August 3, 2009
Paying A Premium To Rent To Own: 3271 Baker Is Back
Listed for $3,395,000 a year ago but last asking $2,125,000, it’s a plugged-in tipster that notices 3271 Baker Street is now advertising "rent to own" for $8,995 a month. The advertised rent to own purchase price: $2,300,000.
∙ Spanish/Mediterranean Flair From Traditional To Modern: 3271 Baker [SocketSite]
∙ The Mysterious Case Of The Baker Street Trio: 3271, 3212 and 3520 [SocketSite]
∙ $8995 / 4br - Stunning and Modern Marina Home: Rent to Own [Craigslist]
First Published: August 3, 2009 10:30 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
Looks gorgeous from the outside. 3 questions
1. Why doesn't the craigslist ad display just 4 miniature photos of the inside ?
2. Why aren't there any photos of the interiors in larger sizes ?
3. Why would someone renting out such an expensive (relatively speaking) place advertise on dump like craigslist ? It's like Loius Vitton advertizing in the Flea Market Flyer.... not a good idea !
Posted by: Chad at August 3, 2009 11:41 AM
just cram as many cars as you can into that front patio/driveway and charge people $300 a month/ea. Should knock 15-20% off the rent, no?
Posted by: rr at August 3, 2009 11:51 AM
About point #3, most advertised "for sale" are on the MLS or sites siphoning data from the MLS.
The rental market has CL. It's not a dump, it's simply an "efficiency" medium that is surviving because it kept to its few basic principles. Even professionals will advertise there to get people to their other offers.
Do a search on SF for 8K+ and you'll see quite a few places.
Posted by: San FronziScheme at August 3, 2009 11:56 AM
That's not the most recent photo. Here is the most recent:
And here is the prior for sale listing at $1.7:
This home in its current for was offered for ~7k/mo at one point. Not a bad deal actually.
[Editor’s Note: Good catch on the façade, the photo has been replaced.]
Posted by: eddy at August 3, 2009 11:58 AM
I live a couple blocks away so I go by every time I walk to the Palace. I've been to a few open houses there since it was initially up for $3.395m. It's a nice place, but still comical that it was asking $2.3m for quite a long time, then lowered the asking to $2.295m (where it's been for months). Like that $5k is what was keeping it on the market.
Lower the price to something reasonable, and it'll sell. Keep the asking in the clouds, and it'll sit.
Posted by: lolcat_94123 at August 3, 2009 12:46 PM
Forgot to add - the bottom floor is awesome. But not sure why it's marketed as a bedroom, since its basically a big open floor with doors to the backyard. The bathroom on that level is gorgeous. But it's a big party floor, not a bedroom.
Still cool though. As a bachelor if this was at a lower price I'd be interested.
Posted by: lolcat_94123 at August 3, 2009 12:52 PM
> Why would someone renting out such an expensive
> (relatively speaking) place advertise on dump
> like craigslist ?
My family has been using Craig's list for years to rent everything from apartments in San Mateo to $1mm+ homes in Burlingame and San Francisco
> It's like Loius Vitton advertizing in the
> Flea Market Flyer.... not a good idea !
I bet this LV wallet on Craig's List sells:
or this Rolex:
Craig's list is great to sell or rent anything.
Posted by: FormerAptBroker at August 3, 2009 12:58 PM
Remember the greater fool theory. They only need one, and craigslist is as good a place as any to find one.
I bet they could sell this if they followed the supply and demand theory, but then the profit would not be enough. The problem is that the house is just not worth $2m. Try again in 2015.
Posted by: Conifer at August 3, 2009 1:48 PM
A whole lot of MLS listings can also be found on Craigslist, including those by the "boutique" RE firms. Chad's just being snobbish...still.
Posted by: viewlover at August 3, 2009 2:07 PM
Ads on CL work. People no longer read the news print. Plus, it s free. FREE.
Posted by: jon at August 3, 2009 3:02 PM
The reason the CL ads doesn't display those is probably because it takes too long to put them up. They've put up, then taken down (because you can't have the same ad up twice) this exact ad every day for months and months and months. I think the added 2-3mins it takes to include more pics is just too much when you are posting every day.
As for CL - it's a great tool for buying/selling anything as others have mentioned.
Posted by: lolcat_94123 at August 3, 2009 3:41 PM
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
Yeah right FormerAptBroker. You think that Louis Vutton or Rolex on Craigslist is real?
Hey, no need to browse CL. You can save time and just buy your real Rolex outside the Powell St Bart station.
Posted by: Sb at August 3, 2009 4:54 PM
For anyone interested in renting at this price, here's a better deal that'll look familiar to SS readers:
IMO, neither one gonna rent for the asking price but at least with the eco-disaster you get a cooler place for less money. and the owners are far from being in default.
Posted by: resp at August 3, 2009 5:59 PM
Also FYI about a year a go to the day all the furniture was up for sale in this house on CL. I know some people that went to see it and the seller told them it was high end brand name, they took a photo and showed it to the showroom the seller deemed one of the items was from; the showroom noted it was nothing they designed or sold... not sure what the truth was but something seemed off and my friends were happy they did not spend the 30k being asked for the items.
Posted by: gowiththeflow at August 3, 2009 6:18 PM
Notice of Trustee sale has been published. Sale is set for September 4th
Posted by: concerned at August 14, 2009 9:52 AM
Thanks for the update concerned. I spent a bit of time looking up this place yesterday, only to discover that SS (of course) had already extensively charted its trajectory (the orginal thread is a classic, BTW). I'm curious about your information source, as my "free" channels have yet to list it.
Posted by: EBGuy at August 14, 2009 11:50 AM
Back on MLS @ $1.969
Posted by: eddy at August 15, 2009 9:08 AM
Is SS's own Paul Hwang of Skybox the listing agent? (seems it from the redfin listing) Maybe Paul could give us some details? This has to be a short sale, no?
Regardless, it's fantastic to see these values melting away before our collective eyes.
Posted by: LMRiM at August 15, 2009 9:59 AM
Subsequent comments moved to: Facing Foreclosure 3271 Baker Street Makes A Move In The Marina.
Posted by: SocketSite at August 17, 2009 7:55 AM