San Francisco foreclosure activity as mapped by Trulia
As a reader points out, over the past two months the number of San Francisco properties in some stage of foreclosure as mapped by Trulia has increased from 215 to 409.
And while the majority of mapped properties remain in District 10 (and at this point have only received notices of default), we will point out a noticeable shift of activity to the southwest (i.e., not Bayview).
Current Foreclosure Activity In San Francisco As Mapped By Trulia [SocketSite]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Dude tracks properties in every stage as well, and shows a higher number of properties in some stage of foreclosure than trulia does. Not sure if they’re overstating/double-counting or what, but looking at the two maps side by side makes for a ‘colorful’ contrast:

  2. Posted by Larry

    Anybody have luck buying foreclosure property in the city? Would love to get my hands on a nice SFH in Pac Heights if possible at a foreclosed price. thnx!

  3. Posted by fluj

    Speaking as someone who is in the midst of a short sale with a supposed foreclosure “sale” looming, I can say that buying something on the courthouse steps is gonna usually be pretty tough to pull off. Generally speaking, that is. If the property is worthwhile there are going to be people on all sides working to salvage some sort of deal. Banks these days are very difficult to get on the phone, and are slow to process information. Meanwhile, the “sale date” approaches. But the banks will magically find impetus at the 11th hour …

  4. Posted by Satchel

    I’m glad to see my favorite ugly little foreclosure is still on the map:
    It’s now down to 17% below the price it sold for in ’06, before it was renovated. Can you imagine the fool who thought that POS was “worth” $770K??
    BTW, the house right next door (the green one visible in the picture) was bought for $650K in ’05, and it’s no better than the ugly blue one. This whole area in Sunnyside is heading for a 30-40% decline. Nothing is going to stop that. Nothing.

  5. Posted by Satchel

    Sorry, fat finger – I wouldn’t want to deny SS readers easy access to this gem:
    (I love the glimpse of the GG Bridge behind the used house salesman!)

  6. Posted by mktwatcher

    “Can you imagine the fool who thought that POS was “worth” $770K??”
    As somebody who lost a considerable sum in tech stocks in 2000, I have some sypmpathy for these people. It’s just that when I started to hear about housing that “it’s a new paradigm, it never goes down, you have to get in” it all sounded so familiar that I refused to bite.

  7. Posted by Trip

    This does break my heart. My kids’ piano teacher and her partner bought a little 3-BR house right in the thick of this area (a little west of Bayview) in fall 2005 for $780k. They earn about $100,000 between them and put 5% down — literally their entire life savings. It was their dream to own their own home. They had a 2/28 neg am I/O loan that started to reset about 6 months ago. They could barely make the initial payments but now cannot keep up at all. They are renting out their own BR and one of the others to backpackers, etc. while they sleep in the 3rd tiny BR, and even with that they are not going to make it. Meanwhile, nearly identical homes on their block have recently sold for about $500k. The stress they are going through is horrible.
    Of course, when they bought they were told that prices in SF only go up, not to worry because they could always refinance, etc. They obviously have to take responsibility for their situation, but this has been devastating. It should never have happened.

  8. Posted by anon

    @ Satchel – there you go again. Stop being so smug. I am sure the listing agent would appreciate being called a real estate agent or realtor. You are so annoying. Really.

  9. Posted by fluj

    Satchel, the certainty with which you predict a 30 to 40 percent slide is fairly prideful. Why do you fancy yourself such an expert real estate prognosticator? Thirty to forty, for certain! You heard it here first folks!

  10. Posted by tipster

    Think about the 5 other families who were devastated to learn that they lost out on the home that your kid’s piano teacher stole out from under them with a creative loan they were not going to be able to afford.
    That caused at least some of those other families to throw their own financially responsible attitudes and pay more by getting a loan they were unable to afford.
    So your sad sack piano teachers harmed a lot of people in their quest to pay too much for a home they couldn’t afford. I don’t feel sorry for them one bit.
    If the price of that house had gone up by $200K, they would have thumbed their noses as all of us as they took their money tax free. But now that things didn’t work out for them, the tax payers are supposed to feel sorry for them? Puleeze. If they had focused on the consequences of their actions, they wouldn’t be in this situation.
    They were as reckless as a speeding teenager, and although it’s sad to see a teenager in a wheelchair, it’s just as sad to see all the people on crutches the teenager hit on their way to ending up in the wheelchair.
    The sooner these people let that house go, the better it will be for everyone. They are living in a house they can’t afford, and never could. The government is only too happy to help them continue to make $5000/month payments on 5 cent tulip bulbs. They can be my guest.

  11. Posted by anon

    “This does break my heart. My kids’ piano teacher and her partner bought a little 3-BR house right in the thick of this area (a little west of Bayview) in fall 2005 for $780k.”
    It broke my heart, too, when I was outbid 20 times in the fall of 2005 after I decided not to take that 5% down interest only loan…….
    Poor suckers!

  12. Posted by Mac

    The plague is spreading west. It is only a matter of time before it starts heading north as well.

  13. Posted by Dude

    @ Trip-
    The home buying decision is part financial, part emotional. Sometimes emotions dominate and bad decisions ensue. Regarding your friend, they may be best served by walking away.
    I say this in all seriousness. Forgetting about buy vs. rent, let’s look at just the nominal numbers. Let’s say market conditions improve overnight we’re back to a “normal” market tomorrow, and their house begins to appreciate by 3-5% a year again (which is average here in SF). If they’re $280K upside down, it’ll take them over 11 years to get back to $780K, longer if they want to make money on the place. And the market isn’t getting fixed tomorrow.
    So while it’s valiant for them to try and hold on, odds are they don’t want to live in the same place for 15 more years. Giving the house up may actually be in their best financial interests over the long-term.
    And while the comments made by tipster and anon are pretty callous, IMO, I have to admit I agree with them conceptually. Nothing against your friend, but a lot of today’s foreclosure “victims” would be beating their chests, counting their bubble equity, and laughing at the “bitter renters” if the bubble were still inflating rather than deflating.

  14. Posted by Satchel

    “This does break my heart.”
    I actually agree a bit with Trip here, but for reasons related to my characteristic smugness of course. Most people are not financially literate. Most are not very smart, to tell the truth. Practically no one has a systematic way of evaluating asset prices.
    The banks, the REIC, the Fed, and all the Wall Street guys know this. It’s all a game. It really is to them – take it from me (I know this is true, don’t ask me how, but I really do).
    Most of the anger should be directed towards the system that inflated these prices well beyond fundamentals (and, BTW, it did not start with this bubble – more like the 1930s, with a dramatic ramping following the credit inflation that began with the first inklings of widespread trading of mortgages in the early 1980s).
    Trip, about your kids’ piano teacher. Give them the sensible advice. Sequester what assets they have (sounds like not too much) into bankruptcy remote vehicles. Stop paying the mortgage immediately, and kick out the backpackers. After 6 to 9 months of nonpayment, go the Chapter 7 route, and delay the eviction. Live rent free for 12-18 months. Start over, and by that time I’ll bet almost anything that Hillary (or Barack, who knows? But doubtful….) will have championed a “Revitalize America” bill that will – among its many foolish attributes – “erase” all negative credit events from the period 2003-2008. Anyway, that’s what I think….
    I know it sounds harsh, but this really has all been a game. Stiffing the banks is now just a business decision for a population that has been hoodwinked in what has to be the largest financial fraud in history.

  15. Posted by Trip

    Tipster, anon 1:51 — I don’t disagree with you at all. I’m not saying our kids’ teacher is blameless or a victim. And I would be the last person to advocate for a taxpayer bailout of any of the responsible players (lenders, buyers, etc. — indeed, many of them should be prosecuted, not bailed out). But I’m still saddened by the fact that so many people have really been crushed by this mess — including those who were priced out by the bubble. I’ve been saying here since day one that it does matter if you buy at the peak of a bubble no matter what the long term trends — it can be devastating.
    I’ve told this couple the smart move would be to walk away and rent some place and use the $3000/mo they would save to rebuild their nest egg — would only take about a year. But they tell me they “could never do that . . . ” Music to the banking industry’s ears.

  16. Posted by Satchel

    GREAT to see you back!
    “Satchel, the certainty with which you predict a 30 to 40 percent slide is fairly prideful. Why do you fancy yourself such an expert real estate prognosticator?”
    I’m pretty sure about this. I’ve analyzed asset prices for more than 15 years. That’s how I’ve made my living, and I retired at age 32. I love to figure out asset values. It’s what I do. It’s really ALL I do! (now that sounds pathetic, doesn’t it? but we all have our obsessions I guess!).
    The house I was referencing is now being listed at 17% below what it sold for last year. The house next door (591 Joost) was being offered for sale for $900K before being taken off this past fall. (Google it and you can see.) They are basically the same house, and of course in the same location. That $900K wishing price means that a realtor – a so-called “expert” – took it upon himself to expend the money and energy to list and hold open houses. He must have thought at least something near to $900K was reasonable. And he had access to all the comps! Now, the house next door (414 Foerster) is in foreclosure, and is sitting unsold after 2 price reductions at 29% below the wishing price of 591 Joost just 6 months ago.
    Only a 30-40% decline is being charitable. Go walk around those streets, look at the deferred maintenance, the numbers of cars in the street (signifying illegal apartments), the general condition of the properties.
    As I’ve often said, not all neighborhoods will go down the same percentage. But this one is going down 30-40%, and it could be worse. I promise!

  17. Posted by badlydrawnbear

    it is easy to predict a 30-40% drop because that is what it will take for prices to return to levels supported by basic economic fundementals. Check these four affordability indicators for the Bay Area. They are all 30-40% above historic levels.
    Now there are other options for correcting the market, salaries could double overnight or we could enter a period of hyper-inflation. Unfortunately the most likely outcome is that prices will drop back to levels supported by wages which is 30-40% below current prices.
    Now since this housing price corrections tend to play out over several years the nominal price may not drop 30-40% but once inflation is factored in you will see that prices did, in fact, drop 30-40% from the peak.
    All bubbles burst, all markets correct.

  18. Posted by Trip

    Whether it’s 30-40%, or 20%, or 50%, the writing is so clearly and boldly on the wall that we are just seeing the beginnings of major declines, that I don’t think the extreme drop in sales volume can cause any head scratching. I feel bad for our piano teacher, but anyone buying in this environment who cries to me three years from now about their losses will get no sympathy whatsoever.

  19. Posted by mrbogue

    another thing about the foerster house. if you check out the past owners (who bought it and lost it at $770k), they have a house in Antioch that they bought in 2004 for $450k, with an 80/20 loan zero down ($360+$90)
    pretty scary times we live in…

  20. Posted by fluj

    Your favorite anecdote, the little Foerster house, is an anomaly. Just look at it. 770K, for that? Even at the highest heights the neighborhood was hard pressed to support much more than 500 a foot. Cue, “Typical realtor spin. They PAID TOO MUCH” chorus.

  21. Posted by Dude

    414 Foerster is an ugly place. But check out 436 Edna, few blocks down the street (my favorite Sunnyside foreclosure). Bought in July of ’05 for $550K. Owner decides to cash in, and lists it for $889K. Supposedly it sold, according to this:
    Next “investor” ends up in foreclosure. Relisted again for $699K, or 21% below previous sale. Doesn’t sell. Discounted and relisted again for $599K, or 32% below the peak.
    Last I checked, it was supposed to go to auction at the end of January, but somebody might have bought it before that.
    I get this data from
    which may or may not be accurate. But there are a lot more reds than greens in most neighborhoods.

  22. Posted by Satchel

    An “anomaly”? The guy RIGHT NEXT DOOR to 414 Foerster paid $650K in 2005! The official square footage of that house (591 Joost) is a little more than 1,100 square feet!! So, at least “officially” 591 Joost was about $590 per square foot in 2005. That’s THREE YEARS AGO.
    If you go around the corner and up the hill a few blocks from 414 Foerster (in no way a better neighborhood BTW), you will come across the sad story of 149 Mangels:
    Some poor sap picked up that house in 2006 for $525K in a bidding war. It was in such poor condition, that it was UNSAFE to enter. 780 square feet, and Zillow still has the value at $675K (even though when the poor sap owner jacked up the house, it split in half, and of course the lot has been vacant for months!). Had he only waited….., but I’m sure his agent told him that it would go up, up, up!! and that if he didn’t buy RIGHT THEN he’d be priced out forever.
    “Anomaly”?? You realtors are hysterical!

  23. Posted by eddy

    Everyone should re-read this comment:
    Posted by: Satchel at February 7, 2008 2:25 PM
    It very well sums up the best strategy for anyone significantly upside down on their home. I swear I read it and thought that I posted the same comment myself it so accurately represents what I believe to be a foregone conclusion. When people start losing their jobs, which is what happens in recessions, they will have no choice but to stop making their payments. The ‘smart’ ones would just stop making payments now and get bankruptcy protection. The goverment will eventually bail you out.
    Oh wait… didn’t the government change the rules of bankruptcy protection a few years ago? maybe someone saw this tide coming???

  24. Posted by fluj

    Satchel, the smaller a place the more it’s gonna be per foot. The larger, generally, the less. I’ve been following this very neighborhood. Paying over 600 per foot is really, really high for 4-H. The average price per foot is like 500. Why are you disputing this?

  25. Posted by Satchel

    No dispute buddy! I bet that $500/sq ft is OK TODAY for 4-H (even given the limitations and distortions regarding the square foot numbers in light of all the unwarranted additions. etc.). But these examples I’ve given are in 4-S – not as nice as 4-H I’m sure you will agree? And, of course, nothing changes the facts that these 4-S houses were selling for more in 2007, and in 2006, and now probably in 2005 as well.
    A year or two ago, under even $600K for an SFH was UNHEARD of in 4-S (look at the 149 Mangels shack, which sold as a disaster fixer for $525K, or $670 sq ft.). Now, $600K in 4-S is getting more difficult to attain, and for poor little 414 Foerster, it’s race is run, and now it is about to start sinking into the valuation oblivion it so richly deserves (it may attract a knifecatcher or two along the way…). If I am right, by next year or so, around these 4-S streets we are talking about, $600K will be like a dream, a mirage…

  26. Posted by fluj

    Yeah, I guess the neighborhood designation changes about a block up the street or so. I was wrong about that. But I think Sunnyside and Miraloma Park are going to be pretty comparable, really. Maybe Miraloma Park trumps Sunnyside due to views. Sunnyside addresses can walk to Glen Park and BART, tho.
    Frankly, many of us were really surprised at the Sunnyside spike when it happened. But then when you backed up from it, you could kind of see what it was … it was people priced out of Noe, Bernal and Glen Park. Whether or not it will take a big hit is unknown. Lots of capital came in, and it is a very family-type of neighborhood. The two or three anecdotes I know of in that area are going to be sticking around for some time as they have babies and stuff.
    Here’s what has happened in Sunnyside since the change in the weather, August’s credit crunch:
    17 sales, averaging 577 a foot. But if you throw out the top and bottom sales prices, 279 Monterey @ 508K and 745 Detroit at 1.4445M, it’s 15 sales since then averaging 592 a foot. There are also 4 active, two active contingency, and one pending property in Sunnyside.
    At a glance it looks like what it has been. Fairly attractive to folks priced out of other nearby neighborhoods, the sub 850K crowd who doesn’t want to be in the Sunset.

  27. Posted by Laker

    Have you guys looked around in the city? There’s so little inventory, and what is available is getting snapped up in 2 seconds. Cheapest house for sale in D7 for example is $2.85 mil. That’s not even close to affordable for someone making $500,000k.

  28. Posted by Anon

    Laker, so little inventory and getting snapped up? Are you serious? Inventory is up and nothing is moving at any price level. Have you seen the sales figures for the last couple months?

  29. Posted by fluj

    Yeah, sure. “Nothing is selling.” Actually 114 SFRs have sold so far this year. They averaged 58 DOM, and there are surprisingly few big ticket sales so far. 12 for over 2 million. Eight for over $2.5M.

  30. Posted by FSBO

    I tend to agree with all of these observations. The active inventory is up (1,142 at this moment) – but there’s probably not much of what a lot of us are looking for. The sales volume is clearly down. The Jan 08 count is now at 211 units – down 35-40% from recent years. (And, unless there are some further late reportings, it will be the all-time monthly low for the 1993-2008 period.) We’re only one week into February, but I think we’ll be down by at least the same magnitude by month end.
    But stuff is selling – and some of it fast. 124 San Aleso just sold for $2.1M ($150K over list) with a DOM of just 2. It had previously sold in 2003 for $1.3M (and it looked the same back then). 66 Carmelita sold for $1.875M ($80K over list) in less than a month. It was pretty tricked out, but still this is $850 per sf. There are still a few (and maybe only a few) willing to step up and buy at these prices.

  31. Posted by Satchel

    I was SHOCKED to see 124 San Aleso sell so fast, and it made me rethink whether the average District 4 house has gone down as much as I think it has since late 2006! But my wife tells me it was renovated since last sale, but it never really went open house, so I didn’t see it.
    Right next door to 124 San Aleso (110 San Aleso) failed to sell after an extensive remodel at around $1.7MM and it’s roughly comparable from what I can tell.
    Right next door to 124 San Aleso is 598 Darien, a very large house (larger than 124 San Aleso) with the same views that has been vacant and for rent for over six months (they are asking $4.8K per month – good luck).
    Around the corner from 124 San Aleso, 201 West Gate finally sold for $1.2MM after being reduced from $1.7MM (30% reduction). Right next door to 201 West Gate is 215 West Gate – which is similar size to San Aleso, but not as nice IMO – and it looks like it might be under contract. Its last listing price was $1.7MM, reduced from 2.0MM a few months ago.
    Like I said, though, I am shocked to see 124 San Aleso sell so quick. My guess is that when the owner shows up and moves in, the family will not speak English (no racism here – it’s happening a lot at open houses around me lately – my wife has tried to strike up casual conversations once in a while with others, and gets the vacant stare, before someone in their party interrupts and says, “She – no English!”. This has happened twice in the last month).

  32. Posted by fluj

    Yeah, and maybe you’re just plain ole wrong Satchel. Stop to consider that for a moment. Wait. Think “124 Aleso. 124 Aleso.” Take a deep breath or three. OK. You are now clear to resume your doomsday forecasts.
    Just kidding. I don’t know how accurate anecdotes from your neighborhood and surrounding could ever really be, whether good or bad. The homes are very large, very residential in feel, and can differ so tremendously lot to lot. Often a house will have twice the square footage of its next door neighbor. Look at Merced Manor. That neighborhood has always been its own thing and is probably always going to be its own thing.

  33. Posted by FSBO

    Satchel – I thought you might be familar with 124 San Aleso. I now see that they did pull quite a few permits since 2003 so they obviously spent some $$$s on renovations. The photos from the 2003 listing didn’t look that much different from the latest though. I wasn’t trying to cherry pick a recent example of houses going for over the list price. So far this month, there has been just 10 SFH sales and the few pricier ones ($2M+/-) seemed to have moved quickly. I did find it somewhat surprising that a buyer (in this market) would throw down an extra $150K over list price so quickly – particularly with some of the nearby comps that you pointed out. Maybe it is the cheaper dollar.

  34. Posted by Trip

    I don’t think Anon 7:22 meant that literally “nothing” is selling — i.e. not a single dwelling. But 104 SFRs and 107 condos/TICs (+ or -) is extremely slow. As FSBO notes, the slowest since the last big housing decline. And inventory is up over last year, so one cannot reasonably conclude that the sales decline is driven by a drop in supply. I suppose one might subjectively argue that nothing “good” is available, but one could just as subjectively argue that “good” properties are sitting or being reduced in price.

  35. Posted by fluj

    He or she didn’t say “selling” either. My fault. It was actually “nothing is moving at any price level.” It was hyperbolic, sure. It was also quite false.
    I knew someone would come through with a YoY qualification. Hey, that’s fine. It’s true. But broad statements like the one made by Anon 7:22 are not helpful or accurate especially considering it was a response to Laker — someone seemingly in the market.

  36. Posted by Trip

    Fair enough. But Laker’s comment that “what is available is getting snapped up in 2 seconds” is demonstrably untrue as well.

  37. Posted by Satchel

    No worries. I ALWAYS stop to think about how I might be wrong. That’s what a good trader does! Whenever new evidence comes in, I consider it. Any new argument – same thing. 124 San Aleso is very interesting. It’s making me reconsider what I think I know. I also have an alternate theory. That is, maybe they truly OVERPAID?? That’s possible. It sometimes happens. You yourself have noted this many times:
    Remember 414 Foerster from this thread above? Here you are:
    “Your favorite anecdote, the little Foerster house, is an anomaly. Just look at it. 770K, for that?”
    Posted by: fluj at February 7, 2008 4:15 PM
    Sounds like an overpayment situation doesn’t it?
    Or, how about this Ashbury Heights gem that caused the owners to eat a $600K excrement sandwich:
    Here’s what you said there:
    “Because I’ll tell you this. They paid $3.5M for a place without views and with smallish bedrooms. They tried to sell it in a year with no upgrades. Look it up. Like I said, IN ANY MARKET THAT MAKES LITTLE SENSE.”
    Guess they overpaid, huh?
    Who really knows what the future will hold for 124 San Aleso. Overbidding even before an open house when some nearby comps would seem to imply lower valuation raises some flags, that’s all!
    I promise, though. When it’s time for me to get a house here, I’ll look you up, and you will see I am actually pretty rational!

  38. Posted by fluj

    touche! Sure, people overpay all the time. I know a Noe house that just sold where the buyers bid against themselves to the tune of 150K. Maybe they overpaid at Aleso too. (You know, another thing about that Foerster house is that it really looks el cheap-o. Concrete front yard. Weird blue color, etc. etc.)

  39. Posted by Foolio

    How do you say “San Francisco real estate never goes down” in Francais?

  40. Posted by fluj

    “San Francisco real estate never goes down” — yeah, I never said that in any language. But I actually studied intensive French one summer at Johns Hopkins before spending the first semester of my senior year in college in Brussels, Belgium. Unfortunately, tho my French is decent, I didn’t become fluent. Brussels is a crappy place to learn French. It’s already bilingual (Flemish & French), the EU is there, NATO, and consequently tons of people speak English. It isn’t like France that way.

  41. Posted by satchelfan

    Awww…let’s leave fluj alone. I think his intentions are good. But don’t you all agree, most people overpaid for their homes the last few years?
    Satchel – SO is also in the securities industry. We’re with you on this one. Housing is going to take a beating. And no fluj, we are not bitter renters.

  42. Posted by Trip

    New report shows that SF prices are dropping faster than anywhere else in the country now (at least for the last few months). “The largest monthly decline of 3.6% occurred in San Francisco. Over the three month period, listing prices in San Francisco have fallen by 6.1% from $708,551 to $665,100.” It’s looking more and more clear that most people overpaid for their homes even a couple months ago, not just over the last few years. There is a reason for the extreme drop in volume.

  43. Posted by sanfrantim

    trip, do you know what areas are included as “San Francisco” in that data? It clearly includes much more than the city (inventory = 13,000 units).

  44. Posted by Dan

    From the article, the numbers reflect listing prices for single family homes in the SF MSA– so the data is dominated by single family home listings in the East Bay.

  45. Posted by anonrockridgelover

    So which is it? Are we a region of 7 million people as one poster in particular keeps reminding us, or are we a small city that is “different” and is not in any way related to drops in prices in all other regions of the Bay Area? I fail to understand why if prices are falling on the other side of the bridge that will not in turn change the market in the city? Sure, some of us would rather live in the city, but at what cost? I can get on BART in Rockridge and be in the Financial District in a shorter amount of time than it would take me on MUNI from the Sunset. I am currently looking in the Rockridge-Oakland Hills area and it is getting close to where I can buy a very nice home for what I should be able to sell my 2bd in 94123 for. I would much rather have a craftsman home with a yard, and walk to Oliveto, Peets, Acme Bread, Market Hall and Bart. If I had children, I would much rather have a home in the East Bay, than a 1bd in SOMA.

  46. Posted by Trip

    Yes, I should have noted this is the MSA, not only SF. I think this uses the same MSA as Case Shiller. As anonrockridgelover points out, SF is just a part of a larger market. I’ve never seen any evidence from which one could conclude that SF sales and price trends do not follow those of neighboring counties.

  47. Posted by fluj

    Yeah you have, Trip. You just choose not to give them any validity. SF has about as much in common with Contra Costa as Manhattan does with Jersey west of Trenton. Which is to say, nothing.

  48. Posted by Trip

    Fluj, you notably sidestep the issue. Give me some numbers. Anything other than “San Francisco is different.” I’ve never seen anything showing that trends in real estate — price increases or decreases — in SF move any differently from those in its neighboring counties. While the month-to-month swings might vary a bit, SF follows right along with the rest.
    If you look at data from the last 20 years, SF MSA trends pretty much mirror the nation as a whole. Yet you’re going to argue that SF has little to no correlation with its own MSA? If you’re going to promote such a far-out proposition, you have to have some hard facts to back it up. Non sequiturs such as “It’s like Manhattan to Jersey west of Trenton” don’t cut it.

  49. Posted by Dan

    “I’ve never seen anything showing that trends in real estate — price increases or decreases — in SF move any differently from those in its neighboring counties.”
    The changes in price and in number of foreclosures have been quite different in the East Bay counties than in SF.
    I’m not saying that the East Bay declines can’t affect SF prices, or that national trends don’t affect SF, or that SF prices can’t go down, too. But so far, the downturn has been much more pronounced in the East Bay, especially in places like Antioch. Any data which predominately reflects single family home sales in the East Bay is not an accurate measure of the SF market.

  50. Posted by fluj

    You claim to have never seen any examples of it. I would say you actually choose to overlook probably an entire year and a half worth of solid numbers. I’m speaking of 2006 or the first half of 2007. Sonoma, CoCo, etc. prices were steadily falling while SF values were rising. So was Marin. So were parts of San Mateo and Santa Clara. The MSA is a spotty resource, period.

  51. Posted by Satchel

    fluj & Dan,
    A WHOLE 1-1/2 years’ worth of data, huh? (and questionable data at that, because there are numerous instances now of people who have bought in SF – and not just in District 10, although it wouldn’t change the argument one bit – who are now under water.)
    Things do happen slowly in real estate, for a lot of reasons we don’t have to go into here. I would just caution about your ideas of relative strength. After the declines in stocks in July and August 07, a few people noticed that certain tech stocks (RIMM, AAPL, BIDU, GRMN, and of course GOOG, primarily) didn’t seem to go down, but instead were relatively strong and even appreciated! (One of the most beautiful pump-n-dump scams I’ve seen since late 1999/early 2000, BTW.) A lot of fools bought GOOG over $700, AAPL at just about $200, BIDU at more than $350, etc. Seen those charts in January? Total wipeout of all the bubble believers. A thing of sublime beauty if you were on the right side of the trade.
    Assets mean revert. And when they do, all the old relationships between sectors of an asset class reassert themselves. In real estate, by the time you get conclusive proof of this, it is too late to sell, and the losses grow. Look at what I posted about 835 Foerster and 414 Foerster (same street – different neighborhoods – both investment disasters) for some recent for instances.

  52. Posted by fluj

    Look at what Trip said, Satchel. He said he had “never seen it.” Plainly it happened. All right? What you’re arguing was not the argument in question.
    Further, why belittle a year and a half’s time within a what, five year window? 2002-2007? Y’all are a little too disengenuous to take seriously sometimes.

  53. Posted by Satchel

    Awww, let’s cut fluj some slack. He’s almost certainly a young guy (or girl), and hasn’t seen how substitution effects work out over time. Pretty surprising, though, because fluj recognized in this very thread that the spike in Sunnyside/Miraloma Park happened because people were priced out of Bernal and Glen Park, according to fluj. I think that’s probably right. And that’s why Antioch and Tracy and places like that “spiked” (in relation to the nearer suburbs).
    Now, let’s watch the process go into reverse, and we’ll all check back in a few years and find that – whaddaya know? – the relationships between, say, Rockridge and Bernal Heights, or Daly City and Ingleside, or Glen Park and the Sunset, will all be right back around where they were in 1997 or so (with a few minor exceptions, where neighborhoods truly “changed” and the change proves durable).
    fluj, about Miraloma Park, which you are always saying has gone up so much. Here’s some poor schlub who bought an unrenovated property at 835 Foerster (up the street from the ugly blue house that got us all started – but it is a much nicer neighborhood) in 2006 for $950K (using 100% financing):
    (It actually looks a little like that 1420 Douglass Street house that I know you know).
    Unfortunately, it’s not selling – EVEN AFTER RENOVATION, and 1-1/2 years’ worth of supposed appreciation in a neighborhood that you think has done especially well.
    So, the owner has been trying to rent it. He first started at $5.5K. Then a month or so ago, it showed up at wishing rent of $4.5K. Well, I could have told him that he was silly asking that sort of money – more like $2.5K if he wants good tenants who will actually pay. Anyway, he’s getting the message:
    Now, $3.5K for the wishing rent, which HAS to be BELOW what this albatross is costing him. To get back to our thread topic, perhaps 835 Foerster is going to be joining its downscale neighbor, 414 Foerster, pretty soon…..
    Oh, and BTW, 835 Foerster has stopped paying its taxes as well….

  54. Posted by diemos

    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
    – Upton Sinclair
    On the other hand it’s a gorgeous day in a beautiful city and I just had a delightful dim sum lunch and a walk through neighborhoods of beautiful old homes.

  55. Posted by Satchel

    Sorry if I sounded gruff. My above posts showed up out of sequence (I guess the html links slowed the one at 1:10 PM – that was posted first).
    Anyway, what diemos said. I was just thinking that myself. It’s a BEAUTIFUL day out in Western SF, dogs were going crazy at Fort Funston, the view out my window (with the Farralons just barely visible through the slight haze, and St. Cecilia’s on the hill being the highest structure visible for miles) beats ANY downtown view I’ve seen posted from the newer towers lately – even Mass this morning was standing room only! Makes me think that SF has a bright future! (after the valuation wipeout, of course 🙂 )

  56. Posted by fluj

    Again, @ Diemos, my income does not depend on any particular trend. A gross sell off would likely help my salary. Think about that for a second. So please, can we dispense with that petty summation? There will be newbies who say the same thing of course. But at least from you guys and gals. Is that too much to ask? It’s so tired.
    Satchel you didn’t sound gruff. I don’t agree, but it’s cool. I’m not really all that young any more either. And I’m SURE I’ve been involved in real estate longer than 90% of the people who usually argue with me on here. It’s cool though. There is always something to learn. However, I object to the analogies you posited. SF has little in common with Tracy. Sorry. It doesn’t even have the same climate, topography, industry, infrastructure. Nothing. My point stands. This MSA is a spotty resource.

  57. Posted by Trip

    I don’t think Sonoma is within the SF MSA under either Case Shiller or Altos (correct me if I’m wrong). As for Contra Costa County, you are right that foreclosures are up 152% there while they are only up 93% in SF (latest DQ report). Big difference there. I’ll even accept that the current downturn was led by the outlying counties by a couple months (although I’ve still never seen any numbers to support that), but that does not change the pretty obvious conclusion that SF generally moves along with its neighboring counties. The only easy public resource I know that tracks prices (listing) by individual towns is Altos Research’s site. Just look at the data. The one thing that jumps out is that the decline in SF prices has been as steep or steeper than those of its neighbors over the last year.

  58. Posted by diemos

    A bubble starts by raising prices in the desirable areas. As people get priced out the bubble expands into less desirable areas. Our bubble made it all the way out to sacramento and merced. As the bubble begins to collapse it first starts in the outlying undesirable areas and work its way in. First up, last down. Last up, first down.
    It’s interesting that you should mention Tracy fluj because I happened to be using zillow to look at the houses for sale in Tracy. I easily found one that was for sale for $249K that had last been purchased in 2005 for $505K. More than 50% off and back to 2001 prices (if you believe zillow’s graphs.) Funny how equity can evaporate once the loans that created it disappear.

  59. Posted by Dan

    “As for Contra Costa County, you are right that foreclosures are up 152% there while they are only up 93% in SF (latest DQ report).”
    The difference in numbers of foreclosures between SF and Contra Costa is much greater. Contra Costa had almost 20 times more foreclosures than San Francisco in 2007.
    San Francisco had 218 foreclosures in 2007, while Contra Costa had 4003.
    For just the 4th quarter of 2007, San Francisco had 66 foreclosures, about 1/25th of the number of foreclosures in Contra Costa (1558).

  60. Posted by Trip

    Dan, Contra Costa County has far more homes that SF. Of course it has more foreclosures (unless its market is healthier than SF’s in that respect). It also has more sales. The absolute numbers tell you nothing. You have to look at YOY or month-to-month pct increases or decreases.
    (for the record, the numbers I noted from DQ are notices of default, not foreclosures — I stand corrected on that point).

  61. Posted by fluj

    Diemos, you’re just sloganeering at this point. Our “bubble” made it all the way to Sacramento? Gee, think the average Sacremento-an (sp?) thinks his/her “bubble” was Bay-generated? No. He/she does not. Come one man. Get real.

  62. Posted by satchelfan

    fluj – don’t you agree a large no. of Sacramento buyers are from the Bay area?

  63. Posted by fluj

    I think a lot of Bay area people have emigrated over to Sac over the years, particularly the African American community. But Sacramento buyers being “from” here? En masse, during this “bubble”? No way. Sacramento is its own thing.

  64. Posted by Dan

    “Dan, Contra Costa County has far more homes that SF. Of course it has more foreclosures”
    And for the same reason, of course, any measure of single family home prices in the SF MSA reflects what is happening in Contra Costa much more than what is happening in SF.
    (The best measure of foreclosures is the # of foreclosures/1000 homes. By this measure, foreclosures are much more in Contra Costa than in SF.)

  65. Posted by Satchel

    The phenomenon has been referred to as “equity locusts” – that is, the process by which foolish Bay Area people HELOC’ed out their bubble BA homes in order to “invest” in inland areas (Merced, Sacramento, Stockton, Los Banos, etc., etc.). Bakersfield had their LA-area locusts. Real real estate “jeniuses”. As you might imagine, there was no shortage of fools in California to keep the scam going (until the lenders cut them off, that is). That is how the bubble expanded (well, it was one of the transmissions mechanisms).
    I’ll try to find the reference and post it, but a few months ago I read that in up to 50% of the foreclosures occuring in the “hottest” parts of the Central Valley the addresses on the paperwork (i.e., the equity locust “infestors”) had Bay Area addresses. It’s impossible that you are in real estate and you are not aware of this. You’re just playing with us!

  66. Posted by fluj

    If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. But I was talking about people moving there … and I still doubt it.

  67. Posted by anon

    @ Satchel – you are absolutely right about your numbers where referencing the ‘equity locusts’ – I read a similar article (maybe it was the same one?) that stated just about 50% of all buyers in these newly developed – and once deserted – areas were people who had no intention of actually moving into the property but were simply speculators looking to flip the property once they went to closing. It was the same story in ‘hot’ areas outside of California as well – Phoenix, Las Vegas, DC Metro/Northern Virginia, South Florida/Miami, etc.

  68. Posted by satchelfan

    Here’s my one data point – My parents are landlords, and they had a tenant who is a senior in college at USF. He purchased a new home in Sacramento a few years ago. No one lives in it. He was intending to flip it. I’m assuming parents must of helped him get the loan.

  69. Posted by fluj

    306 Mullen just got into contract. That was apropos of nothing, but I thought I would share.

  70. Posted by Satchel

    And 215 Westgate just fell out of contract, apparently. Now it’s down to $1.57MM, which is about 22% of its original listing price. Still pretty expensive, even though it is a 5/4 in a VERY nice neighborhood (border St. Francis) with great ocean views. That’s about $450/square foot.
    BTW, as long predicted by me, and laughed at by people like Dan and james on this blog, rents are going DOWN out here, and nothing is renting (a little hyperbolic, but you get the idea).
    They’re still trying to rent that 3700 square foot remodeled house in Merced Manor, going on about 4 or 5 months now. Just lower the price to the proper rent of about $3K per month and they’ll be fine:
    Lots of reductions in rents on SFHs with not much renting. Many new ones showing up as well.
    Although my $3.1K rent for my SFH has not gone up in 6 years, I am actually expecting to force a DECREASE on my landlord, but not just yet. Once the recession takes hold, I’ll puch it to $2.5K (probably in around 3 – 6 months; by then the writing will be on the wall). I’ll keep you guys informed!!

  71. Posted by fluj

    Well, I can counter your anecdote with one of my own. I just rented out a 1 BR flat in my property to an acquaintance for $1150 a month. I (belatedly) was told I could have easily gotten $1600 or so by another friend who is searching for an apartment. She said perhaps $1800 if I had included parking. This is in Bernal Heights, and it’s just a humble railroad one bedroom with a peek a boo cityscape view. So, you know, maybe your neighborhood only has a limited demographic appeal.
    As for the Merced Manor property, why don’t they sell it? Shoot. People would probably line up to purchase that one.

  72. Posted by Satchel

    You’re the best!
    “I (belatedly) was told I could have easily gotten $1600 or so by another friend who is searching for an apartment. She said perhaps $1800 if I had included parking.”
    But you actually GOT only $1150… That’s a discount of more than 30% from your wishing prices. Hmmm. Hope that is a good acquaintance!
    That’s sort of like saying the Merced Manor house could have got $4.2K in rent. But they are only going to get $3K (assuming they are looking for quality tenants who will actually pay, and not trash the place, and be long-term).
    Why don’t they sell? Beats me, but I bet anything that they pay like $1000 in Prop 13 tax. They – like all unsophisticated investors – probably just draw a straight line regarding the appreciation over the last 7-10 years and project it out to the future. They probably also do not want to pay the capital gains hit. They may not understand anything about opportunity cost of money. They are probably also scared of the stock market (negative returns over the past 9 or 10 years now), and they are not able to trade markets like some of us! Lots of reasons, probably, but the low Prop 13 tax is usually the clincher in my experience.
    The real question is why are they leaving it vacant for 5 months now. Maybe I’ll go see it, and offer $2.5K and explain why they are better off renting to me. 3700 square feet is a lot of space for a 3 person family like us, but if the SF housing market wants to act irrationally, who am I to question it??

  73. Posted by fluj

    I didn’t wish for $1600. I helped someone out who needed a place to live, and his rent is going to basically wipe out my bills. I’m not greedy. I’m not a greedy realtor! (Hey, where’s “mean anon” when I need him!)
    So no, what I did was I gleaned a little knowledge from someone else, who belatedly relayed that she would have rented the place for more money. She also mentioned the prices that she’s looking at in other areas. She found rent to be quite a bit more expensive than the last time she took on a rental lease here. That was during the dot com days. She and her husband have been out of the country for several years.
    She’s not alone. I hear that frequently. I’m sure most people on here would agree. Most people around town are saying that rents are up. You think otherwise, based upon your neighborhood.

  74. Posted by New Sunnyside Owner

    @Sachel, Flug, Trip, et al: very interesting commentary, and remarkably civil for these types of threads.
    Anyhow, thought I’d add my own anecdotal experience into the mix, and ask for clarification on a point above. My wife and I (and two month old baby) are exactly the people of which you all speak. That is to say we purchased a house, which we love, in Sunnyside, in December 2007, for $850K, because Glen Park, Bernal and Noe are just too absurdly expensive.
    So. The aforementioned $850K house (which it seems you all agree we overpaid on, and which we may very well have, historically speaking) is a 4 bedroom, 3 baths, three-floor house with a garage, beautiful backyard, etc. It’s great. It also has some of the neighborhood idiosyncracies mentioned previously–too many cars on the street, not enough trees.
    We are both employed, and plan on staying the area for the long haul, so this was not some get rich investment scheme, but our honest attempt to put down roots in a city in which its hard to buy a house even when your HHI is north of $200K. Yes. Crazy.
    Here’s my question: Our (read: my) thesis was that the pressures that have pushed folks like us out of Glen Park or Noe and into areas like Sunnyside where we could afford a SFR with a yard would continue. But Satchel, above you refer to the relationship between Glen Park and the Sunset or Daly City and Ingleside. What did you mean? Is your point that these neighborhoods will continue to face downward pricing pressure in perpetuity because the only reason they are attractive is because people were forced into them by overpriced homes elsewhere?
    And, as a neighbor (we live on Hearst), that house on Foerrster is an abject dump. No two ways around it. But houses on Flood and Edna have moved in the last couple of weeks (not sure at what price sold), so it does not seem, anecdotally at least, that the neighborhood is a complete disaster, yet.
    Great thread, by the way.

  75. Posted by New Sunnyside Owner

    @Sachel, Flug, Trip, et al: very interesting commentary, and remarkably civil for these types of threads.
    Anyhow, thought I’d add my own anecdotal experience into the mix, and ask for clarification on a point above. My wife and I (and two month old baby) are exactly the people of which you all speak. That is to say we purchased a house, which we love, in Sunnyside, in December 2007, for $850K, because Glen Park, Bernal and Noe are just too absurdly expensive.
    So. The aforementioned $850K house (which it seems you all agree we overpaid on, and which we may very well have, historically speaking) is a 4 bedroom, 3 baths, three-floor house with a garage, beautiful backyard, etc. It’s great. It also has some of the neighborhood idiosyncracies mentioned previously–too many cars on the street, not enough trees.
    We are both employed, and plan on staying the area for the long haul, so this was not some get rich investment scheme, but our honest attempt to put down roots in a city in which its hard to buy a house even when your HHI is north of $200K. Yes. Crazy.
    Here’s my question: Our (read: my) thesis was that the pressures that have pushed folks like us out of Glen Park or Noe and into areas like Sunnyside where we could afford a SFR with a yard would continue. But Satchel, above you refer to the relationship between Glen Park and the Sunset or Daly City and Ingleside. What did you mean? Is your point that these neighborhoods will continue to face downward pricing pressure in perpetuity because the only reason they are attractive is because people were forced into them by overpriced homes elsewhere?
    And, as a neighbor (we live on Hearst), that house on Foerrster is an abject dump. No two ways around it. But houses on Flood and Edna have moved in the last couple of weeks (not sure at what price sold), so it does not seem, anecdotally at least, that the neighborhood is a complete disaster, yet.
    Great thread, by the way.

  76. Posted by Satchel

    New Sunnyside Owner,
    That 414 Foerster sure is a dump! Obviously had to be a cash back scam, but I bet the “true” price when it sold last was about $670K. My favorite part of that house is its view of the mini-mart across the street – I go there a lot to buy sodas with my dog, who walks in there like he owns the place. That mini-mart is straight out of an episode of the Simpsons!
    Look, I think that where you are (south of Monterey) is a little nicer in general than the small streets just north of Monterey there (Joost, Mangels, etc.). The housing stock on your side is a little better, and there are some really nice SFHs as you climb towards Miramar and the neighborhoods of Westwood Park, which is bordered by the REALLY nice neighborhood of Mt. Davidson (the parts up on the hill, not down near Ocean). So, in short, if you are going to pick a spot in Sunnyside, I’d say that Hearst (and Flood) are some of the best streets and should hold up the best. Proximity to SFSU works both ways IMO. The ability to rent SFHs and rooms there to some of the students (most are commuters) and some of the faculty and staff ensures demand, but it does slightly change the character of the neighborhood (more renters). But I wouldn’t read too much into that. There are MANY more renters that you might believe even in the nicest parts of Monterey Heights and Mt. Davidson. Absurdly low prop 13 taxes for long-term owners creates incentives to keep properties and rent them out at fairly low rates in order to generate a bit of income. It is not uncommon for one owner to be paying $2K in tax, and the EXACT SAME HOUSE next door to be paying $18-20K in taxes! In fact, that’s my situation!
    That being said, I do think that the whole Sunnyside neighborhood is going to geta downward adjustment in price because of substitution effects. Sunnyside I do not think is directly a substitute with Daly City, but it probably (as you note) is an “overflow” area for gentrifying Glen Park and Bernal Heights. My strong belief is that that process of people being priced out of Glen Park is coming to a close, and so that will take some pressure off Sunnyside. We’ll see if I am right. Massive recession + fundamental overvaluation on any metric does not bode well for SF as a whole, and even the very nicest areas can expect some adjustment. And of course Bernal Heights and Glen Park are far from the nicest areas of SF! (BTW, I like that tacqueria on Diamond I think – La Corneta – but yell at them and tell them to make sure that the burritos are hot, seems to be a problem sometimes….)
    Places like Daly City – and even parts of Ingleside south of where you are (across Ocean) – will become “rough” substitutes as this evolves IMO. Transportation from the neighborhoods of Ingleside, west side of Daly City and the southern SF neighborhoods along Junipero and 19th (like Lakeside, parts of Sunset, etc.) is not that different from where you are – especially if one is looking for 280 access. You get 280 right at the bottom of Monterey, but it’s just as easy to get it from Junipero further west. Bart and Muni can vary widely depending on where you are, but as you know it is not exactly a piece of cake either for you (walk down to Glen Park, or perhaps down to Ocean for the Muni I’m guessing, from where you are).
    We are seeing some real weakness in these Junipero neighborhoods, Ingleside of course, and even just popping into play now in Ingleside Terraces, a VERY nice neighborhood on par with Monterey Heights and even parts of St. Francis IMHO. Daly City of course is weakening noticably, although the west side there is holding up better obviously (but still down). Fluj is great, but he doesn’t really have the pulse on these micro markets – my wife and I look closely at various SFHs in “our” part of District 4, and prices by and large are down to where they were at the end of 2004, aples to apples, and of course “more or less”. They are down 5-20% from their bubble peaks, depending on the desirability of the actual house/micro neighborhood. People out here talk about it, and it is understood (except by the realtors I guess). That’s why a number of homes I highlighted in thread above required 20-30% reductions in listing prices to move, and many have been pulled. Ones that were pulled last year have now been relisted at prices 5-15% lower than earlier listing prices and they are not moving (yet), such as 1 Santa Paula (failed flip, rented for a year, now back on at $1.375M after initial list last year at $1.495M), 39 Westgate (partially failed flip – owner lived there for a few years and remodeled it to the studs, now listed at $1.15M with a different realtor after being listed last year at $1.324M). 45 San Andreas also appears to be a failed flip, and just switched realtors. Looks like the owner there is trying to break even and is failing. I could go on and on (I know some people on these boards like the specific color of the neighborhood – sorry for the diversion!).
    So, IMO, places like Sunnyside will be caught a little by those twin influences – reduction in “overflow” demand as well as limited substitution effects, depending on how far those District 4 and Daly City neighborhoods fall. But I do think you are in the best part of the neighborhood from what I can tell, so that is a positive. I hope these ideas are useful!

  77. Posted by anon11

    Fluj, am I reading that correctly? Only 12 SFR’s have sold over $2mm in SF this year and 8 over 2.5mm? I must be missing something. It’s funny I would have thought that this segment would have been doing better on a relative basis.

  78. Posted by fluj

    Huh? Since 1/1/8 I count 126 SFR sales over $2M and 51 condo or TICs over 2M. Last year saw 118 and 36 from 1/1/7 to 7/7/7.

  79. Posted by EBGuy

    What a classic thread; I say we’re near the bottom when the piano teacher capitulates — sigh, so sad… I’ve decided to add the foreclosure at 1555 Plymouth Ave here as its been several years in the making and there is some good discussions on Westwood by the (no longer) resident area expert. The house at 1555 Plymouth Ave. (1526 sq.ft.) was finally foreclosed on September 15 for $547k. It received its first NOTS way back in July of 2006 and has been in legal limbo due to a lawsuit (PDF) involving alleged elder abuse and general familial deviousness. My take away from this story is: Don’t put your first son on the title after your husband dies just because it’s Filipino tradition; it might cause you some heartache if he decides to use the home as an ATM from his residence in Miami. Whatever the case, they’ll be soon another home for sale on the other side of Monterey.

  80. Posted by anonn

    Come back Satchel. Thirty to forty percent down, people ceasing to be priced out of Glen Park, the rampant San Francisco Central Valley equity locust — you said it all. Come back and own your errors. LOL

  81. Posted by EBGuy

    Thirty to forty percent down
    Will be interesting to see where we finally bottom out and if we are able to hit Satchel’s targets. Here’s another foreclosure on Joost. The property at 505 Joost was taken back by Wells Fargo on October 1 for $694,244. It originally sold for $835k in May of 2006.

  82. Posted by anonn

    How interesting is it right now? Only a bit of fun, really, seeing how far fetched a lot of the things Satchel talked about really were.

  83. Posted by EBGuy

    Help me out with my math. The property at 505 Joost sold for $635k on March 5. It had previously changed hands for $835k in May of 2006; that’s 24% off by my count. Still working on the Glen Park affordability (looks like some pent up supply should be coming on line soon)…

  84. Posted by anonn

    OK. I’ll help you with your math. Choosing one property and calling it a particular district is not the way it’s generally done. Did that help? Still working on the Glen Park affordability a la Satchel, are you? OK. When you see one that sort of looks like it fits in with that rationale, write it down. Then place it with 29 others, or as close to a set of 30 as you can get. Then talk.

  85. Posted by dub dub

    Feb 2008 was prior to the Transcendental Bailouts Which Nobody Except Every Armchair Economist On Socketsite Predicted, so we have to give Satchel a pass, I’m afraid, since he always had disdain for Economists 🙂

  86. Posted by EBGuy

    Lookout below, here comes the BoomerNation. The home at 142 Robinhood Drive has a modest tax basis around $400k. Refies began in 2001 with World Savings Bank to the tune of $620k. They averaged about one a year until they ended up with (surprise!) WaMu in 2005. NOD filed on March 16. Mount Davidson is starting to get interesting…

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles