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]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Joe Smith

    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.

  2. Posted by LMRiM

    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”

  3. Posted by Robert

    I’d say 6 months. Most likely it will beat out The Millenium, even though that went “rent-to-own” earlier than 3271 Baker.

  4. Posted by MTB

    Well, if we are turning back the clock, I bet it takes at least until August.

  5. Posted by Debtpocalypse

    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.

  6. Posted by eddy

    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.

  7. Posted by askeasda

    Inside scoop is the owner is crazy and greedy. No matter what the real estate market is, his price is always “market price + $7M”.

  8. Posted by San FronziScheme

    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).

  9. Posted by EH

    Hey, just get that prepayment deal on paper and use it as evidence, right? More free rent.

  10. Posted by Robert

    Inside scoop is the owner is crazy and greedy
    Crazy/Greedy with Mad Photoshop Skillz. Our economy in a nugget.

  11. Posted by sfrenegade

    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?

  12. Posted by asiagoSF

    now back at 2 DOM for $1.969M
    only asking $8,500/mo lease to own, but -alas- no rent prepayment option

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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