Our first thought (and as supported by the slew of complaints filed since 2005): feuding neighbors. Our second: perhaps the same as yours. And as 536 Laidley looked in 2003 when purchased for $899,000:
On the market in 2010 and listed for $875,000 as a short sale. Goodwill not included.
The building looks much better after the painting (seriously).
part of it clearly is that they redid the siding. (new siding, not just painted)
but i’m surprised they didn’t paint the garage doors.
also: why don’t they like bright green? all the other bright colors are well represented. (unless you count the garage doors, can’t tell but they may be army green)
I wish the listing had interior photos to see how much TLC will be needed. Not my part of town, but convenient to BART. And many people would love to have a 3Br + 2Br place like this.
where did the power lines and the street sign go?
Can you link the complaints?
The colors are really somewhat fitting of the nonsensical architecture on this one.
BTW I LOVE Laidley, and wacky colors on Laidley make sense. Take a walk down it sometime; it’s one of San Francisco’s most charming streets.
It looks like three mail boxes are in the first photo. It it still a multi unit property?
Per property shark this was purchased with 20% down so I don’t know how $875K is a short sale unless someone has been extracting their equity.
The owner has at least one other property in Glen Park that is for sale or has been sold. He’s quite a San Francisco character (but he appears to be a nice guy), but I think he got in over his head during the boom.
resp, the powerlines went underground a few years ago:
https://socketsite.com/archives/2009/05/stick_em_where_the_sun_dont_shine_and_views_arent_obstr.html
This house is across the street from 533 Laidley, the 1906 cottage that was reported on here:
https://socketsite.com/archives/2009/07/telling_it_like_it_is_for_533_laidley.html
Stu, the most recent complaint was for sanding the building with no containment (paint prep and paint work). Previous complaints focused on non permitted work or the illegal unit. One complaint involved demolition work of 538 Laidley, which was completely and eventually listed for over $2m, I believe.
I think 534 Laidley was also listed as a short sale about $649k or $700k. Agent claimed to have had offers but continued to hold the unit open to have backup offers.
FormerAptBroker, I see a 536a Laidley, and imagine that’s at least one illegal unit.
The garage does show 536A and 536B.
This is Laidley right ? I thought whimsy was accepted on that street.
We went to look at this some time last year. To say it needs TLC is an understatement and the layout is barely functional. There’s also a weird, secret, decrepit kitchen and bathroom in the first floor sub-level area under the front building.
I recall the realtor saying that the 2nd building in the back was 2 units, upstairs 2br 1ba and downstairs 1br 1ba, each with a full kitchen and combined living/dining room. Allegedly, the owner told the planning board he had 2 rental units in the back knowing it was illegal and hoping that they would force a demolition of both so he could get the tenants out but it backfired. The planning board ruled it as one rental unit belonging to the existing rent-controlled tenant living upstairs who has a 5-year lease. I think the lease started 2 years ago but am not sure. The tenants have made many improvements to the rear building, it’s much nicer than the front owner’s building and much bigger since it’s 2 units combined.
Mind you, this was over 6 months ago and my memory is not the best so I may have some of the details mixed up.
Per property shark this was purchased with 20% down so I don’t know how $875K is a short sale unless someone has been extracting their equity.
A NOTS was filed on July 2, 2009. Some refinancing courtesy of, yes, you guessed it, WaMu. Most the the financing on this place reads like a whose who of failed institutions.
Could be a worse paint job.
Could be this.
Three different eye-sporking shades of yellow on the same facade is a bit much, though.
Nice find justme!
“Eye-sporking” is my new fav phrase of the month!
5 yr lease? I was told a 10 yr lease…oh, and the realtor selling the house IS the tenant.
i don’t think anything beyond a one year lease for a residential property is enforceable in california.
No one really cares what you “think” on the issue. Provide a source or don’t post such nonsense.
Did you really just tell someone else to provide proof of something they allege, or else nobody cares? You did. And it was apropos of something innocuous as well. Incredible.
“i don’t think anything beyond a one year lease for a residential property is enforceable in california. ”
I don’t think that’s correct. There may be additional contractual formalities required when the lease is more than 1 year, but I’m pretty sure it’s allowed as long as you meet them.
The suggested “short sale” price for 536 Laidley has been reduced $17,000. Now listed on the MLS for $858,000.
The suggested “short sale” price for 536 Laidley has been reduced another $23,000. Now listed on the MLS for $835,000.
The suggested “short sale” price for 536 Laidley has been reduced another $25,000. Now listed on the MLS for $810,000.
The suggested “short sale” price for 536 Laidley has been reduced another $12,000. Now listed on the MLS for $798,000.
Rapid fire reductions gives a hint that there is a probably more “solid” short sale price out there.
That or the seller’s agent really excels in extracting a new unofficial short sale price every 10-15 days from the lender!
536 Laidley is BACK on the market as a short sale fixer for $700,000. I am the listing agent and property has its challenges, but also cool original details plus view of bay!