1893 San Jose Avenue Living
As we wrote this past January:

Having been “thoroughly remodeled,” the single-family home at 1893 San Jose Avenue sold for $1,100,000 in March of 2007 financed with a first mortgage for $880,000. From the listing at the time: “This is more house than you ever imagined you could afford.”

Taken back by the bank three months ago with no bidders at $560,000 in cash on the courthouse steps, the four-bedroom Mission Terrace home is back on the MLS and listed for $699,900 (36 percent below 2007) with possession at close of escrow.

The sale of 1893 San Jose Avenue closed escrow today with a reported contract price of $723,800. That’s right, it’s yet another “over asking” sale, this time by $23,980 (3 percent). At the same time, that’s still $376,120 (34 percent) under its 2007 comp setting sale price, a tidbit that’s less likley to be touted in an industry newsletter or press release.
A Bit Of Listing Irony And Circa 2007 Foreshadowing [SocketSite]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by R

    Undoubtedly RfR will jump on and call me a realtor in his special disjointed and rambling manner, but someone paid $1.1 for a place on San Jose?
    Bubble or not, as far as I can tell from Redfin*, that’s the highest priced ever for a SFH on San Jose in Mission Terrace by a a couple hundred grand. Hope the house was nice.
    *Please correct me if I’m wrong, Redfin doesn’t make it super easy to search a large area.

  2. Posted by lol

    That’s the power of cash in a nutshell. No cash bidders at 560K when the place was actually worth 30% more on the open market (targeting working stiff borrowers). Someone with that kind of cash probably missed out on a very decent flip.

  3. Posted by ReadingForRealtors

    The Soothing Song of Realty
    lost their down payment
    guess R E Really! goes down
    well, here’s a haiku

  4. Posted by [anon.ed]

    San Jose, one point
    one nobody before and
    nobody after

  5. Posted by ReadingForRealtors

    funny how peak price
    greater than all the prices
    before and after

  6. Posted by anon.ed

    Exactly. Kinda
    Like “comp setting” ? Really?
    In hindsight that’s wrong.

  7. Posted by anon

    right, the sale of a similar home in the area is never used by ever-so-honest realtors if that “comp” even appeared to be at a higher price than a reasonable person would pay. Honest realtors only use the LOW comps. LOL! What a joke! “Overpaid” again. Prices haven’t really fallen in SF at all if you ignore all those who “overpaid.”

  8. Posted by El Bombero

    Can’t believe someone was dumb enough to pay 700k+ for that, but then again this is sf. The $1.1m sale in 2007? Laugh-worthy imo.

  9. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    haiku cutting phrase
    long sentence chopped up just spam
    please let that soak in

  10. Posted by tipster

    Best SS headline ever.

  11. Posted by katdip

    Have to say I called it or undercalled it. I said it would go for $650-700K, even if it had problems. Houses in Mission Terrace have certainly fallen from the peak, but prices have plateaued between $600-700K for decent places.

  12. Posted by bg

    There’s a sniff of desperation in the air, especially for anything family friendly. Seeing $100k overbids on already suspicious asking prices around Bernal and even some of the sketchier bits of the Mission.
    Now if only I could figure out if my recent purchase was “smart” or “desperate” 🙂

  13. Posted by tipster

    ^Funny, according to redfin, Bernal median sold price per square foot is down 33% this year. The median price is down 22%. February is a bad month to tell, but if you just look at the graphs, prices look fairly flat.
    Facts. Go figure.
    It *is* an election year, however. Hard to imagine prices falling in an election year.

  14. Posted by R

    Yeah! According to Tippy’s link, sold price per square foot plummeted from $566 on Jan 2 to $554 on March 12.

  15. Posted by Dan

    The Bernal median that was down 22% or 33%PSF was Feb ’12 vs Feb ’11. If you look at the chart, you see that this was based on only 6 sales in Feb. ’11, resulting in the Feb. ’11 median last year being midway between the 3rd and 4th most expensive house to sell that month, about $700PSF. This is not representative of the typical month’s price per square foot. Even though this February’s prices were lower, it did include a cottage that sold for over $1.4 million, more than $200k over asking. So it was not all bad news in Bernal.

  16. Posted by bg

    Most of the activity in Bernal over the 4 months I was looking were in the extreme SE quadrant, which is not nearly as desirable as the north or west slopes. 84 Powers (NE) sold at $100k over asking recently, as an example.

  17. Posted by Dan

    I think that is 21 Powers Ave, a condo in NW Bernal 2 doors up from Mission Street, that just sold for $840k, $105k over asking, and $302k over its last selling price in 2003!

  18. Posted by R

    Wow, color me shocked. Looks to be an apple. Not sure why someone would pay $840k for a condo steps from Mission, but hey, it’s a free country.

  19. Posted by bg

    Arg, 21 Powers it is. Too many open houses…
    It was a nice unit, full detached from the other unit on the property: but $840k nice? Surprised they got an appraisal that high. There were 6 other offers on it as well, rumor has it.

  20. Posted by Dan

    Yes, looks to be an apple, with price up close to 60% since 2003. Shuttle bus effect? Royal Cuckoo, Ichi, and Locavore nearby?

  21. Posted by ReadingForRealtors

    “Yes, looks to be an apple, w”
    Could be a glitch But The Property Shark has the 2003 buyer on the assessment roll 11/9/1923 for the same place
    Weird At the very least

  22. Posted by R

    You think that might be a glitch? Or maybe the 2003 buyer is a vampire and was around to buy this place in 1923?

  23. Posted by ReadingForRealtors

    “Or maybe the 2003 buyer is a vampire ”
    People do leave properties to theyre kids
    and all kinds of other weird interfamily stuff
    If you use The Internet Im sure you can find stories of non-vampires living past 80 years

  24. Posted by anon.ed

    You can also find
    Trolls giving life to nonsense
    To obfuscate

  25. Posted by tipster

    According to the Federal Vampire and Zombie Agency, vampires can live to over 550 years of age, so you could see the same property turning over to the same person literally hundreds of years later, if merely by chance.
    A good link of the various scientifically verified biological changes of vampires (along with photos of actual studies of their features, such as brain scans and thermal imaging) is here:
    “For a more detailed account, try two classic texts: Henry Gray’s Anatomy of the Vampire and Vesalius’ Five Books on the Structure of the Vampire Body.”

  26. Posted by lol

    Do you get prop 13 benefits using “bloodline”? Say you’re 540 y-o and you turn a 20 y-o for posterity’s sake. Can that 20 y-o in turn inherit prop 13 valuation? Imagine the effective tax rate in 2552!
    I guess the demographics is still too limited to be that influential. But I am certain an activist or a former supe busybody (Pesking, Daly?) could ride this all the way to City Hall just to score career points.

  27. Posted by Dan

    The condo was built in 1997, and Propertyshark also lists the previous owner, before 2003. I didn’t see any reference to 1923.
    (Otherwise, presumably, the undead could keep their real estate valuations forever, unless someday Prop. 13 is overturned, or the state of California ceases to exist.)

  28. Posted by ReadingForRealtors

    “I didn’t see any reference to 1923.”
    Click “See more about 21 Powers Ave’s ownership.”
    Then “1 similar record found”
    Ive seen weird family transactions before
    Or this could just be a glitch or a typo on the year
    “Do you get prop 13 benefits using “bloodline”?”
    Just dont rent to a vampire
    Anyone over 200 is a super-double protected tenant
    If You want to evict, you have to give them your first born!

  29. Posted by R

    Read! Really!
    This place did not exist in 1923. It’s a ‘glitch’ not some weird family transaction that invalidates the the 2003 sale, which is what you’re hoping for.
    Read! Really!

  30. Posted by ReadingForRealtors

    ” It’s a ‘glitch’ not some weird family transaction that invalidates the the 2003 sale, which is what you’re hoping for.”
    Ive been shown “comps” that on a closer look have transfers with same last name, family trust, owns next door address,…
    Always check your Realtor!!!
    “This place did not exist in 1923.”
    The land did
    Never seen a 1923 entry before but unless you have a real point
    take it up with the Shark!

  31. Posted by R

    Grasping! Straws! Really!

  32. Posted by [anon.ed]

    internet only
    people like to talk about
    internet stuff, R

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *