October 9, 2009

The Best Possible Spin For A Bank-Owned Home In Eureka Valley

4105 21st Street

From the listing for 4105 21st Street:

Amazing new price! This property has been stripped of the appliances, many fixtures and hardware. .. this gives you an opportunity to come into a newly remodeled house and finish it as you like!

Purchased for $1,725,000 in July of 2005 and now owned by the bank (as opposed to the appliances, fixtures and hardware).

∙ Listing: 4105 21st Street (3/2) - $1,499,000 [MLS]

First Published: October 9, 2009 1:00 PM

Comments from "Plugged In" Readers

If you buy a place with only the appliances and fixtures removed, you're settling. You know it's truly klassy when the doors, windows, pipes & wiring have been ripped out as well.

Posted by: gumby at October 9, 2009 6:52 AM

$1.5m for an empty box "stripped of the appliances, many fixtures and hardware"?

This town never ceases to amaze.

Posted by: Mark D. at October 9, 2009 1:17 PM

Wow, that sounds awesome! I can't believe anyone would ever buy a house that wasn't stripped of appliances and fixtures first.

Posted by: Rillion at October 9, 2009 1:25 PM

The previous owner (before the bank) bought this from a flipper (dual agent allegedly said: Its practically brand new, no inspections needed.) She did $300k more of remodeling. Then the roof leaked and the sewer backed up, and as you can guess, it kinda went downhill from there. More fallout from the bubble. Here's the link to the lawsuit for the sordid details.

Posted by: EBGuy at October 9, 2009 2:03 PM

Man, EBGuy, your lawsuit-mining skills vastly exceed mine!

So this was a real money pit (and water and mold pit). Looks like Zephyr paid something to get out of that lawsuit too. Advice to buyers -- don't use the seller's broker. I'm predicting this place goes nowhere fast at this price. Bet there won't be any one-day, no inspection, nonrefundable deposit, quickie offers like in 2005.

Posted by: Trip at October 9, 2009 2:24 PM

DOesnt it mean a cash only deal if theres no appliances and fixtures, IE "non inhabital"
? and 1.5 for 2000 sq ft good luck bank

Posted by: mikeywoodz at October 9, 2009 3:02 PM

Can this even be certified for occupancy? Don't you need a working kitchen for that? ("This property has been stripped of the appliances, many fixtures and hardware.") If it's not certified for occupancy, it would be hard to get a loan...

I mean, how much more than lot value can this house be worth?

Posted by: corntrollio at October 9, 2009 3:32 PM

If you want to see the place before it was stripped, you can go to http://www.johnhouston.com/ , click on "Portfolio," click on "San Francisco," and click the right arrow a few times.

It is described as being in the "heart of Noe Valley," which I think isn't a precise description of its location.

Posted by: Jeremy at October 9, 2009 4:23 PM

who do i write the check to?

Posted by: tjg at October 9, 2009 4:55 PM

Looks like the foreclosure wave is finally reaching Eureka Valley. This doesn't necessarily look like a bargain.

Posted by: insidesfre at October 9, 2009 5:56 PM

I don't understand the fascination people have with appliances as part of a home's value. Makes no sense to me.

As long as the price is adjusted, I would rather choose my own. And, really, how much are existing appliances worth?

Posted by: John at October 9, 2009 6:55 PM

I can understand why first time home buyers of "entry level" houses might want appliances in their homes. But I don't think they are necessarily needed for other homes. Provided one is able to take the lack of appliances into the price of the home. Nice to have and they make the home more attractive when showing. Though I can appreciate that some people do have valid reasons for wanting appliances to come standard with their home. And I can understand why sellers would want their appliances to be sold with the home.

Posted by: StockBoySF at October 9, 2009 11:05 PM

it's not just appliances.

the appliances have been taken IN ADDITION to many fixtures and hardware.

there are no pictures online.

the previous owner may have taken a lot more than just a fridge and dishwasher. They may have taken all the lighting, and perhaps even more "permanent" things like cabinets, toilets, you get the point.

to me someone taking appliances and fixtures and hardware is a sign of something mucho bad with a house.

someone's gotta go to that house and see it.

Posted by: ex SF-er at October 10, 2009 1:33 AM

Is it open this weekend? I am kind of curious and it is not too far away.

Posted by: NoeValleyJim at October 10, 2009 10:23 AM

"Stripped" seems a very harsh word. There must be a proper euphemism for this, as in "used car" becomes "pre-owned car."

Certainly, "moved out" is gentler. But how about "relocated" or "deaccessioned"? Although, after reading about the condition of this house, perhaps "evacuated" is most accurate.

Posted by: jlasf at October 10, 2009 10:45 AM

How about "prepped for future rehab"?

Posted by: diemos at October 10, 2009 10:52 AM

decurated?

Posted by: bernalkid at October 10, 2009 10:53 AM

John and StockBoySF -- There's no fascination here. My implication is not that appliances make a house worth some strange extraordinary value, like they did during the boom. To the contrary, I thought it was moronic that a few stainless steel appliances added ridiculous value to a flip, when anyone who wanted such things could purchase them themselves for much cheaper than a flipper-premium.

What I do have a problem with is a building that cannot be certified for occupancy. Furthermore, I would worry that there are other things missing besides ovens and dishwashers, such as copper pipe, etc. The fact that the appliances are missing could be indicative of a larger problem.

Posted by: corntrollio at October 10, 2009 11:44 AM

@EBGuy, nice skills digging up the lawsuit. Question though, is there a separate action against the agent? Curious why he is not a defendant but the broker is.

Posted by: whatever at October 10, 2009 6:56 PM

What about the mold?

Posted by: Lurker at October 10, 2009 9:12 PM

There must be a proper euphemism for this
Something befitting a world class city, like: "as is European custom, the previous owner removed the appliances".
@Jeremy, Good find on the John Houston link. It's worth checking out the pics for the 84 Eagle St. project before the remodel (aka "the ugliest house on the block".)
Anyone want to speculate on the "leaks". Did they just totally screw up on the flat roof? Also, I don't see any expansion joints for the stuccco between the floors. Anybody know how the exterior walls (that butt up against the neighbor's house) are faced?

Posted by: EBGuy at October 12, 2009 12:00 PM

There must be a proper euphemism for this

OWN THE MOST RESOURCE-EFFICIENT HOME IN ALL OF SF!! LEED SCORE OF 950! NOT ONLY DOES IT USE NO GAS OR ELECTRICITY, IT DOESN'T EVEN USE WATER!!

LIVE LIKE HENRY DAVID THOREAU ON WALDON POND, YET WALK TO STARBUCKS!!

NO FAUCETS, YET AN ABUNDANT SUPPLY OF WATER THROUGH THE CEILINGS!! THIS HOME HAS EVERYTHING YOU WANT AND MORE. AND LESS!!

Posted by: tipster at October 12, 2009 12:59 PM

Eureka Valley ? Does that even count as San Francisco ?!!

I would avoid this "deal" like the plague.

[Editor’s Note: Eureka Valley is most definitely part of San Francisco (and for the most part is more commonly known as "The Castro.")]

Posted by: Chad at October 12, 2009 1:48 PM

Hey, without appliances the carbon footprint is minimal!

Posted by: anon at October 12, 2009 8:22 PM

"premodeled?"

Posted by: Buy High, Sell Low at October 13, 2009 5:40 AM

For completeness, SFGate is showing 4105 21st was taken back by the bank on September 23 (pretty quick turnaround to get it on the market) for $1,507,452. I guess today would be a good day to see if they fixed any of the "weatherproofing" issues.

Posted by: EBGuy at October 13, 2009 11:50 AM

Sure, foreclosures are now "moving up," just as many have predicted here for quite some time.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125530360128479161.html

Posted by: Trip at October 13, 2009 12:18 PM

Did anyone go inside today to see how it is holding up during the rain? I hesitated to venture in when I saw the broker's tour sign out front, but didn't have the time.

Posted by: auden at October 13, 2009 2:22 PM

Post a comment


(required - will be published)


(required - will not be published, sold, or shared)


(optional - your "Posted by" name will link to this URL)

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)


Continue Perusing SocketSite:

« Apples To Apples To Apples Yields Two Different Tales | HOME | A Comstock (1333 Jones) View Comp Closes A Little Bit Down »