2136 18th Street: Living Room
It still appears to be very much tenant occupied (and continues to tout “Location Location Location!”). And while it quickly went into escrow eleven months ago when listed for $750,000, it never closed. And the price was subsequently reduced (twice). Now asking $649,000).
The year old comment from reader Brad we just can’t shake:

My coworker (his wife is a realtor) just told me this was a great investment and I should buy up. I am not kidding.

Well, it’s still the same “great investment,” only now for $101,000 less. Wait a minute…
∙ Listing: 2136 18th Street (1/1) – $649,000 [MLS]
Why Get All Gussied Up When It’s “Location, Location, Location!” [SocketSite]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Foolio

    Ouch. Bet the near-buyers are pretty happy this one fell through.

  2. Posted by San FronziScheme

    Let’s see:
    8/07 – Asking 750,000
    2/08 – Asking 699,000
    8/08 – Asking 649,000
    I tried to guess the future for this property:
    2/09 – Asking 599,000
    8/09 – Asking 549,000
    2/10 – Asking 499,000
    8/10 – Asking 449,000
    2/11 – Asking 399,000
    4/11 – Tenant mysteriously killed in the fire of the property
    8/12 – Undevelopped Land Sold 450,000

  3. Posted by Anonymous

    Do you think the owner still hasn’t figured out how much money to offer the tenant to move–or that the owner is in hock up to his eyeballs, and doesn’t have any cash to offer?

  4. Posted by Oceangoer

    Built in 1900, and the listing states “good bones, and the possibility of good views with a 2nd story up. Great opportunity!” Now there’s a realtor with real moxie. Your are kidding me, right?

  5. Posted by noearch

    yea, once again, another realtor this time Melinda Lee way overstepping her position to claim this piece of crap property has “potential” by remodeling. Does she guarantee a permit will be approved? I dont think so.
    Realtors should stick to the facts only.

  6. Posted by Satchel

    Property taxes on this place are $261.24 per year. Next year, the taxes will be $266.46.
    Is there any wonder this property has remained basically underveloped, in view of SF’s “shortage”? (of course, there is no real shortage, except the “shortage” that always results from governmental price controls)
    (ok, prop 13 rant off – I’ve been thinking about it a lot lately….)

  7. Posted by Mole Man

    Prop. 13 is a key part of this mess, but so are preservation oriented development rules. This architecture has zero merit, period. Bulldozing this site would add greatly to the value and aesthetics of this property.

  8. Posted by badlydrawnbear

    So, I basically agree with the above (prop 13, bulldoze, overpriced POS) but I would like to hear if someone can defend the price. The RE agent must have done some research or there must be (or at least there should be) some comp to justify this asking price.
    where’s Fluj when you need him?

  9. Posted by Jimmy (Bitter Renter)

    So explain the zoning to me. How is it that the neighbors can build 2 or 3-story multi-unit buildings but the owner of this property is condemned to living in what can best be described as a 740 sq. ft. shack?
    Is this considered fair?

  10. Posted by sparky

    No one is condemned to live in that space. The agent is correct about building up. The permits would take a long time to get, but would also move out the tenant. The cost of work to get views/noise of the highway will hold down the price, but it won’t get much lower. It won’t get to $549,000

  11. Posted by San FronziScheme

    Who in this right mind would shell 1.5M+ to buy/tear down/rebuild in this noisy location?
    Potrero has some nice areas. Places where you can have a view, good sun and less friggin’ wind. But a stone’s throw from the 101? Even Google money is not that stupid.

  12. Posted by view lover

    well at least someone owns a broom…
    seriously though, the price at over $800 psf is quite high.
    So what is it with such high psf lately?

  13. Posted by spencer

    i think this will go down to 549K or even below. 900/sq ft, a trah heap pf a place, a tenant, and not even in the good part of potrero

  14. Posted by sparky

    2145 18th is around the corner and asking $2.145M (catchy), it’s not amazing by any stretch, and I think this place gets decent rent. Who cares what shape it’s in if it’s getting gutted. I won’t buy it but someone will. It’s way better than the half built places on the other thread, and will command more when done. Okay Potrero is better than okay Bernal and Glen Park.

  15. Posted by kthnxybe

    Question – I thought single family homes didn’t come under rent control? Although from the comments, they seem to be subject to the same sorts of tenant protections?

  16. Posted by vox

    “So, I basically agree with the above (prop 13, bulldoze, overpriced POS) but I would like to hear if someone can defend the price.”
    Look at that room. It’s obvious that the tenant can score you some killer bud!

  17. Posted by Mole Man

    Looks more like a grad student crash pad. Killer bud has been pervasively available in SF for a long time now. It is time to raise the bar.

  18. Posted by DerrySF

    The old desk and chair are very nice! 🙂

  19. Posted by intheknow

    first, realtors are notoriously full of sh**. They generally don’t know jack when it comes to zoning, permitting, construction, etc, and they tell prospective buyers whatever they feel like. Foolishly, people listen to agents and make major financial decisions without doing the research. There are numerous people who find out they can’t add a unit or demolish a unit or do whatever, and then they cry, “Buy my realtor said I would be able to.” Cry me a river.
    Second, this building is pre-1906, clearly historic. It might look haggard, but looks alone don’t make a building worthy or preservation or not. There are many reasons why buildings are considered historic resources, including association with past historic events, people, eras in history, etc.. Architectural merit is only one possible consideration.

  20. Posted by Anonymous

    San Francisco is a town which considered Herb Caen “historic.” If they had given landmark-preservation status to Herb, he’d probably still be with us today.
    In other cities, many of the residences which San Francisco considers to be historic are called dumps, or, to use a more historically-precise word–shacks.
    The State of California is virtually bankrupt, the Governor has laid off 22,000 workers and wants to pay the rest minimum wage, and you people are arguing whether a shack has historic merit, or has investment potential?

  21. Posted by fluj

    Oh, this one.
    This lot is pretty small. The location has been widely panned here, but it isn’t that bad at all. Plus it’s getting better. I sold a property on Vermont, right around the corner, and closer to the freeway offramp, for almost $1.285M in 2005 before the Whole Foods and all that stuff went in.
    It’s south facing and the rear of the property already has city views. They would indeed be very good if one could build up. I am not going to tell you folks that building up would be a slam dunk or anything of the sort. Its tax records default to 1900 like half the SFRs in town.
    It is more like certain Vermont and Kansas blocks that have highway views. This would not be all about 101. Look at the map. It’s a block off the freeway, and Mariposa, not 18th, is the off ramp.
    You know what? I have a client who liked this one a whole lot more than I did. I advised against it. Again, lot size is one problem. It is all the way at the back of the lot too so a total demolition would likely be necessary for full potential to be realized.
    I think I remember that the tenant was both combative and protected, but it is a SFR. An OMI would get the guy out. I don’t recall what the listing agent told me when I phoned her about the property, becuase I was told there was an offer that was about to be ratified. I, personally, now like this one a whole lot more at 649K. This will not last long now IMO.

  22. Posted by Mozy

    Owner is elderly and ill. Property is held in trust and trustee (cal tech) is not willing to negotiate a tenant buyout prior to close of escrow. Tenant has been there 30 years, pays $500/mo and wants $50,000. OMI would get the tenant out, but it seems the only buyers so far have been developers wanting to flip it. Small lot, lots of work, risky tenant situation and a trustee who doesn’t understand why the property isn’t work $700,000. No developer is going to touch it at this price.

  23. Posted by Satchel

    Great info, Mozy.
    I’d like to point out a few things from the perspective of someone who is always looking for economically misallocative policies.
    “Owner is elderly and ill….. Tenant has been there 30 years”
    Good thing prop 13 is working as it was intended! It prevented this owner from being forced out, notwithstading that this “elderly” owner hasn’t lived there since, well, prop 13 was passed! Great!
    “Property is held in trust and trustee (cal tech)….”
    I’ll bet anything that this POS was put into a trust in order to shelter the asset, so the owner can claim assets under the legal limit and still qualify for long term disability under MediCal. There is an entire industry in California designed for this exact purpose. In fact, there used to be a radio show program on AM (maybe KGO?) on weekends that I would always hear hawking how to get your assets out of your name so the CA taxpayer can pay for your lt disability. Not sure it’s on anymore, but just google “Medi Cal Trust” and you’ll see the industry!
    “Tenant has been there 30 years, pays $500/mo”
    Who said SF is expensive! And my advice is – as I’ve posted many times – if you want to get the current generation of homebuyers (after, say, 2001 or so) to pay for your kids’ public education, find a rental property in southern Marin where the owner is very long term (they pay the least in tax and can afford to rent it cheap…)
    In fact, on that subject, when I was looking in Marin I found a house in kentfield/Ross. The current (vacating) tenant – get this – owned a property in Sausalito, but when their child was old enough to enter school, they RENTED a place in Kentfield at a relatively cheap rate from a long term owner. Kid graduates, time to go back to Sausalito (school district in Sausalito had been terrible, but is improving a bit now because from what I understand they are now busing the kids – get this – from Marin City into SF schools. Bypassing of course all the schools in Mill Valley just a mile or two to the north). Think of the emissions from those buses going over the GG every day! And I thought the SF Bay Area was very tolerant and diverse? What is it about those kids in Marin City that caused Sausalito property owners to flee (but of course retain their properties at the low tax base to rent to singles from the city), and finally led to the “busing” solution??
    “Tenant….wants $50,000”
    I hope he is reading this. Please hold out for more! Foolish resource allocation policies fostered by the state of California deserve to be punished!

  24. Posted by plantguy

    I love the staging.

  25. Posted by rg

    You gotta be kidding me! Is there really a property address of #2145 selling for $2.145??? This has got to be a low point for SF realtors! I always wondered where they got these absurd prices from, now I might know.

  26. Posted by SocketSite

    Make that $121,000 less (the list price for 2136 18th Street was just reduced to $629,000).

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles