August 3, 2009
Back And Not In The Black For 3271 Baker Street
While 3271 Baker Street is now advertising "rent to own," according to a plugged-in reader the current owners are in default on the property which might be something to consider before writing a big deposit check (or banking on any pre-negotiated future sale).
∙ Paying A Premium To Rent To Own: 3271 Baker Is Back [SocketSite]
First Published: August 3, 2009 5:15 PM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
Maybe you'll get to live there for six months rent free after the owners abandon it and before the bank moves in to take control.
Posted by: Joe Smith at August 3, 2009 5:45 PM
I think I'll ask the same question that I asked at the beginning of the year about this house:
"Any bets on how fast this falls into foreclosure?
Posted by: LMRiM at January 9, 2009 1:55 PM"
Posted by: LMRiM at August 3, 2009 6:29 PM
I'd say 6 months. Most likely it will beat out The Millenium, even though that went "rent-to-own" earlier than 3271 Baker.
Posted by: Robert at August 3, 2009 7:05 PM
Well, if we are turning back the clock, I bet it takes at least until August.
Posted by: MTB at August 3, 2009 7:05 PM
LMRIM, you are a funny internet persona.
Update from here - my wife & I put offers in on two places in the Berkeley Hills this season. Both rejected, even though one was at asking and one was over asking. We're not there yet.
Then, we found a gorgeous property to rent at under $1/sqft with views of SF/GG/Bay, and a 5 minute stroll to Tilden. Happy as clams.
Alternatively, we could purchase one of the properties within a quarter mile of our new rental that are asking over $500/sqft, and which have sat stale for months.
Ch-yeah, ummm.... no.
Capital is dear.
Posted by: Debtpocalypse at August 3, 2009 7:36 PM
From the previous thread:
"Renting 3271 Baker Street is VERY risky, because there was a Notice of Default filed on the property for $472,867 on May 21, 2009. If this property becomes foreclosed, the tenants would likely be evicted and lose their security deposit. An earlier posting on Craigslist for this property offered a “discount for pre-payment of rent”, which I believe is highly unethical given the NOD filing unless the owner makes the proper disclosures.
Posted by: InformedBuyer at August 3, 2009 4:53 PM"
Yes, the prepayment is totally bogus and a major scam to extract cash from unsuspecting renters. This "deal" was also offered after the NOD was filed making it even more sketchy.
All in all it's just a sad tale.
I think if this were priced at $1.8 it would sell pretty quickly.
Posted by: eddy at August 3, 2009 8:38 PM
Inside scoop is the owner is crazy and greedy. No matter what the real estate market is, his price is always "market price + $7M".
Posted by: askeasda at August 3, 2009 9:09 PM
People at this level do not need money. They do not need cash flow. They do not need oxygen and are also not subject to gravity or any other earthly physical constraint.
Not like you sour losers who cannot afford to wait or elllse you'll be priiiced out foreeever (do your own Vincent Price impression).
Posted by: San FronziScheme at August 3, 2009 10:07 PM
Hey, just get that prepayment deal on paper and use it as evidence, right? More free rent.
Posted by: EH at August 4, 2009 12:03 PM
Inside scoop is the owner is crazy and greedy
Crazy/Greedy with Mad Photoshop Skillz. Our economy in a nugget.
Posted by: Robert at August 4, 2009 1:47 PM
I would definitely do what Joe Smith said -- move in and then live there for 6 months for free (minimum). What are they going to do? Evict you?
Posted by: sfrenegade at August 5, 2009 4:45 PM
now back at 2 DOM for $1.969M
only asking $8,500/mo lease to own, but -alas- no rent prepayment option
Posted by: asiagoSF at August 16, 2009 8:24 AM