What one might get for $6,299,000: Seven bedrooms, high ceilings, big views, interesting bones and a tenant on the top floor (with the best views of all). What one isn’t going to get for this $6,299,000: A single parking space.
No word on why they’re not marketing it as an “earth-friendly” abode (especially on a day like today).
∙ Listing: 2721 Pacific Avenue (7/6) – $6,299,000 [MLS]
∙ Earth Day [wikipedia]
It’ll never sell. They didn’t stage it.
At least there aren’t any chopped pillows…
Can’t wait to hear the comments from whoever can get to today’s open house.
If anyone wants to go in on this one with me send an email and maybe we can be on “Flip that House”. We can pay a little over asking to make sure we get it, do a gut job for about $500K, ellis act the tenant (who, if protected, must have rights to the whole house since it’s a SFR), get garage plans shot down by the city, and then we can sell next year for $5M.
given the lack of pictures (they don’t even have a pic of the front, just an artist rendering?) you have to assume this place is an absolute disaster.
I hope someone can go see this place and report back.
Is that bush growing out of the sidewalk?
Perhaps it is just a large weed that the artist worked his/her magic on?
It mentions 3 kitchens, yet no pictures of them. Nor bathroom pictures. Perhaps it’s like the house I have owned for 30 years, it has everything “original” still.
I’m going to try to make it to this one. It is a rare bird, for sure. I’m curious why there is no northwest view as well. Sucks to be that penthouse renter right about now, I’m sure.
UH OH. more photoshopping.
Craig – that bush on the sidewalk is actually hiding the tenant. actually it is the tenant. and guess what? – it’s 65 and handicapped. and has 5 other bushes living in the building who will all get $4500 to get Ellised.
OK, seriously though look at the permit records. Has the agent photoshopped this one into the “SFH” category when it’s actually a 2-unit building? Sure looks like it from the SF building records. Won’t necessarily be easy making this a single-family vacant building again.
SS footsoldiers – please report back on what the agent says about the legal number of dwelling units and the status of the tenant. Thanks!
wow, the more I think about it the more I’m confused as to why there is a bush in the middle of the sidewalk. I’m becoming obsessed with it.
perhaps they took my ramblings to heart (where I often bemoan the lack of trees), so they put in a VERY short tree so that it doesn’t rip down the power lines?
checking mapjack, it’s a reasonably accurate drawing (right down to the bush), but in reality, the lot looks much narrower/crowded (and that tree needs some pruning). Including the bench would have improved the drawing.
This drawing gets the dub dub seal of approval (big deal) 🙂 🙂
http://www.mapjack.com/?LtBnWGDxbFeC7CAA
unfortunately google map’s “street view” shows no bush (but yes a large tree). gonna stick with the theory that the tenant was walking into the building under disguise when the artist was there. maybe the tenant is the “bush man” from fisherman’s wharf. yeah, that’s it.
it also appears from google map that the artist’s hand slipped when drawing the entry stairs. they’re actually on the left side of the property, not directly in front of the door. but let’s not sweat the details.
interesting – looks like google map is wrong – mapjack might be right re: the staircase and bush.
As for the tenant – if it’s one unit, you can evict them from a SFR using an OMI (owner move in) even if they are protected. You still have to pay the relocation fee of a couple thousand tho. If it’s an illegal in-law unit, then you’ve got more of an issue as the illegal in-law is not considered a unit by the building department, but IS considered a unit under the rent control ordinance. Still, not the end of the world, you just apply to have the unit removed from the market permanently and don’t ever rent out the space as an apartment (for quite a while at least). Regardless, if you’re paying that kind of money for a house, something tells me you have legal counsel on your speed dial and they can figure it out pretty easily.
OMI move in? I dont think that’s possible is it when the buyer will be moving into the larger unit? I didnt think they can evict unless they put a family member into the Penthouse if I understand SF tenant law correctly.
I was at the open house on 4/20. It was OK, but They wouldn’t let people into any of the tennant’s areas, so I don’t know what the view is like from there. The elevator was also out of bounds, so I guess we have to trust that it works OK.
The worst thing (especially for a $6mm+ property) was the ugly “DO NOT ENTER” signs on one of the front doors. People who are shopping in this price range hate to be told that they are not allowed to do something.
DO NOT ENTER = cranky tenant?? maybe. buyer beware.
Gotta love the enthusiasm of tenants in for-sale buildings who have been on the lam for years. When the nice old lady landlord dies they still think they own the place. Check out 20-22 Ashbury street – tenants paying $500/month rent with padlocks on the doors thinking that will stop buyers. Or Green & Steiner listing – same thing – “do not touch my stuff” signs everywhere.
I did confirm with the city that its a SFR so I was wrong about the 2-unit thing – the change was denied by the city in 2004.
If you can OMI it, do that. If not, offer the tenant $10 grand on day one and if they don’t accept it do an Ellis asap – no downside of that for a SFR.
But if tenant has a fixed term lease then an Ellis eviction is not allowed until lease has expired and then it will take 120 days after that. So the tenant has minimum of 4 months and possibly up to 16 months if they recently signed the lease.
Thats a long time to deal with someone you dont want hanging around your building.
I wonder if this could be structured so that the sale closes only after the current owner does the eviction work?
So it seems it’s a SFR with an illegal unit that is rented? They can “permanently remove the unit from the rental market” through the city then and evict the tenant legally in this process. Either that or do an Ellis I suppose. Regardless, you’re right, the seller should have removed the illegal unit from the market or offered to buy out the tenant before putting it on the market at this price. A buyer is going to want a substantial discount for the hassle and uncertainty associated with this. Either that or they negotiate a tenant buyout figure that will be taken out of escrow.
It would be a huge joke if the “illegal tenant” of a portion of this sort of single-family residence was actually a member of the current Owner’s family.
A new way to maximize your profits: have the new owner pay you to move.
fred and miles – it’s common for sellers not to evict tenants prior to sales either because 1) they’re dead; 2) they have some relationship to the tenant; 3) they are “old school” and don’t think it’s right or worth the hassle; 4) they’ve already tried unsuccessfuly. one of these is probably true here. i can’t imagine why anyone living in a multimillion dollar pac hights home would bother getting involved in renting out a small part of their home with all the legal strings that come attached.
i’ve never seen an offer contingent on the eviction of a protected tenant accepted by a seller.
last year there was pending legislation that would have penalized NEW buyers of protected tenant buildings from evicting their tenants for 3-5 years (Daly idiocy if I remember right). Thankfully it didn’t pass ,if it had I’m sure more sellers would’ve tried harder to evict tenants before selling.
According to the agent the tennant is not protected and “might move out soon”.
If this is the case I have to wonder why the current owner didn’t take care of the matter.
Yes, of COURSE the agent is going to say that instead of “no he’s staying put, for him to move will cost him $2,000 more per month in rent for a comparable place so you’ll have to evict him”.
He’s just covering his ass: “might” “soon”. Why WOULD the tenant move if he has below market rent and it’s going to take a new buyer months and $ to get him out?
I don’t quite get the reference to Manhattan in this post. This place with no parking and an embedded tenant is not worth the asking price. There was a similar situation recently in Pacific Heights multi-unit where a protected tenant situation knocked a cool $1M off the ask price that was already substantially below market. There was also a similar / nicer unit with a big garage on Vallejo with nice views that listed for $5 and sold for $6 that also needed a lot of work. This place had no tenant issues and was much nicer all around although it needed work too.
As for why someone with a PH address would rent out a unit — these places were selling for 1/500th of their current prices 50-60 years ago and there are lots of reasons why an elderly person on fixed income would rent out a unit. What’s it called again Prop????
Just another reason why that legislation should be slowly phased out in favor of a more evenly distributed property tax plan.
My take is no one looking in this price range will ever want to deal with
1. Eviction/OMI Hassles
2. No parking for their Bentleys or whatever …
It’s refreshing to see a non-staged place… and also a place where the tiny front yard has greenery rather than a garage. if you can afford something like that, you can probably figure out something to with parking. You couldn’t have a better view… and it’s nice to see a place that hasn’t been completely outfitted with all the circa 2008 ‘luxury’ gear.
So 1.2M gets you in. 500K and 6-9 months to add a garage, Ellis and update. Plus holding costs. Then what is it worth? 7000+ feet on that block, with parking? Is it worth 9M? It would need to be in order for a speculator to take a chance on it. One year to clear a million.
Nope. Speculators are going to want to buy it for 5M and change, not 6 and change.
So Fluj is getting a bit bearish? Must be a sign that the market is finally changing! Yes, I agree, even speculators are thinking twice now.
Price was reduced to $5,900,000.
The list price for 2721 Pacific Ave was just reduced another $400,000. Now asking $5,500,000.
If the tenants are still there, it’s still way too high.
2714 Pacific across the street is in contract for about 4.8 in less than a week and that property is in move-in condition.
Reduced again. Now asking $5.25MM.
The list price for 2721 Pacific Ave was just reduced again. Now asking $4,950,000 or 21% under its original list.
The list price for 2721 Pacific Avenue has been reduced once again. Now asking $4,750,000 or 25% under its original list of $6,299,000.
The sale of 2721 Pacific closed escrow on 6/12/09 with a reported contract price of $4,200,000, 33% under original expectations.
Congrats to the buyer!
Tax assessment for 6/08 is ~4.9M. The happy new owner will pay lower property taxes than the seller. I love it! Welcome to 2009 where Realty meets Reality.
I saw this go into contract. I wonder if they ever got the protected tenant issues resolved. It’s really a pretty unattractive home, and no parking.