however you wish to term it, and someone wondered about square feet. Your realtor dig, superfluous realtor dig no.237 by my count-- said dig your one recurring raison d'etre on these r.e. sites -- was once again duly noted by all and sundry tho, surely.
Posted by: fluj at November 20, 2008 7:28 PM
you guys just dont get it..time and time again, many but not all realtors using overly flowery or overly deceptive words to describe a particular attribute of a property, when more often than not, I believe, a simple direct description is more appropriate and beneficial to the buyer.
calling a lower level crawlspace (or storage space) "uncaptured space", I feel is leading the witness on, as lawyers might say; it might imply to the buyer that this lower space is readily remodeled, and therefore making the property more desireable, ie: more of a deal, without checking into the actual constructibility of the space, and/or limitations by the building code.
and believe me, there are some awesome talented realtors out there who do a great job for the profession.
Don't take it personally flujie: it's just my opinion.
Posted by: noearch at November 20, 2008 8:17 PM
I can see both sides of this uncaptured space issue.
There are certainly cases where you don't need to go the "official" route to make a previously unused interior space more valuable. Custom storage shelving in a wedge shaped space below for an obvious example.
On the other extreme are spaces proposed to be turned into reportable square footage for living. That's what noearch is saying needs to be done right. Some listing agents wave their magic wand and quote unrealistic estimates for those conversions.
Most listing agents however will pique your interest in capturing the space but not guess at the cost but instead refer you to a contractor for an estimate. The prudent buyer will get a second opinion.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at November 20, 2008 11:13 PM
Noearch you are in Noe Valley right? I don't do a job in Noe that doesn't capture the space on the garage level. Often you walk right out to the back yard from it. You know that is what fluj is talking about, but you are just bitter. Expensive "realtorspeak" come on. Leading someone on, no.
And I use Noe above because your in Noe. But, it also exists in most of the city; the Richmond, Sunset, W.Portal, Cow Hollow, Marina, Cole Valley to name a few.
Posted by: sparky at November 21, 2008 8:43 AM
As an architect, i often use the term 'uncaptured space', or something similar, to describe the potential development of a property. Most, if not all, of my clients are specifically interested in the inherent development potential of their property. It's no surprise to me that fluj would share this information and I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect him to do so.
Posted by: Darren McMurtrie at November 21, 2008 8:53 AM
"It's no surprise to me that fluj would share this information and I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect him to do so."
Well said, Darren. I'll just add that the information fluj provided added to my understanding of the two properties. Actually, it changed how I view the two properties as comps.
Posted by: chuckie at November 21, 2008 9:33 AM
Why are there so many whiny "renters" on this site. Most of the comments through various threads, are from people who want to see the SF market come down to something they will be able to afford. Good luck. Stop your whining, and head over to Solano County. Those numbers are just peachy. The prices will not be coming down to a comfortable level for you folks any time soon. The over reaching factor in price declines, like some of you have correctly stated is foreclosure rates. People like me that renovate property, price it to sell, or in an environment where we can not recoup our investment, we have a viable back up strategy that enables us to weather the storm until the margin we need becomes a reality. OUR PROPERTIES DO NOT GO INTO FORECLOSURE. We pull them off the market, and the prices come down, but not to a level that will get you folks in the market. We have enough capital set aside to make our payments. This is why the big boys play here, and the rest stay in the East Bay, flipping SFR's at a small margin. Keep paying me my rent! Thank You.
Posted by: Rdog at November 23, 2008 2:38 PM
easy there boy...down boy.
follow the money. simply look at the adverts running on this site. who are they targeting? (i assure you its not you or me...)
Posted by: paco at November 23, 2008 5:38 PM
"The over reaching factor in price declines, like some of you have correctly stated is foreclosure rates."
Foreclosures in SF are right about where they were in Solano County a year ago. SF prices are heading in the same direction. Moreover, while foreclosure rates may be the "over reaching factor" (whatever the heck that means), that is not the only factor driving down prices. In SF, prices were driven up by cheap, no-down financing. That is gone. Hence, prices are diving. The tanking economy is only accelerating the decline.
Posted by: anon at November 24, 2008 8:14 AM
Demand destruction is real. Unemployment starts to creep up. Lending is not thawing yet. Prices on the outskirts are sucking some of the life out of SF's market.
8 months ago when I started posting, we were debating how prices could still go up in SF. Then in the summer it was how they could still manage to stay flat. Today it's how they could manage to decrease by "only" 10%. Things have changed fast even at the top. Most bears were in disbelief at the resilience of SF before. Not anymore... and the insults thrown around just comfort their position this was a market that was due for a correction.
Posted by: San FronziScheme at November 24, 2008 8:55 AM
"follow the money. simply look at the adverts running on this site. who are they targeting? (i assure you its not you or me...)"
Uh, what adverts? Are you surfing the interwebs on MS Exploder or something?
Posted by: Brian at November 24, 2008 12:21 PM
326 Virginia Avenue closed escrow on 1/30/09 with a reported contract price of $750,000.
Posted by: SocketSite at January 30, 2009 6:50 PM