March 19, 2010
San Francisco’s Fabled Home ATM In Action? (704 Wisconsin)
Purchased for $540,000 in 1998, the single-family home at 704 Wisconsin was refinanced in 2003 with $765,000 in loans and then again in 2004 for $870,000.
This past January, the home was foreclosed upon with what appears to have been $1,049,621 of mortgage debt outstanding. Yesterday the Potrero home hit the market asking $799,000.
∙ Listing: 704 Wisconsin (2/2) - $799,000 [MLS]
First Published: March 19, 2010 1:30 PM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
wow, who knew dick clark was hurting that bad for cash. i guess someone had to pay for all that plastic surgery.
Posted by: anon$random at March 19, 2010 1:44 PM
Now THAT is mortgage fraud at its finest.
Posted by: Lori at March 19, 2010 1:47 PM
So, we're a non-recourse state. However, can lenders go after cash you received from a re-fi if you foreclose? Or, put another way, could the owners have simply stopped paying in 2004 and kept the $330,000?
Posted by: rr at March 19, 2010 1:51 PM
non-recourse status is only for purchase money. The "owners" may need to declare bankruptcy.
Posted by: J at March 19, 2010 1:55 PM
Since the lender will likely non-judicially foreclose they will not be able to seek a deficiency judgment against the borrower.
Posted by: M at March 19, 2010 3:46 PM
I disagree that this was clearly mortgage fraud. In my opinion it was very common, and ENCOURAGED by nearly all the "experts".
Think back on those days. we were all told that if you paid your mortgage down you were "wasting" your money. You should instead have as big a mortgage as possible for the deduction, take that money and "invest" it elsewhere, preferably in the equities markets or in another RE holding.
I was told this info by my Realtor (who is an awesome guy, and very knowledgeable and who I will use again because he knows the local market well and he is an honest guy), by my financial "advisor", by all the financial guru's on TV, and this was encouraged by the President and Alan Greenspan.
The underlying (foolish) assumption was that RE prices never fall. Thus, this was a no risk way to riches. Buy a house, cash in "your" equity every few years so it's not "sitting dead" in the house, buy those extra things you "need" like college tuition for kids and a new car and pay off those credit card bills. Heck, even use it to help make PITI payments.
It all worked, until it didn't. (you mean SF real estate can't double every 6 years forever????)
Perhaps it was fraud, perhaps it wasn't. Foolishness- it was that for sure.
anybody with half a brain saw that this was happening in rampant amounts, all you had to do was look at Mortgage Equity Withdrawal data. But of course it was all ignored. It's so much nicer to say "San Franciscans are rich and everybody wants to live here".
Posted by: ex SF-er at March 20, 2010 6:00 AM
FWIW, it appears that the owners are seniors (65+); there was spot of financial difficulty about five years ago. Not sure, how this would have played out 'in the old days' -- hope they weren't sold down the river by a MB (or their kids).
Posted by: EBGuy at March 20, 2010 5:27 PM
They got handed $509K of free money and yet I'm sure they consider themselves "victims".
Posted by: diemos at March 20, 2010 6:56 PM
Man. None of you know what the next five years hold. Look at the last five years. None of you could have predicted that. Ha. Silliness.
Fraud? This site is rife with wanna be hall monitors. Sorry tho. The teacher chose somebody else. Whatever. Fraud! My arse. Like those properties didn't appreciate, actually. Like the local economy did not shift drastically. Whatever. This site is clown frigging city any more. Find me less.
Posted by: anonn at March 20, 2010 9:10 PM
"Look at the last five years. None of you could have predicted that."
Posted by: diemos at March 20, 2010 10:49 PM
Man. None of you know what the next five years hold. Look at the last five years. None of you could have predicted that. Ha. Silliness.
actually, I as well as many bloggers did predict exactly what we've seen. it was obvious.
however as you see with my comment above I agree that this case isn't necessarily fraud. Instead, I believe it was typical bubble-behavior.
teach people to think of housing as an investment instead of what it really is for most people (mostly consumption combined with a partial forced savings aspect), and worse yet mislead them into thinking that housing as investment is NO RISK, and the results are predictable.
anonn: some of your arguments are sound sometimes, but making vast exaggerations that are clearly false isn't one of them. ("nobody could have predicted this" despite so many people having documented their prediction.)
Posted by: ex SF-er at March 21, 2010 6:15 AM
But you and others didn't. I said "five years" first of all. Did you or anybody say that SF was undervalued previously? That it would weather the storm and emerge with new price plateaus never before seen, by and large? That southward gentrification would shift mass amounts of money? Because that is what has happened so far. I did not say, "Nobody predicted a big credit crunch will drive up prices before a correction." And let's face it, the correction many called for has been nowhere near as severe as what they predicted.
But this is all beside the point of people talking about "fraud" when they have no idea what they're saying. That is shameless and those people don't deserve to share their opinions in public spaces, because that's borderline criminal behavior.
Posted by: anonn at March 21, 2010 8:37 AM
Diemos, you predicted a much greater correction. You are wrong so far. Heck, I predicted the correction. None of you called "The Noe Valley ~3M house is heare to stay," "the ~2M flawless Potrero Hill house is a fact of life now," "Glen Park 1M+ is nothing to write home about," "the Mission, million plus, yawn" or anything of the sort. Quite the opposite.
Posted by: anonn at March 21, 2010 8:42 AM
And let's face it, the correction many called for has been nowhere near as severe as what they predicted.
I'd argue that we've seen some scenarios that are 'as severe' as some have predicted, but the mean reversion to RvB indifference is never coming.
FWIW, I'm not a fan of speculating 65y/o frauds in public. Line crossed IMO unless someone has some facts.
Posted by: eddy at March 21, 2010 9:41 AM
I'd argue that we've seen some scenarios that are 'as severe' as some have predicted, but the mean reversion to RvB indifference is never coming
We definitely have. No argument there. We've seen them along side many more that have displayed a less severe correction. And we've seen those less severe corrections along side sales showing new post-easy credit valuations that seem to be here to stay. We're now 18 months past the shift.
Posted by: anonn at March 21, 2010 9:49 AM
One can't discuss the RE market without considering the transcendental nature of the ongoing government bailouts which nobody predicted completely, and which now must continue in explicit/implicit forms for as long as they can (months, years, decades?).
It's doublethink to discuss the real estate "market" and grade prior "predictions" under these conditions with a straight face.
Posted by: dub dub at March 21, 2010 10:01 AM
Could be a little early to say whether people correctly foresaw the effects of the credit bubble/RE mania/speculative bubble/etc. on SF. This started well over a decade ago.
Hopefully everyone on this board will be alive, healthy and prospering on 3/21/2030 so we can reconvene and see where things stand.
Ex SF-er, if you happen to see this, what do you think of TIPS at this stage - or inflation protected bond funds? Thanks...
Posted by: andyc at March 21, 2010 10:25 AM
No one expected the government to rob future generations to keep this bubble propped up either. Well guess what?!?! The gov is out of cash and there is no political will to keep demand and supply manipulated anymore (ie more foreclosures and higher/market rates). Good luck out there.
"oh time will tell, think you are in heaven but you living in hell"
Posted by: 33 y/o yurt dweller at March 21, 2010 11:35 AM
"You are wrong so far."
Ah my friend, there are all sorts of ways that my vision has strayed from reality and you may judge me a failure on that basis if you wish.
Me? I compare my vision to what was being expounded by "the experts" on CNBC, the WSJ, the NAR and the FED in 2005 and I don't think "eerily prophetic" is unjustified.
Most things have proceeded according to my vision with a couple of exceptions. Uncle Hu and our other creditors were supposed to have cut us off by now. Instead they're wedded enough to the status quo that they're engaging in competitive devaluation to prop up their exporters. Until they give that up quantitative easing can go on. I expected all sorts of bailout programs to try to prop up the housing markets but I never expected that people would be allowed to squat in their homes without paying the mortgage for years without getting foreclosed.
Ah well, as Sir Isaac said, "I can calculated the motions of the heavenly bodies but not the madnesses of men."
"None of you know what the next five years hold."
Is that a challenge? Shall I get the crystal ball down from the attic? Or perhaps I'll break out the Ouija board and summon the shades of Keynes, Mises and Adam Smith for a battle royale.
Or perhaps you would prefer something more traditional?
I could partake of the mystic vapors of Delphi and then sacrifice an unblemished ram to Apollo and read the auguries in its liver.
In any event, for the record, here is my vision for 2010-15.
More of the same.
The Great Recession will drag on, 10% unemployment will become the new normal.
The consumer will spend years rebuilding their balance sheet. Businesses will not expand as there is already too much excess capacity that needs to be worked through.
A wave of commercial real estate defaults and sovereign debt crises will create round 2 of the financial crisis. Several hundred small US banks will go under and be wound up by the FDIC. Fannie and Freddie will "unexpectedly" need massive bailouts. FDIC will "unexpectedly" need a massive bail out. A contraction in the size of local and state governments will increase unemployment.
Every time the global economy starts to spin up it will hit a limit in available oil production and you will see a price spike and then more economic contraction. When global oil production "unexpectedly" goes into decline sometime between 2012 and 2014 there will be another global recession. This will go on until about 20 years after the US gets serious about transitioning to a non-fossil fuel economy.
The standard of living of the average US worker will continue to be pressured by global wage arbitrage. Commodity inflation without wage inflation will pressure the consumers balance sheet and limit the loans they are able to carry.
Real estate will continue to correct in real and nominal terms although for properties in flyover country we are likely near bottom.
Summary: Repent! The end is nigh!
See you in 2015.
Posted by: diemos at March 21, 2010 6:28 PM
None of you called "The Noe Valley ~3M house is heare to stay," "the ~2M flawless Potrero Hill house is a fact of life now," "Glen Park 1M+ is nothing to write home about," "the Mission, million plus, yawn" or anything of the sort.
actually, you are wrong again. although I didn't use the wording that you used, I did in fact predict that the majority of RE losses would be due to inflation and NOT in nominal terms (in other words, the houses would lose value but their sales prices wouldn't fall much)
Posted by: ex SF-er at March 22, 2010 9:52 AM
Yes? Well, you're a much more nuanced poster than the scorched earth bear posse. However I can say you're wrong, too. Because you're not taking into account the other aspects of what I've said, which is one, that the city has shifted during the timeframe in question. And two, we can see sales that to this day show little change at all, but rather a plateau somewhat down from a relatively breaf peak period. In fact that first point was dismissed so bitterly and so frequently by the scorched earth bears -- many no longer with us -- that it's now pretty funny. You yourself I think are on here saying SF isn't anything special many times. That it shouldn't be immune to fundamentals that effect every city. I agree. But I think "special" is precisely the problem. It is not necessarily "special" when a city evolves somewhat. It's simply something that may occur within cities from time to time. Manhattan's evolution in the mid '90s wasn't about easy credit, for example.
Posted by: anonn at March 22, 2010 10:07 AM
But I think "special" is precisely the problem. It is not necessarily "special" when a city evolves somewhat. It's simply something that may occur within cities from time to time. Manhattan's evolution in the mid '90s wasn't about easy credit, for example.
Posted by: eddy at March 22, 2010 10:15 AM
Here are a few recent examples of that "plateau somewhat down from a relatively breaf [sic] peak period."
If you define "plateau somewhat down" to mean "significantly down" then anonn's statement is 100% accurate. I agree that the peak period was brief - coincided with a few years of no-down lending to anyone with a pulse. I also agree that "the city has shifted." Unemployment is far worse now than in the recent past. The big demographic shift in this city came from about 1994 to 2000. It's little changed since then, which is why prices will likely not fall back to the levels of the 90s as some predicted.
Posted by: A.T. at March 22, 2010 12:51 PM
Here's a pretty good piece on Option ARMageddon from the LA Times. A little something for the 'true believers' and some counterpoint (ala SS regulars like sparky-b) about how minimum payments on many Wells option ARMs are now enough to pay off some principal because actual interest rates have plunged and minimum payments have risen over the years.
Anecdotely, it's looks like all hell is about to break loose over here on this side of the Bay. Seems like a large number of listings are either REO (a few), distressed (short sale), or listed below purchase price. This will not end well....
Posted by: EBGuy at March 22, 2010 1:26 PM
You picked three properties and you're foisting them on here like they're proof positive. Then you say that the city hasn't changed much since 2000. I don't really care to argue with you today. I consider both things you said nonsense. But yes, I typed "brief" incorrectly before.
Posted by: anonn at March 22, 2010 1:55 PM
I picked three properties I found in about 2 minutes of searching. As you well know, there are dozens more examples every month. Tell you what, how about you posting these scads of "sales that to this day show little change at all" that you hang your argument on?
Posted by: A.T. at March 22, 2010 2:16 PM
However I can say you're wrong, too. Because you're not taking into account the other aspects of what I've said, which is one, that the city has shifted during the timeframe in question.
First of all, my above quote only challenges your assertion that NONE of us could have foreseen the RE pain, and that NONE of us could have foreseen that RE prices would stay at a plateau (in your words) or stagnate (in my words).
This newest quote by you is a slightly different idea, and one in which I've been more than willing to admit that I'm unsure upon in SF. I have openly said MANY times that I believe that Pac Heights/Presidio Heights/Sea Cliff etc would weather the storm well. I have also said MANY times that I'm still not sure if Noe is truly a prime nabe like the above nabes, and that I can easily see it remaining aloft, and also see it regressing back towards somewhat more humble roots.
I have seen neighborhoods gentrify, then devolve again.
So yes, we do disagree on this point. You evidently believe that the gentrification that occurred in SF through 2009 is here to stay whereas I am not quite so sure.
The wild card to me is what happens with tech incomes. will they remain sky high, or will they moderate as tech matures as an industry. I've felt for a while that they will moderate as tech matures as an industry, but am unwilling to say that I forecast this any time soon, or with any strong conviction. SF has been an area of innovation for some time now... can it continue? or are those times in the past?
if you push me to a guess:
I believe that our economy still has massive structural imbalances and problems, and thus we will face another crisis. My feeling is that SF will not be immune to this crisis.
In addition, I believe that tech incomes will continue to fall over time becoming less and less lucrative (but still quite lucrative) as tech matures. there will of course be some exceptions, but I do not see the massive wealth generation in tech that we saw in the 1990s to return to SF anytime soon.
Therefore, I believe that buying RE in SF at this time is still a bad INVESTMENT (but possibly good consumption expenditure) in real terms over the next 5-10 years. I believe that several of these up and coming neighborhoods will fall in value and that most will not stay in their newly-gentrified splendor.
But that is all a guess. it relies too much on government intervention. I am perfectly able to admit that this is a guess and nothing more.
and there is always that ethereal possibility of new innovation. However, it seems that the tech innovations are becoming slightly long in the tooth.
Posted by: ex SF-er at March 22, 2010 3:17 PM
I find it disingenuous that you're trying to say you can rate gentrification on a precise scale, ex-SFer. Through 2009? The Mission for example is still gentrifying rapidly. Why 2009?
And AT, I have gone down the route of showing/compiling the 5 to 10% off peak sales a couple times on here. It's a thankless job. Just pay attention to the sales figures Eddy, myself and others cap older threads off with, nearly daily. They're rarely more than 10 percent off.
Posted by: anonn at March 22, 2010 3:35 PM
ex-SFer : I think your hunch is right about continued downward pressure on tech salaries. "What is your outsourcing strategy ?" is now a standard VC question. Existing companies are taking a cold calculated look at R&D performance/cost ratios of different geographic locations. Ten years ago only support work (testing, product migrations, mass conversions) was outsourced. Now much of the initial development is done overseas.
As for innovation, my outlook is more optimistic than yours though it is not clear whether silicon valley will continue to receive the lion's share of proceeds. Our outsourcing partners will continue to demand a larger piece of the profit pie.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at March 22, 2010 3:44 PM
I find it disingenuous that you're trying to say you can rate gentrification on a precise scale, ex-SFer. Through 2009? The Mission for example is still gentrifying rapidly. Why 2009?
we must be talking past each other, because you have completely misunderstood what I was trying to say.
I am SPECIFICALLY saying that I can NOT rate gentrification on a precise scale, and I have admitted that many times in the past. I have said that I THINK but have no way of knowing that the uber prime nabes will stay uber prime (Pac Heights), the relatively newer prime nabes I have no idea about (like noe), and the others I don't think about much.
I am SPECIFICALLY saying (and have said) that some of these nabes may continue gentrifying, and some may devolve. and I'm not sure which is which.
I used the year 2009 simply because that is the last year that has ended.
Your post above makes it seem as though you believe that the gentrification in these neighborhoods is a sort-of done deal, a fait accompli. (as of 2009, the year just ended)
I get this feeling because you stated things like "The Noe Valley ~3M house is heare to stay," "the ~2M flawless Potrero Hill house is a fact of life now," "Glen Park 1M+ is nothing to write home about," "the Mission, million plus, yawn" or anything of the sort.
I'm not so sure. because as I've said 100,000,000 times, I think RE pressure continues for another 2 years.
So I'll believe that million plus homes are "yawn" worthy in 2012 or so.
in general, time and time again I've spoken about SF RE in aggregate over the last 5-10 years, more from a macroeconomic stance, with the idea that those macroeconomic trends would all affect SF although there may be some "micro" variations within SF. I've also said that the majority of losses would be real and not nominal (which doesn't disagree with your idea that the $3M Noe house is here to say).
but I've never claimed that I knew which SF nabes would stay gentrified and which would devolve, or which would ascend.
Posted by: ex SF-er at March 22, 2010 8:12 PM
24th St. in the Mission continues to gentrify. Today I had Kobe beef brisket on an Acme roll from Pal's Take Away at 24th and Hampshire. I admired the gourmet cheeses and chocolates inside Tony's Market. I took a peek across the street at the new Dagwood's sandwiches and scoops, and noticed they also sell cheese and pate-- there was a half wheel of Humboldt Fog there. Thursday I had a smoked sturgeon and roasted beet sandwich with Meyer lemon creme fraiche, at Local: Mission Eatery on 24th St and Folsom -- Jake Des Voignes, the chef, was chef at the Fifth Floor.
Flour+Water, on 20th and Harrison, was one of the 5 James Beard Award nominees for best new restaurant in America.
One can make a good case now that the Mission has the best food scene of any neighborhood in SF.
Whether or not homes dip below $1 million in the Mission, it's gentrifying.
Posted by: Dan at March 22, 2010 9:01 PM
It's so much nicer to say "San Franciscans are rich and everybody wants to live here".
i'll continue to say it b/c its true.
and where's tipster with his myriad examples of 40-50% off real sf??
"Me? I compare my vision to what was being expounded by "the experts" on CNBC, the WSJ, the NAR and the FED in 2005 and I don't think "eerily prophetic" is unjustified."
cnbc and nar are your examples of experts? if you are so smart, mr diemos, then why did you not make millions on the downdraft? same for you, mr ex-sfer?
Posted by: anonee at March 22, 2010 9:27 PM
Maybe they already have lucrative careers that don't rely on over-leveraged speculation...
Posted by: J at March 22, 2010 10:10 PM
same for you, mr ex-sfer?
I did. I made a killing in 2007 and 2008. I did very well in 2009 as well, but I'll never do as good as I did in 2007-2008 ever again in my lifetime. I'm not sure if my overall investments made it into the millions (plural) though after taxes and what not.
a few years ago I used to post my investment strategies because of people just like you (the doubters). You can go back and read exactly when I went double and triple short the market using various ETFs and puts and shorts, as well as when I went long oil and commodities and gold, and when I transferred my winnings cash equivalents and Treasuries, etc.
I was very very long equities and long commodities in 2007, and then very very short equities and long Treasuries and certain commodities in 2008 into early 2009. (there was also a time of trading in there). I pulled out of most investments in 2009 because it's nothing more than a casino now, mainly played with computer algorithms, front running, insider trading, government interference, and other terrible flaws. there are few retail investors now, it's just Goldman's supercomputers trading stuff back and forth with JP Morgan's supercomputers now. with a few retail investors along for the fleecing. No thanks.
I did "miss" the equities gains in 2009, however I did very well anyway since I have large gold and oil holdings. but most of my money has been on the sidelines of late.
Posted by: ex SF-er at March 23, 2010 4:59 AM
Dan, did you ever set foot in the Mission in 2000-2001? If so, you would have seen everything you are seeing now, plus a number of much nicer furniture stores than you see now to supply the dot-commers. That area saw its big gentrification in the 90s. It's remained about the same since then -- maybe a continued trickle upward but no more. The gangs are probably a bit worse now than they were 10 years ago. I like the Mission and have spent a lot of time there for years. It has remained basically low-end funky with some really nice homes and pockets of very nice food/retail for a decade now with little overall change.
Posted by: A.T. at March 23, 2010 7:19 AM
"The gangs are probably a bit worse now than 10 years ago"
Ridiculous The injunction that went in two years ago has made the area safer for business. Everyone who knows anything about the Mission knows that.
"big gentrification in the '90s"
Sure. Around 16th and Guerrero/Valencia. I know. I owned a 2 unit right at Albion and 16th in 1996. The southward gentrification is a newer thing. It's now at the point of ~1M condos on 26th and Valencia. And the food scene Dan described?
Let alone all the activity that's going on along Mission from where Mission and Valencia run together down to Cortland. At this point the gap is almost bridged between that and the Valencia corridor. Saying that it's the same as the early '90s or 10 years ago is plainly and simply false.
Posted by: anonn at March 23, 2010 8:47 AM
Later on I owned a Victorian at 23rd and Valencia. This was around '99 through 2002. The difference between that neighborhood then, and now, is pretty stark. It was The Last Supper Club/ Luna Park group which ushered in the changes first. Now you have Medjool, packed full of well heeled people every late afternoon, right on Mission. That was unheard of at the millennium. Or Velvet Cantina. Right at 23rd and Bartlett. That was twice a week a transvestite Latino bar with open drug dealing and food that nobody ordered. Now it's packed nightly with young tech types and hipsters. Or the new City College building, right there? That has the streets filled with students daily. The scene on 22nd street? Nonexistant before 2002. Spork WAS a KFC. A well used one. And that's that part of the Mission. Let alone Media Gulch and the lower Bryant area. I've said it on here before. But if you see young Asian women right out of college running with headphones on at night, it's generally probably pretty gentrified. That is something you didn't see back 10 years ago. In fact seeing a runner was even rare. "Welcome to the Mission. Please, no jogging," was a running joke.
Posted by: anonn at March 23, 2010 9:13 AM
A.T., I have lived and worked near the Mission, and spent time there almost daily, for almost 20 years.
There was a lot of gentrification in the northeast Mission, along Valencia, and in the Mission Dolores area in the late '90's. There have been some good restaurants since Flying Saucer on Guerrero and Val 21 in the early-mid '90's, but nothing like today. The food scene today ranges from gourmet street food to the high end of Saison. And places like Saison, Flour+Water, and Local are located on Folsom, Harrison, and 24th Sts, away from the Guerrero/18th and Valencia areas that have long had great restaurants.
Posted by: Dan at March 23, 2010 9:37 AM
Flying Saucer! Ah, Dan, you're making me nostalgic. And as someone who has also observed and enjoyed the Mission for years, I agree with Dan and Anonn. Pre-dot com, the activity was pretty much limited to the Castro/Noe adjacent Valencia corridor. During the dot com boom the Mission generally began to gentrify, with some loft development in the NEMIZ and the area around Bryant @ 20th developing as a restaurant/cafe area, and the 18th street corridor (Delfina, Tartine) becoming a real draw. There was also the very first gentrification of Mission Street with Bruno's and Foreign Cinema. With the dotcom bust things certainly slowed down but didn't stop. This last wave has continued to build on the success of all these areas, with the recent "coolness" of lower 24th street being a completely "new" thing in my opinion.
Parenthetically, I know a lot of people in my generation (not young hipsters, but middle aged) who talk about how they wish they lived in the Mission due to it's vibrancy. I think that's a GREAT indicator of how much it has gentrified.
BTW, like Ex-SFer, I don't think that gentrification is a one way street. Places certainly backslide. But I have seen none of that in the Mission at all during the "Great Recession", which is, I think, remarkable. It will be an interesting neighborhood to watch over the coming decade. It may be that we have reached a tipping point in our local culture, in which the "green" values that typify the Mission zeitgeist (transit, bikes, walking, the local food movement, etc) are strong enough to keep things moving forward.
Posted by: curmudgeon at March 23, 2010 10:15 AM
I don't think we're really in disagreement. During the early to mid-90s the Mission slowly gentrified, and then it exploded from about 1996-2001. All I'm saying is that the change since then has been more status quo than real upward movement (a continued trickle upward is how I put it). There are not more "young Asian women" jogging at night there now than there were in 2001. Much of the Mission continues to be plain low-rent. I like it, but the great upward move was 10 years ago, and the trend since then has been at a comparative crawl. The big fortunes went to those who bought before 2000 (really, before 1996). The Mission gangs were never a terrible threat to outsiders (at least for the last 20 years) but the situation is certainly no better now than it was 10 years ago. Herrera's injunctions have been primarily for show - violence explodes periodically now as before the injunctions, no more but certainly no less. Those buying now are not going to see significant property value increases due to gentrification.
Posted by: A.T. at March 23, 2010 10:54 AM
A few things, after the obvious. And that's you've had rank pulled on you and you're still talking. 2001 did not see the southern part of the Mission, el corazon de la Mission, OK? gentrified to the extent it was now. Nor was Valencia south of 22nd. Period. You did not see young urban types in workout gear. That's a fact.
Secondly, your opine about the gang injunction's lack of palpable effect is malarkey. You can look at the murder rate since it went into effect. Or talk to any business owner. Schmidt's on 21st and Folsom, for example, would not have been possible in 2001. That park was too dangerous.
Nobody is talking about those buying now seeing property value increase due to gentrification except you. Now you're trying a dodge.
Last, 10 years ago? 10 years ago the tech bust was starting to happen.
Everything you've said is applicable to north of 22nd and west of Mission only. Period.
Posted by: anonn at March 23, 2010 12:10 PM
"Rank pulled on you"? You talk nonsense.
Thanks for conceding my point, at least in part. Quite rare for you.
So you're talking about the Outer Mission and the edge of Bernal? Where the gang problems are the worst? I know the area well. My wife works at St. Luke's. The area was terrible in 1995 and improved a ton through the early '00s. Not so much since then, but a little. At the current rate of gentrification, it'll be a decent place to live in about 20 more years. Sorry, you bought about 8 years too late.
Posted by: A.T. at March 23, 2010 1:37 PM
I'm not. I'm talking about THE MISSION that isn't 16th - 22nd and Guerrero and Valencia. Because 16th - 22, Guerrero and Valencia is the only part that syncs up to your "nothing changed since 2000" shpiel. Read what was said again. I'd like to think you at least know the geography.
You've had people who know, who were there, who owned and liver there, tell you. But you don't want to hear it.
Secondly, your gang injunction dismissal is willfully ignorant. That aspect is much, much better. Everybody in the Mission knows it and talks about it. Business owners are very pleased. You've said that one twice, now, and it's totally erroneous.
What this has to do with where I own I do not know. Odd. I own on the North Slope of Bernal, blocks away from anything that has been said.
I have not conceded anything. You don't know what you're talking about, in several ways.
Posted by: anonn at March 23, 2010 1:51 PM
"So you're talking about the Outer Mission..."
A.T.: You don't know the area well, if you think the places referred to on this thread are part of the "Outer Mission."
"The area was terrible in 1995..."
I don't think the Mission as a whole was bad in 1995--it had its sketchy places, but there were also lots of interesting places back then. It's gentrified and safer now, but the Mission was one of my favorite parts of SF in 1995 as well.
Posted by: Dan at March 23, 2010 1:58 PM
Dan, Anonn turned this into Alice-in-Wonderland nonsense. Yes, we were talking about the Mission. I've frequented the area since I was a teenager 20 years ago. Then in order to dispute my points he claimed they were invalid "south of 22nd," and I turned to address that (yes, Southern Mission/Bernal is more accurate than Outer Mission).
Anonn, Let's hear you try to explain why a gang injunction would be necessary if there was not a serious gang problem? You can engage in willful blindness and pretend some judge's piece of paper changed all that, but you know as well as I do that it hasn't.
Posted by: A.T. at March 23, 2010 2:10 PM
Do not even try. You said the gang injunction was primarily for show. You also earlier than that said the gangs are worse now than 10 years ago. Both of those statements are complete and utter hogwash.
Now it's, why would the gang injunction be necessary if it wasn't a serious problem?
It is a serious problem. That's why serious measures were finally taken.
But you said the gangs are worse now than 10 years ago!
They're not! The situation has improved over the last couple years! As 24th st improved -- coincidence? Nobody thinks that!
Jeez man. What is it with you?
You said the Mission hasn't changed in 10 years. You said gangs are worse than 10 years ago.
You've been proven wrong.
But you still want to keep talking.
Now you want to make it personal. I don't wish to do that. Trying to talk about where I bought, trying to paint it like I'm saying buy buy buy gentrification will cause appreciation, blah blah, mislabeling things, getting timeframes wrong (shoulda bought in 2002) blah blah.
Posted by: anonn at March 23, 2010 2:35 PM
Just by the debate on this thread, you should ask if its worth living there at the cheaper prices. In my mind, if there is a question as to safety, as has been discussed in this post, then the decision should be to try to live someplace else. Never live in questionable areas, or areas where people debate about safety.
Posted by: Mr. Jones at March 23, 2010 2:40 PM
"Welcome to the Mission. Please, no jogging," was a running joke.
Da dum, ssssss. anonn plays here every night, folks.
Posted by: sfrenegade at March 23, 2010 3:24 PM
AT's argument is that there has been little to no gentrification anywhere in the Mission since 2000?
Really? I'm not gonna argue it's Pac Heights, but it's a hell of a lot cleaner and nicer than it was in 2000.
Posted by: R at March 23, 2010 4:03 PM
Mr. Jones wrote: "In my mind, if there is a question as to safety...then the decision should be to try to live someplace else."
Where is there no question about safety? If one lives in the suburbs, one has a greater chance of dying on the roads, or for that matter, of heart disease.
Posted by: Dan at March 23, 2010 6:26 PM
Dan, of course there is crime everywhere. The point is to minimize risk. The good thing about being diverse is that as the term implies, everyone is different, with different risk tolerances. Some people will like the "grittiness" of that area, some people would prefer a different type of location. It doesn't mean one is right and one is wrong, just that its different.
When does everyone have to agree? It seems that if people don't agree on this site, they are ridiculed, which is a travesty.
Posted by: Mr. Jones at March 23, 2010 6:34 PM
I agree that everyone has different priorities in choosing where to live. I don't think most people choose the Mission because it is "gritty." I think people choose the Mission because their friends live there, it is convenient to work and transit, it is sunny, it has great restaurants and bars, there is a diversity of places to rent or buy, etc, etc. Many people prefer urban living.
When you say that the point is to minimize risk, I'm just pointing out that when one takes into account all causes of mortality, it is not clear that there is less risk in the suburbs.
Posted by: Dan at March 23, 2010 8:15 PM
I am in the Mission all the time. Mission/14th, South of 24th you got it. I have never been robbed, been intimidated or felt out of place at any time. El Tecolote has a pretty good cartoon in the current issue about gang turf for those who have access to it. Not online, sorry.
A lot of talk and a lot of fear about "La Mision". I'd be more afraid of the couple of dangerous loonies in the TL than the beautiful Mission. Clean that up first before you disturb a perfectly decent area.
Posted by: lol at March 23, 2010 9:28 PM
Well, welcome to the Mission then. Please. No jogging.
Posted by: anonn at March 23, 2010 9:59 PM
The Marina is for jogging. NB is for coffee. New Montgomery is for girl watching. FiDi is for working. Everything else is in the Mission.
I almost forgot Colma. Hard to forget Colma.
Posted by: lol at March 23, 2010 10:13 PM
"NB is for coffee."
With Four Barrel and Ritual, the Mission has surpassed NB for coffee.
I will not think of Colma until I am facing the Great Hereafter, or a trip to Home Depot.
Posted by: Dan at March 23, 2010 11:46 PM
Personaly I like La Taza even though it's not the cool kid's hangout. Great pies at Mission Pie with a pretty decent coffee. Go there on weekdays to get seating...
Posted by: lol at March 24, 2010 9:12 AM
Bringing it back to the topic of this post for a minute, I'm interested in predictions for this area as I am just getting into RE and wonder what you all predict for the future of Potrero. It's one of the neighborhoods I am looking into and you all seem to have quite a hold on what's happening in the city.
Posted by: slimer at March 25, 2010 10:41 AM
I just sold a Potrero Hill property to a client last week. He is in the pharmaceutical industry. His take on it is that it's close to downtown, and the infrastructure around it is improving rapidly, and with Mission Bay's continued development its prospects are good. I tend to agree. I think the lone mitigating factor has always been the projects. The views and weather are good. The proximity to downtown is good. Caltran has a station there. And now you can walk to the 3rd st line. 18th street keeps getting better. The Whole Foods that went in was sorely needed, and that place is always packed.
The projects are what have held it back, somewhat. A lot of the people who live there think that's a good thing. They don't want it to be Noe Valley. I have a friend who works in nonprofit housing development who insists that they will be razed within the next several years. Last time I looked into it, that project seemed to be stalled. They're not in good structural shape, tho. It stands to reason that they will be coming down sooner or later.
Posted by: anonn at March 25, 2010 11:33 AM
Speaking of home ATMs, here's another one involving a senior citizen (again, health issues, unscrupulous MBs, or children could be involved). There were a couple of refies earlier this decade, spouse passed away, and then a final Wachovia refi in Feb. 2008 (good timing!) for $800k. Taken back by the bank for $867,429 on Feb. 22. Oh, and the tax basis for 391 29th Avenue (1,880sq.ft.) -- $109,159.
Posted by: EBGuy at March 25, 2010 2:11 PM
The sale of 704 Wisconsin closed escrow on 4/15 with a reported contract price of $850,000 ($571 per square foot). Once again, foreclosed upon this past January with what appears to have been $1,049,621 of mortgage debt outstanding.
Posted by: SocketSite at April 21, 2010 4:28 PM