110 Faith (Image Source: MapJack.com)
It was a Bernal Heights “neighborhood comp” at $720,000 back in October of 2005. And we’re pretty sure its challenging location hasn’t suddenly changed since.
Back on the market as a short sale today. Asking $599,000.
∙ Listing: 110 Faith (3/2) – $599,000 [MLS]

59 thoughts on “You’ve <strike>Gotta Have</strike> Shouldn’t Have Had Faith? (110 Faith Street)”
  1. It’s right next to the 101, has no curb appeal, only 1140 square feet, and sold for $720,000 in 2005? Wow. The peak of the market just looks crazier and crazier in retrospect.

  2. This looks like a legitimate seller here. Prop shark shows that $72K was put down, with two loans (same lender – a subsidiary of Wachovia) for the balance (80-10-10 structure). Property taxes are current.
    100% loss to the downpayment of course, and that is about as bad as possible for any asset class over this period. Maybe a ding to the credit report, too. The fact that someone risked $72K of his own money is a testament to just how crazy this bubble was/is.
    Because it’s the same lender on both the loans, this one has a better chance of selling than falling into foreclosure (no incentive for the second to hold the deal “hostage” by withholding consent).

  3. $599k seems aggressive to me for a place like this, especially given the location and the finishes.
    I often mock the “luxury” designation of many of the newer towers… but this place is very very basic. (nothing wrong with basic, but $599k for super basic seems agressive)

  4. Where are those orchids again? In the front? I don’t see them, and am surprised a pic of them was not showcased. This is sad.

  5. RE: “It’s right next to the 101, has no curb appeal, only 1140 square feet, and sold for $720,000 in 2005? Wow.”
    Take a look at what the street view option on Google Maps shows for the address of this place (110 Faith St, San Francisco, CA). It’s pretty funny.

  6. I don’t know why you would consider sellers of the house at 8 Costa to be delusional. On a per sq. foot basis the price is reasonable and what you get for the money is certainly a lot more than the dump on Faith. I admit it’s probably not going to sell at that price due to the lack of buyers in the $1 million+ range and it’s probably the wrong location to boot.

  7. From the listing agent:
    “Come see this before you miss out on owning in Bernal Heights”
    Are we back in 2005?

  8. LMRIM: Q for you. Im in second place on a piece of property that is being foreclosed by Wells. If it happens, I will be wiped out.
    Can I withhold my consent to it? My lawyer has never mentioned this to me? Grateful for your insight.

  9. Whodathunk, you hold the second lien? Then your consent is irrelevant. That is the whole point of the second lien being subordinate (and why second mortgages have higher interest rates). Your interest will likely be wiped out. However, if there is any chance that the foreclosure proceedings will yield more than the total of the first lien, you need to be involved (i.e. get your lawyer in there) as you would have the right to any amount in excess of the first lien.

  10. No, whodathunk. In a foreclosure, all junior liens are extinguished, so unfortunately if th senior lienholder forecloses on the property your interest gets wiped out. I’m not an expert on California law, so ask your lawyer specifically, but I’d think that the principle that junior interests are extinguished in a foreclosure brought by an interest senior is uniform across the states.
    On this property at 110 Faith, the seller is seeking a “short sale”. In this instance, consent is required from the lienholders to release the liens. A second mortgage holder could withhold its consent (preventing the sale), and therefore force the senior holder to seek foreclosure as its only remedy.
    Since second holders are typically wiped out, you would think that there is not much incentive to withhold the consent, even for a nominal payment. The practical problem is that many second mortgage lenders specialized in that form of loan, and are now out of business (with the loans bought by successor businesses) or are so understaffed (everyone has been fired), so there is no incentive to pay the staff costs of dealing with consents. Fortunately for the seller here, the first and second holders are the same bank, and so there is no “hostage” or staffing cost/attention issues and the bank can simply look to maximize value, which is probably higher in a short sale where the seller is still involved rather than taking on all the costs of a foreclosure sale.
    I hope that helps, and I’m sorry that that’s not the answer you were hoping for!

  11. I just saw what Trip wrote – listen to him, he’s a real lawyer (I just play one on the internet). I assumed that the value had fallen so much that there was no hope of recovery on your lien once the senior one is satisfied (you said your interest would be “wiped out”). I agree with Trip that you need to monitor any potential sale if there is any chance that there are excess funds.

  12. how does an individual get himself into the position of holding a 2nd lien on a property?
    is there a business for it, or it only happens due to circumstances?

  13. condoshopper – there is (or was) a huge business in subordinated mezz debt on the commercial side. How does one get himself in the position of holding a (worthless) 2nd lien? Ask the multi-million geniuses who run (or ran) CalPERS.

  14. I was looking at investments 4 years ago in Santa Barbara. A friend flipping houses there told me I could lend money to individuals in what is called a “2nd lien loan”. I dont remember the details or whether this was exact term he used. For some of the few ones he showed me (there were plenty to choose from in Santa Barbara) I would have been 3rd or 4th in line. The rates were pretty interesting, in the range of 15% or more. Of course it looked fishy/risky but my friend was quick to tell me that “it’s backed by Real Estate and done by a lawyer. Have you ever seen RE go down here?”. I backed off…

  15. condoshopper- most 2nd’s are provided by owners trying to sell property in difficult markets. i.e. the owner takes back a 2nd,for say 10%, so the buyer can put less down to buy the property; if the bank will only lend 80%, the buyer can close the deal with 10% down, and the 2nd from the owner. this is quite common in slower markets, markets where financing is tougher to obtain, and especially for multi unit/investment props (as well as some SFH’s.)

  16. So, it’s down at least 24% under its 2005 price. It doesn’t matter to the seller anymore – the $72K downpayment has been 100% sacrificed to the bubble gods. Kudos to the bank for consenting to the fast reduction in wishing price. We need to start getting some price discovery so that potential purchasers in these neighborhoods will be able to resist the silliness that the realtors have been peddling lately, namely, that prices are down only about 10% from peak in SF.
    I hope not too many purchasers around there who used that 2005 sale as a comp put their own hard-earned cash in the first loss position. Whenever someone is buying in an obvious bubble (such as in 2005 – and still just as true today), utilize the wisdom that the hedge funds, banks and politicians have demonstrated time and time again: always use other people’s money (OPM) as much as possible.

  17. Actually, numerous properties in this neighborhood are still selling for 2005 thru 2008 type prices. Anyone who took 10 minutes to look into it could see that. But we know how you love your blanket statements/ SF r.e. flames.

  18. Well, anonn, I guess that just proves that the guy who bought 110 Faith was just a sucker. I mean, if numerous places are selling for 2005-08 prices, he was just a chump for overpaying. Hey, it happens. He probably didn’t have a wonderful realtor. And I guess the appraiser back then was a chump too. Oh well.

  19. He probably bought in a competitive market thinking he was going to do X, Y, and Z to the place before ever re-selling. It was listed for 619K back then. There’s a house across the street in contract with an 899K list. I really don’t get what you are trying to prove by weighing in on neighborhoods you admittedly never even looked into. It’s pretty odd.

  20. So, did he overpay in 2005, anonn, or what? I don’t understand what you are saying.
    There were (presumably) a lot of bids when it was listed at $619K. Surely his professional adviser – his realtor – woudn’t have let him bid over $100K over the ask if there weren’t a lot of other bids? And the appraiser – another professional (not a mere “hobbyist” like so many on SS) also thought $720K was “fair market value” for that house, in that place, at that time.
    Now, it’s 24% below that price. At least. Apples to apples. And you’re on here trying to say (or at least strongly implying) that houses around there are still at 2005-08 prices. And I’m guessing that 2007 prices were even higher than 2005 prices. So, this one is at least24% down from 2005, and presumably even a higher percentage down from its peak price.
    So. the only conclusion I can draw – even if you won’t say it – is that he must have overpaid back then. Thanks for clearing that up 🙂

  21. Go ahead and consider me boxed into a corner then. Appraiser, realtor, repeat ad infinitum. The other sales in the “neighborhood” are meaningless. You don’t care to ever engage or learn anything.

  22. There is another explanation. Let’s accept arguendo the premise that numerous properties in this neighborhood are still selling for 2005 thru 2008 type prices. Buyers of those places are overpaying now.
    Now as to that premise — can you share some examples of such sales?

  23. 632 Prentiss (3/18/09 sale and a 2004-2009 apple), the Bocana property diemos mentioned, 326 Virginia (a property with the same sort of lot as this Faith street property, 750K) 95 Winfield (an ’03 to ’08 apple that went up 185K), 15 Bradford (sold for 892.5 in 10/08, but bought for 665K in ’06, possibly an outcome the Faith buyer had in mind), 161 Anderson (an ’05 850K, 12/08 962K, an apple + save one master bath rmdl), 160 Manchester (1.15M, its almost identical in every way but slightly larger uphill neighbor 170 Manchester sold for 1.05M in ’03), 1529 Treat (900K 12/08 from a 889K list price), 532 Peralta (2/13/09 837K up from an 825K list), 172 Precita (yes, Precita, in November, during the worst the media could muster for 1.375M from a 1.369 list and 16 days on the market).
    I could go on with a dozen or more, all showing near peak level sales since 10/08. Another 10 are currently pending and most seemingly for 2007 type pricing, including 371 Prentiss (969K list), 216 Ellsworth (850K list), 417 Precita (right on Precita Park with a 779K list), and 36 Mirabel (1050 feet and a 749K list).
    There are also nine in contract, including 110 Faith’s neighbor, 145 Faith, at an 899K list price. And if you look at it, there are 35 active listings to 19 in contract or pending, to 30 sold since mid October. Only about four or five of the active listings are stale. So while it isn’t 2006, it isn’t the sick man of San Francisco either.
    The main thing, LMRiM, is that this all illustrates a market contrary to your description based upon 110 Faith. You said, “We need to start getting some price discovery so that potential purchasers in these neighborhoods will be able to resist the silliness that the realtors have been peddling lately, namely, that prices are down only about 10% from peak in SF.”
    Like nearly always when you wax SF neighborhood markets, what you said was nonsense. Once again, in that grating faux-authoritative style of yours, you delivered a petulant and uninformed flame. As usual it was based upon an extrapolation of one property. And as usual, I wonder what your endgame is, and why you choose to contradict your own role of a trusted markets sage with that of an armchair SF real estate hater bozo.

  24. anonn,
    There’s a bunch of numbers and purported “apples” in there. The last time you casually threw out some “apples”, you were given the respect of a reasoned reply, and it turned out that your “apples” were anything but (in fact, the only one that was a true comparison – 3035 25th Avenue – ultimately turned out to be a loss; poor sucker must have “overpaid” in 2005 I guess and blew up around $250K when it finally sold in Fall 2008). That reply post is here:
    (see post at March 26, 2008 6:18 AM)
    I suspect that many of the above stats on Bernal that you’ve thrown around as a jumble would turn out to be similarly sloppy, and evidence of nothing. Unfortunately, I don’t have the time right now to look into those properties you mentioned, but I’d suggest that you submit any of those that are true “apples” to the editor so that a number of posters (including me) could chime in. That would give us some more color on what is happening in Bernal, and would counteract the obvious implosions of value in places like 110 Faith, 61 Fair Avenue and 84 Anderson, all of which have recently been featured on SS.

  25. I called one property an apple. Thanks for challenging and then not bothering to read or think. Why should I expect differently? You just say whatever you feel like without any care about correctness or accountability. And apples or not, look at the prices. If you had any knowledge base for context, you’d know that your “10 percent off as myth” shpiel was just soundly throttled.
    And I gotta say. At this point you have gotten quite a lot of mileage out of the 25th Ave Merced Manor errant guess of mine. (Easy to remember tho, and an understandable refraina,as my mistakes are few.) You’re like the Mercedes from the commercial — the one that got over 1,000,000 miles and is still truckin’. Come to think of it, in real life a guy like you is probably does drive a truck. I am guessing an Expedition or similar gas guzzler. That probably makes your libertarian self a dual delight at the various Marin cocktail parties you’re increasingly less invited to attend. Get some new material LBHiM (laughing bozo hater in marin).

  26. LOL, flujanonn, you bought a place in Bernal in 06 or 07 iirc?
    You seem angry these days, frankly. Commission $$ must be scarce. Time to reinvent yourself, anonn, because those days aren’t coming back.

  27. Yes I bought a 3 unit off market in 06. It costs me less out of pocket than 2brs rent for.Commissions are flowing my way, actually. But how would you know anything about those days versus these?

  28. But how would you know anything about those days versus these?
    Only a little, anecdotally. A good friend of mine up here in Marin (angel investor) is a part owner of a medical device company (small scale). They were advertising a few months ago (maybe 6?) for basically an admin assistant job – $15/hr. type work. They were inundated with over a hundred or more resume, with “tons” of former realtors and mortgage-broker types, according to my friend. He told me that the resumes of anyone who had any involvement in real estate were summarily thrown into the trash. And he laughed about it. Sounds like conditions are tough in the industry, but of course that’s just an “anecdote” totally unsupported by any extrinsic evidence of sales volume and price collapses since the bubble years, lol.
    (He can afford to laugh, as some dopey dotbomb in 2000 bought a piece of firmware/hardware that he invented. The firm imploded literally 6 months after he was able to hedge out the last of the stock portion of the payment. He’s been laughing ever since. He likes to tell me about all the clueless marketing types that were working in cubicles – newly arrived from the Midwest, where he BTW is from too – who foolishly went down with the ship….)
    So, looking at your data again again on Bernal that you provided, you’ve got one apple, 632 Prentiss, which I also notice has been shilled on “that other site”. Up 6% since 7/2004, sure. Maybe he “underpaid” in 2004? Maybe the current buyer “overpaid”? Maybe the current buyer is getting some closing costs rolled into the loan, so imaybe it’s only up 3% in 5 years. Who knows? Anyway, it doesn’t tell us how much off peak the neighborhood is, but it is a data point demonstrating current prices a bit more than 2004. Certainly not inconsistent with the idea that prices are down more than 10% even in BH, which was my only point and is what the realtors are desperate to contradict.
    About your characterization that the other sales you mention are comparable and demonstrate that prices really aren’t down in the neighborhood, well, sounds like realtor BS to me. As I said, submit some representative ones to the editor – it seems like a number of people are interested in BH and the threads would get some traction.

  29. Wow. You take the no-account cake. You told ME to reinvent myself because those days aren’t coming back. And I asked what you would know to say such a thing to me. Your friend got some applications has no meaning in the context where you tried to insult. Plainly you have nothing, again. The editor of this website reads what I write without fail. And he has no interest in this sort of material. You asked. I delivered. Again, you clearly oerexended yourself, and were summarily dispatched, due to the broad strokes you use.

  30. The editor of this website reads what I write without fail. And he has no interest in this sort of material.
    Well, anonn, if you actually have been submitting those sorts of places in BH to the editor, I’ll add my voice to yours requesting the site to feature some of them. Obviously, the site seems most concerned with “apples” and “special” properties (architecturally/stylistically), so perhaps you could tailor your submissions to those preferences. Do some work! Don’t just string along a bunch of addresses and listing prices and conclusory remarks. Provide some details.
    In the meantime, let’s review the apples we do have so far in BH lately on SS:
    632 Prentiss – up 6% (at most) since 7/2004.
    110 Faith – down 24% (at least) since 10/2005.
    84 Anderson – consensus seems to be that it will not sell for its 6/2004 price (currently asking 5% above that price).
    61 Fair Avenue – down 26% (at least) since 5/2006.

  31. The fact that Socketsite has chosen to only highlight poorly performing SFRs I’d precisely the point. There are more out there, and now you have seen them. I now see that your thinking is lock-step with this site. My “shill” of an apple is so very different from the one that caused you to get on a soapbox and spout your brand of nothing.

  32. To start off, I know little to nothing about Bernal. Have been there maybe twice in all the years I’ve lived here, and it was only to find parking for some restaurant on Mission. With that said, I took a quick look on MLS and tried to contrast against bayareasoldhomes.com to see what was on the market that had recently sold. I tried to weed out the places that had been rebuilt or heavily renovated, but of course there’s no way of doing that perfectly. Here’s what I found, in MLS order. Keep in mind these are previous sales prices vs. current list. So they’re not apples yet.
    14 Costa, on market for $309K, last sold for $380K in 8/05. Down 19% in 3.5 years.
    32 Arnold, on market for $529K, last sold for $785K in 11/06. Down 33% in 2 years.
    587 Banks, on market for $549K, last sold for $600K in 10/05. Down 9% in 3.5 years.
    660 Moultrie, on market for $599K, last sold for $540K in 7/03. Up 11% in 5.5 years.
    4 College Terrace, on market for $630K, last sold for $720K in 2/04. Down 13% in 5 years.
    61 Fair, on market for $726K, last sold for $980K in 6/06. Down 26% in 2.5 years.
    66 Bronte, on market for $750K, last sold for $600K in 11/05, up 25% in 3 years (not sure if this one was renovated, though).
    317 Crescent, contingent at $825K, last sold for $990K in 3/06. Down 17% in 3 years.
    And lastly, 145 Faith, contingent at $900K, last sold for $1,249K in 9/07. Down 28% in 1.5 years.
    I’m sure anonn will correct me if any of these aren’t indicative of the current Bernal market. I admit I’m definitely no expert here, but prices generally seem to be down more than 10%, at least based on these listings. But none of these are comps until they close, of course, and they may or may not be apples.

  33. Dude – I concur that Bernal appears to be down more than 10%. Here are some additional stats from the MLS for single-family homes in Bernal (Dist 9A):
    Active count: 35
    Contingent/Pending: 19 (inc 4 for over 4 months)
    Sold in 2009: 8
    Withdrawn or Expired since Jan 08: 58 (unique addresses that are not active and were not sold subsequent to the withdrawal date)
    Here is the mean price per sf from sold houses:
    2009: $511
    2008: $616
    2007: $663
    2006: $616
    2005: $662
    2004: $557
    2003: $487
    2002: $441
    2001: $404
    2000: $402
    As noted above, the 8 sales in 2009 have a mean psf of $511. The 19 contingent/pending have a mean psf of $498. So, for this metric, we’re back around the 2003 level and about 25% below the 2007 peak.
    Note that with the current sales pace of only about 3 per month there is a 12-month listed supply (and a large number of recent withdrawals).

  34. Great data, Dude. I’ve spent a little time in BH, but only a little and it was back in 2003/04. We had friends who lived on Winchester and used to visit them once in a while.
    I have one additionn/correction to your data, regarding 66 Bronte. From property shark, it was last purchased in 12/2005 for $650K (not $600K). I can’t tell for sure, but this once may have been bought back for $599K by the bank 1 month before selling to the current owners. See the sales history here:
    The property tax records are consistent with a $650K purchase in 2005.
    As for whether it is a true “apple”, it looks like a new kitchen was put in and floors retiled in kitchen and bathrooms (from listing website):
    About appreciation/depreciation – as you note, it hasn’t sold yet. 126 DOM and it’s been reduced twice. From the redfin listing linked above:
    “Price Reduced $50K! Nice deal! Buy it before it gets rented!”
    Sounds like some more renters are going to be subsidized.
    All the data you provided support the idea that prices are down more than 10% in BH. That shouldn’t really be a surprise I’d think to anyone.

  35. Somebody better tell the residential visionaries at Harrison about the BH being down.
    [Editor’s Note: No need, they’ve already figured it out (seeking $2.7M in October of last year, priced at $2.37M and $2.27M today).]

  36. Looking at FSBO’s data, and some of the particular apples identified by Dude, I’d guess someone looking to buy in BH should be thinking that values have fallen at least 20% from peak, notwithstanding what they will be told by realtors. (Of course, realtors have an inherent interest in talking buyers “up” and sellers “down”, which should always be kept in mind IMO.)
    LOL sparky about the “residential visionaries”. This bubble has created lots of suckers and foolish ideas, that’s for sure.
    Last data addition on 66 Bronte (the only Dude property showing potentially some good appreciation, if it sells). While there are no permits for kitchen/bathrooms, there is an electrical permit dating from after 2005 upgrading the place from 30 amps to 100 amps, which would be consistent with modernizing those creaky old houses I saw all around near where my friend used to live on Winchester 😉

  37. Oh, I see poorly performing properties in Bernal daily. If you back up and look at what was said, I took exception to LMRiM’s characterization. I was asked for examples and I delivered dozens. LOL at the notion of Bernal tanking and the Harrison development being in the same thread tho!

  38. anonn, how do you define “tanking?” Is 10% down tanking? I guess not.
    But I’d say that 20% down definitely counts as tanking, given that even the most conservative buyers (i.e. those who put 20% down) are left without any equity in that scenario. In fact, they’ve most likely imploded their entire life’s savings at that point. I’m not implying that all of Bernal is in that situation, but several properties clearly are.

  39. I dug around a little more on a few of the properties that flujanonn threw out in his March 20, 2009 10:53 AM post, and 145 Faith caught my eye.
    Anonn rattled off a bunch of addresses, the main point of which was to counter the idea that Bernal Heights properties are down more than 10% from peak. Including 145 Faith.
    As Dude poined out, 145 Faith itself is now contingent at $899K (130 DOM). It last sold for $1,249,000 in 2007, so it’s down about 28% or so. And offering this piece of evidence, anonn still ostensibly thinks (or actually wants potential buyers who are reading SS to believe) that prices are not even down 5-10% from peak. That’s cognitive dissonance,lol. I sincerely hope that the 2007 buyer of 145 Faith didn’t put any of his own hard-earned money down, because even at a “conservative” 30% down, it’s gone. 100% loss.
    That’s my only real point. It is very risky (not conservative) to put any money down on a San Francisco property. Any SF property, even today. The bubble was so large, and went on for so long, there is no telling just how far prices are going to fall. The buyers who bought in 2004-07 are discovering this fact. I bet that by next year, the 2002-03 buyers (and 2008-09 buyers) are going to get their lessons as well.

  40. I noticed 145’s former sales price, and I’m pretty sure I commented on it previously either here or elsewhere. It was a footnote as a contingent property in my first set of examples simply to point out that the very street can support higher prices. But regarding 145, is buying on the south slope of Bernal Heights at any time in history for $1.2+ probably a bad idea? Let alone selling within 19 months? Sure. Both moves are unlikely to be fruitful in any near term market, upward or downward. But again, it was you who said that “the neighborhood” is down over 10 percent. I offered up plenty of counter examples. You’ve chosen, as is your preference, to seize upon the one that I only mentioned as a neighbor, flatly, without the descriptve parens with which I framed the other properties.
    If I’ve ever tried to say one thing on here it’s that people not be so monolithic. It’s block by block, house by house, and it really has been for quite some time. But to a guy like you, without any real interest of any kind in the market other than internet titillation, what does it matter? Why be so snarky day in and day out about something that doesn’t really matter to you? Very odd.

  41. I see a non-monolithic neighborhood trend. Bernal mean price per sf from sold houses per FSBO:
    2009: $511 (-17%)
    2008: $616 (-7%)
    2007: $663 (+7%)
    2006: $616 (-7%)
    2005: $662 (+19%)
    2004: $557 (+14%)
    2003: $487 (+10%)
    2002: $441 (+9%)
    2001: $404 (0%)
    2000: $402
    2000 to 2005: +65%
    2005 to 2009: -23%

  42. A better comparison of the $511 per SF for the first 8 houses sold in 2009 would be a comparison with the price per SF for the first 8 houses sold in 2008, or houses sold in Jan-Feb of last year. We’ve already established a seasonality to prices. The small number makes it more likely that mix is a factor as well. Since this number is the mean, one or two houses could shift the mean substantially.
    Apples to apples might not be down quite as much overall. However, this goes both ways– if later, 8 houses sell for a mean $561 per SF, it doesn’t mean a bottom has been passed, and prices are up 10%. It could be seasonality, or the sales of a couple expensive north slope view houses.

  43. “It could be seasonality, …”
    If you look at the data there’s a clear seasonality in the rate of sales but not really in the price data. If there is a seasonal effect it looks to the naked eye smaller than the random fluctuations.

  44. All of the examples contrary to LMRIM’s overarching, realtor slamming, seize on one property to encapsulate Bernal, shpiel that I gave were post 10/1/08 or 10/15/08. I can’t remember which one I used. Because 2009 versus 2008 means very little right now. It’s all about September’s sea change. If you want to look at “2009”, I’d skew it to begin at 10/15/08.

  45. LMRiM wrote:
    “I’ve spent a little time in BH, but only a little and it was back in 2003/04. We had friends who lived on Winchester and used to visit them once in a while.”
    Winchester Street is in Daly City.

  46. Sorry, Dan. I meant Winfield – it was 5 or 6 years ago. We did have a nanny for a short while and once in a while I would drive her home. She lived right near Winchester in Daly City (I used to turn right after Winchester onto Hanover.) So I know that area pretty well – stupid mistake. Thanks for noticing.
    The funny thing is, the houses on Winchester and Hanover for the most part seemed better kept than the ones I remember in Bernal 🙂

  47. “Sorry, Dan. I meant Winfield – it was 5 or 6 years ago. We did have a nanny for a short while and once in a while I would drive her home. She lived right near Winchester in Daly City (I used to turn right after Winchester onto Hanover.) So I know that area pretty well – stupid mistake. Thanks for noticing.
    The funny thing is, the houses on Winchester and Hanover for the most part seemed better kept than the ones I remember in Bernal :)”
    So shut it then, know not.

  48. In contract – if at current asking it would be $482/sf. My hunch is it is at lower than asking, but we’ll see…

Leave a Reply

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