March 16, 2012

It Was Indeed

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]

First Published: March 16, 2012 1:00 PM

Comments from "Plugged In" Readers

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.

Posted by: R at March 16, 2012 1:33 PM

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.

Posted by: lol at March 16, 2012 1:51 PM

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

Posted by: ReadingForRealtors at March 16, 2012 1:58 PM

San Jose, one point
one nobody before and
nobody after

Posted by: [anon.ed] at March 16, 2012 2:30 PM

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

Posted by: ReadingForRealtors at March 16, 2012 2:47 PM

Exactly. Kinda
Like "comp setting" ? Really?
In hindsight that's wrong.

Posted by: anon.ed at March 16, 2012 3:17 PM

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."

Posted by: anon at March 16, 2012 3:24 PM

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.

Posted by: El Bombero at March 16, 2012 3:27 PM

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

Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at March 16, 2012 3:34 PM

Best SS headline ever.

Posted by: tipster at March 18, 2012 10:03 AM

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.

Posted by: katdip at March 19, 2012 9:05 AM

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" :)

Posted by: bg at March 19, 2012 10:12 AM

^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.

http://www.redfin.com/neighborhood/202/CA/San-Francisco/Bernal-Heights

Facts. Go figure.

It *is* an election year, however. Hard to imagine prices falling in an election year.

Posted by: tipster at March 19, 2012 11:20 AM

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

Posted by: R at March 19, 2012 11:52 AM

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.

Posted by: Dan at March 19, 2012 12:47 PM

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.

Posted by: bg at March 20, 2012 2:16 PM

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!

Posted by: Dan at March 20, 2012 6:36 PM

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.

Posted by: R at March 21, 2012 8:39 AM

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.

Posted by: bg at March 21, 2012 9:38 AM

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

Posted by: Dan at March 21, 2012 10:46 AM

"Yes, looks to be an apple, w"

Hmmmmm
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

Posted by: ReadingForRealtors at March 21, 2012 12:10 PM

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

Posted by: R at March 21, 2012 1:30 PM

"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

Posted by: ReadingForRealtors at March 21, 2012 2:25 PM

You can also find
Trolls giving life to nonsense
To obfuscate

Posted by: anon.ed at March 21, 2012 2:44 PM

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:

http://www.fvza.org/science2.html

"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."

Posted by: tipster at March 21, 2012 3:03 PM

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.

Posted by: lol at March 21, 2012 4:04 PM

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.)

Posted by: Dan at March 21, 2012 5:27 PM

"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!

Posted by: ReadingForRealtors at March 21, 2012 5:40 PM

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!

Posted by: R at March 21, 2012 6:02 PM

" 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!

Posted by: ReadingForRealtors at March 21, 2012 6:25 PM

Grasping! Straws! Really!

Posted by: R at March 21, 2012 6:49 PM

internet only
people like to talk about
internet stuff, R

Posted by: [anon.ed] at March 21, 2012 7:27 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:

« From Semi-Charmed Life To Renovated Condo At 1254 Washington | HOME | Two-Year Payout For Evicted Tenants Accelerated And Approved »