The reader’s question: What happened to the small two-bedroom condo at 3919 21st Street which was purchased for $645,000 in December 2006, returned to the market asking $669,000 in early 2010, and then fell into default shortly thereafter?
Our answer: With $560,561 owed on the 2006 vintage first for $516,000, and not counting the 2006 vintage second for $32,500, five days ago the Castro garden condo was taken back by the bank with no bidders at $550,000 cash.
Love the site, but I have to say, more often than not, the writing is so convoluted. Is there a reason for this? Brand identification? Tone? A metaphor for how muddied data is in the real estate market?
“With $560,561 owed on the 2006 vintage first for $516,000, and not counting the 2006 vintage second for $32,500, five days ago the Castro garden condo was taken back by the bank with no bidders at $550,000 cash.”
“2006 vintage first for” ?!?!
ugh, ignore the “through”.
First mortgage, received in 2006, as well as a second mortgage that same year. I think this is wrong, though (points to you!), since the sale supposedly happened in December 2006. I suppose stranger things have happened.
I’ve seen this place. It didn’t sell because it was marketed as two bedrooms. It is one bedroom and a small bonus room off the kitchen that could be an office or a nursery but no way could it be a bedroom.
People needing two actual bedrooms came to open houses and left laughing or disgusted by the misleading marketing.
If you examine the full history of this place, it was marketed in the past as one bedroom.
It’s actually a nice little place, with a fireplace and a view of downtown from the living room. It needs a new roof.