CFAH

70 Williams (Image Source: MapJack.com
So Williams isn’t the most scenic of residential avenues in San Francisco. But it is near the 3rd Street Muni line. There is development in the area. And 70 Williams is a single-family home that’s asking $349,000 and looks to be in good, albeit a bit dated, shape.
∙ Listing: 70 Williams Avenue (2/2) – $349,000 [MLS]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Charnelle

    It’s a sweet house. Just needs a little TLC.

  2. Posted by Rincon Hill Billy

    dude..thats in bayview…there are bunch of SFRs there in that range.

  3. Posted by Chad

    Sweet deal indeed, until you get shot and mugged trying to get into your new “home” 😉

  4. Posted by Jake

    Um, in Bayview? Oh, and in the bad area of Bayview? That’s practically Richmond (the city of). It’ll sell, but the pricing is unsurprising.

  5. Posted by Mystery Realtor

    So, lot value in the Bayview is now $350K, I guess.

  6. Posted by sleepiguy

    Am I the only one who thinks this is still way, way too expensive?

  7. Posted by San FronziScheme

    Last year, this price range was only for tear down shacks. Today it’s for a livable enough place. Definitely a different market.

  8. Posted by Rob

    As a SF Native never fails to amaze me at the level of bias and elitism that some people have about parts of the city, that in all honesty they likely know nothing about. Bayview is not just the headlines you read from, yes the very troubled projects, which themselves will are slated to be razed.
    Before the ’89 quake Mission Bay, Lower Embarcadero, South Beach and SoMa weren’t destinations, but the freeway demo and the development that followed gave them life. Well Bayview has NEVER gotten a look at being developed, and right now it has a chance. Irregardless its not all criminals, and thugs, but until development can give it an identity, I should hope more than slightly intelligent people would be above cracking jokes and aspersions, about people, places, and communities they know obviously nothing about.

  9. Posted by Trip

    This area is not that bad. Seriously. My kids’ piano teacher lives 5 blocks away and I’ve spent a fair amount of time walking around while they are in their lessons. Decent working class neighborhood.
    But, to put things in perspective (I’ve told this story here before) — their teacher and her partner paid $780,000 in 2005 for a place that is just a little nicer than this and with a small 3rd bedroom where the piano is. 10% down — their life savings — and their loan recast late last year with their payments nearly doubling. They did not want to be “priced out forever.” They are screwed but “determined to make it work,” and they’ve rejected my advice to walk away because, ironically, their life savings is in the place. They rent rooms to foreign backbackers. Amazing how people justified the insane pricing in SF (and many continue to do so).

  10. Posted by anonn

    I don’t think so. I see two D 10 sales for under 400K this time last year, and neither of them look that bad. 1151 Palou and 1046 Gilman. The “different market” is D10 and parts of D3, and it has been effecting median for well over a year at this point.

  11. Posted by Legacy Dude

    Oh sigh, not another Dwell interior!
    Jokes aside, I’m still waiting for the trademark pollyanna comment: “If homes in Bayview are still going for $350K, then the market can’t be collapsing!”
    Shame they were approaching $700K just 3-4 years ago. Think about it this way: a 50% value drop takes OVER 20 YEARS of hold time to recoup at a 3.5% clip, and that’s just assuming nominal purchase price dollars.

  12. Posted by anonn

    Yeah, I bet if you were to put the appreciation that Bayview houses saw from 2003-1007 up against any other real estate market in the world it would hold its own. Three hundred percent was not uncommon.

  13. Posted by EBGuy

    Trip, thanks for the piano teacher update. Had been wondering how they were doing. Quite frankly, I don’t think we’ll have reached the bottom ’til folks like them at least consider throwing in the towel.
    Since this place is right on the border between Bayview and Silver Terrace, I’ve combined the foreclosure totals. We’re looking at 163 foreclosures (NODs, NOTS, bank owned) to 90 homes currently for sale. Plenty of pent up supply in the pipeline.

  14. Posted by Jake

    Agreed that it is still too much to pay for this neighborhood, which is bad enough. I’m actually pretty familar with the area and there at least once a week and also have friends that live just a few blocks away on the other side of 3rd street up the hill (or heres one for you realtors, “Bayview Heights”, don’t forget my royalty checks). It also tends to vary a lot by time of day.

  15. Posted by tipster

    What’s sad is that if the buyer of this home moved anywhere outside of the coasts, they would be living in a great home in a very good upper middle class neighborhood for the same money. Or buy the same house elsewhere for the cost of the downpayment of this one. Sure, you’ll take a 20% cut in pay, but your house payment will be zero.

  16. Posted by Trip

    I think you’re right EBGuy. They are actually hanging in there, but it is just sad to me. They were upset last year when places like theirs started selling in the high 500s. Probably at least 20% lower now. Their monthly out-of-pocket (mortgage + taxes – deduction) jumped from about $2300 to $4300 when the I/O period ended (lower interest rates helped keep it from being higher). They can’t refi. They now pay more than double every month what I pay for my pretty nice SFR in D5.
    I do like your “pent up supply” indicator. I’m curious to see if that really is a good predictor of things.

  17. Posted by LMRiM

    Sounds like your kids’ piano teacher didn’t take my advice, Trip, back a year ago (to kick out the backpacker, and funnel all available $$ into bankruptcy-remote vehicles just in case, and simply enjoy living in the place). If they had, they’d be in the catbird’s seat right now, calling 1-800-BAILOUT. I am close to someone on the East Coast who did just what I proposed (after cash out refiing at the very top of the market) and is literally laughing.
    The piano teachers’ story is a sad one, especially to someone like me who is convinced that these distortions were created intentionally by the banksters/USG. Well, if not “intentionally”, at least with “extreme reckless disregard” in the depraved heart murder of average peoples’ finances.

  18. Posted by (Sorta)NewBuyer

    @Rob,
    We will continue to condescend upon Bayview as an ‘undesirable’ part of town, until our city stops its Commie ways, and actually lets the market play out.
    There’s no doubt that if this wasn’t the most developer unfriendly city on earth, then Bayview would be a perfectly nice part of town.
    But then here’s the catch: The city will want developers to build new homes in Bayview, but rather then sell them, they will have to rent them out for $200/mo to the “previous tenants” there… or some ridiculous crap like that.
    Bayview, and every nasty part of this city for that matter, are unsightly alters to Rent Control, and the slum dwellers who live there will always be just that until the Supervisors wake up and let nature take its course.
    Either that or Chris Daly is a modern day fusion of Superman and Robin Hood with powers that ovepower the laws of economics.

  19. Posted by ex SF-er

    although I too think this is overpriced, I have to say that a property like this puts just a little pressure on ALL real estate in the Bay area, not just Bayview. pricing like this starts to look attractive when the alternative is a small starter condo for $700k with high HOAs.
    So long as there aren’t huge structural issues, this place could be Dwell-ified fairly easily. You could put in hardwood floors, paint everything, a new kitchen, new bathrooms, and even a high end appliance or two and a chopped pillow for pretty cheaply, especially if you did some of the work yourself.
    I bet I could EASILY get that house up to standards with some elbow grease and $100k. (again assuming sound bones)
    many people of course hate the neighborhood… but at $450k you could get a nice SFH and have an attached garage. So you’d just drive right into your house. it would be easy to just drive from here to anywhere in the city. more convenient than Mountain View, where you essentially do the same thing. (drive into your house)
    of course, everybody is afraid of being raped and pillaged. And there is no question that crime is higher there. But I’ve lived in the hood before, spruced up a ghettofabulous place and loved my life there.
    of course, I’d rather just rent a SFH somewhere for $3k/month than pay mortgage on $450k, but some people really really really want to buy.

  20. Posted by Trip

    LMRiM, I passed on your thoughts — actually, it was Satchel 😉 — and pointed out that with the $4500/mo they could bank while waiting for the foreclosure they could recoup most (or all) of the savings they threw into the downpayment. And showed them much nicer places they could rent for 40% less than they were paying, not even counting the losses avoided.
    They really are good people. Too good. They just think it is “wrong” to stop paying and walk away because the can still pay (I guess they earn about $100k between them). I also related to them how one of our clients defaulted on a $100 million note recently that was backed only by worthless derivatives simply because it made business sense to do so, and the deal that was struck with the lenders contemplated that very possibility. It did not sink in. The rich get richer . . .

  21. Posted by San FronziScheme

    Most so-so Bayview listings I was pulling early last year were listed in the 400s, some in the 500s. I don’t recall decent homes listed sub 400. SS featured 2 or 3 cheap cheap tear downs if I recall. That there would be 2 homes sold sub-400s is not surprising but listed and sold are 2 different things. Again, this specific home is listed at 349K.

  22. Posted by Legacy Dude

    ^^^^^
    Yes, but why do that when for under $400K you could buy 165 Williams across the street. Built in ’99, it’s a 3/2 asking $398K and already has hardwood floors. It previously sold for $700K in August of ’05.

  23. Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

    Since we like to discuss opportunity cost on SS, I should note that, all other things being equal, and assuming they make it until they can refinance, the piano teacher is still going to have a > 700 FICO score going forward.
    People who

    funnel all available $$ into bankruptcy-remote vehicles just in case, and simply enjoy living in the place

    … are, to put it mildly, not.
    That said, I’m willing to entertain the notion that the cost of not forking over the cash into an underwater mortgage now outweighs the cost of the suppressed credit and higher cost of borrowing that the “enjoying” person is going to have to suffer from over the next seven years once one takes into account the time value of money. There’s folks here who know a lot more about microeconomics and personal finance than I do. I haven’t “run the numbers”, using any reasonable assumptions.
    But if it were me, I’d probably be doing the same thing as the piano teacher if I were in that situation. There, but for the grace of God …

  24. Posted by LMRiM

    165 Williams – Here’s the loan info printout from Prop Shark (purchase price $700K):
    Lender # 1 Long Beach Mortgage Co
    Loan amount # 1 $560,000
    Rate type # 1 Variable
    Lender # 2 Long Beach Mortgage Co
    Loan amount # 2 $140,000
    Rate type # 2 Fixed
    I’m sure they’re not too bothered by the collapse in value out there (and yes, I’d say $700K to $400-450K is a collapse, especially on a leveraged asset). I can’t imagine they’ve made all their payments, and it doesn’t look like taxes were paid either this year (although I can’tbe sure). From one trader to another, well played sir! and another data point showing that 100% no money down loans indeed happened in SF. At least the smartest purchasers used them where possible.

  25. Posted by LMRiM

    Well, Brahma (incensed renter), it’s all about maximizing expected returns in light of the status quo ante position a deeply underwater “homeowner” finds himself when deciding on strategic default. Obviously, it depends a bit on your forecast of the cost of bad credit, which has to be balanced against the certainty of the cash loss each and every month from paying on a deeply underwater house that may not be refinanceable for a very long time on reasonable assumptions.
    Personally, I do not think the credit ding will be a very big deal in a year or two. This situation is nothing short of catastrophic, and I expect governmental policy that will force credit raters/providers to ignore (or deeply underweight) housing related dings like foreclosures. Witness how Government Motors was ordered by CEO Obama and CFO Bernanke in effect to allow subprime auto financing again (below FICO 620 I think).
    Anyway, that’s the way I’d think about it. If I were in that position, it would be a no brainer to default strategically, but I do recognize that I might not be as sensitive to the issue because availability of credit doesn’t matter to us (I’d prefer if the housing market went to cash only – that would be sweet!).

  26. Posted by joerealtor

    Several comps suggesting a price range north of $500,000. The unknowns are structural condition of the property and Williams is a busy street and not as attractive as the other comps on Quesada, Robblee, and Quint that are all close by and similar homes.

  27. Posted by Legacy Dude

    On hold vs. walk: As I pointed out above, many homeowners who bought at the peak will NEVER see values return to what they paid during a normal holding period, at least not in real terms (true for Bayview today, and becoming increasingly true for other parts of the city).
    So what’s preferable? Walk away today and ruin your credit for a few years, or pay double rental cost on this submarine for 15+ years just to break even in nominal dollars?

  28. Posted by San FronziScheme

    I’d prefer if the housing market went to cash only – that would be sweet!
    One can always dream. The immediate correction would be dramatic. Prices would collapse for once. People with cash would become landlords and would dictate their terms. Supply would not increase, as few would have the cash to start new homes outside of ever-richer landlords. Landlords would have all interest to behave like oil companies today and stop developing new supply, making rents explode. This is a monopoly with no competition from new owners. Current renters would be squeezed and not in a position to save to buy.

  29. Posted by Jimmy (No Longer Bitter)

    Boy oh boy, that sounds nice. A cash-only housing market in which rentors pay 80% of their income to landlords. Where have we seen this before? Oh yeah, pre-revolutionary China. I think we all know where that leads.
    Better just to keep everyone on the treadmill, head down, working hard (and going nowhere).

  30. Posted by LMRiM

    LOL, Fronzi, we sure could dream, but your scenario would definitely not come to pass. If it did, that would happen in ALL essential services. For instance, no one needs anything more than food, why don’t the food producers all get together and squeeze all the cash out of everyone?
    Supply would not increase, as few would have the cash to start new homes outside of ever-richer landlords.
    Who would then fight each other to build more supply, lowering equilibrium prices. If OPEC can’t collude without cheating, how could literally millions of landlords do it?
    Current renters would be squeezed and not in a position to save to buy.
    Only if landlords could monopolize all the land of the United States, which can’t happen. In reality, what would probably happen is that large landlords would discover just how expensive it is to try to squeeze the last drop of blood from renters while simultaneously trying to manage the assets, and would start lending money to the renters to buy the assets or engaging in some other form of ownership transferrance over time.
    Obviously, this is all just in fun. An all cash market is as unstable as a 100% no money down market. So, lending would grow up around the assets. Over time, lending would stabilize around parameters that make sense in view of the risks. Which is exactly what happened in the US in 2002-2007. The banksters had no risk because they knew they had the government/taxpayer and Fed at their back when it all went kablooey!
    Take away all the governmental/Fed/tax distortions, and who knows where it would settle down. Probably somewhere around 20-50% cash downs and floating interest rate loans that would be 10 years or less. Over time, it would boom and bust, and people’s preferences would become more known. Food production used to boom and bust too, and markets and progress solved that problem pretty well in the developed countries (where property was recognized and at least some semblance of markets prevailed), considering the fear of famine that must have plagued our forebears 🙂
    I’d like to give it a try anyway, but it’s not going to happen.

  31. Posted by ex SF-er

    Boy oh boy, that sounds nice. A cash-only housing market in which rentors pay 80% of their income to landlords. Where have we seen this before? Oh yeah, pre-revolutionary China. I think we all know where that leads
    I disagree.
    Italy as a country has historically had very high downpayments and very high Cash-only purchases due to one of the most restrictive mortgage markets in the world, at least until the worldwide credit bubble blew. and yet 83%+ of their population owned their own home. only 20% of people rented. (their home ownership is significantly higher than ours)
    in 1980 the MAXIMUM mortgage allowed on a property was 50%, which was relaxed to 75% in 1980 and relaxed further to 80% in 1993. Even then, the usual loan duration was only 10 years (lately relaxed to 20 and maybe 30 years, I forget).
    despite this relaxation of lending rules, the mortgage market was VERY small in Italy up through the early 2000’s due to the difficulty in foreclosing. It takes on average 5.5 YEARS to foreclose on a defaulted property in Italy. due to this, lenders are wary of lending the max allowed.
    So did people live like pre-revolutionary China? nope. they just saved up for a long time and then bought. It’s one (of many) reasons why Italian youth live with parents much longer than their European (and American) counterparts. it’s not uncommon for married people to live with their parents for 5-10 years saving up the purchase price of their home. there’s also the infamous problem with the Italian mama’s boy (called “mammoni” in italian)… 50% of men between the ages of 25-35 live with their mothers!
    once the bubble blew, the italian mortgage market exploded in size and scope. Prices shot up into the stratosphere in the major cities. and people’s down payments shrunk and their loan balance soared.
    sound familiar?
    warning: pdf
    http://www.urban-europe.net/working/01_2006_Aalbers.pdf

  32. Posted by EBGuy

    Looks like I made an error a couple of days ago. The “Don’t 1099 Me, Bro” legislation got extended through 2012. From the IRS website:
    The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 extended the exclusion from gross income for the discharge of qualified principal residence indebtedness by an additional 3 years. This exclusion now applies to debt discharged after 2006 and before 2013.
    Could make for an interesting Christmas come 2012. Jingle mail, jingle mail, jingle all the way…

  33. Posted by dub dub

    “[jingle mail] legislation got extended through 2012”
    Don’t worry, it looks like they are taking away LMRiM’s 60/40 rule to compensate! 😉

  34. Posted by San FronziScheme

    Jimmy (No Longer Bitter)
    People buying with a 30Y mortgage are likely to pay 40% of their income into a mortgage. Add property taxes, deduct a few things, add the inevitable repairs, maintenance costs, furniture, utilities, opportunity cost. In competitive areas, that will amount to 50 to 60% of new salary overall, not too far from the 80% you quoted.
    LMRiM,
    Food producers: we can thank globalization for that and all the trade agreements that ensure there’s actual competition. Sell $2 California avocados and $.60 Mexican avocados will outsell you to lower your price. Overproduction is a good thing there for consumers. And it was triggered by competition (and subsidies). If subsidies hadn’t been set up, producers would have lobbied for bans on imports and we’d be paying produce at Swiss prices. We’re paying Swiss prices already through our taxes of course but food is aplenty.
    If OPEC can’t collude without cheating, how could literally millions of landlords do it?
    Sure. Just remember oil was in the teens 10 years ago. It’s 50 these days and we consider it cheap because it went to 150 last year. A 300K shack looks cheap when you compare it to the 700K it would command 2 years ago, but it’s not.
    Take away all the governmental/Fed/tax distortions, and who knows where it would settle down. Probably somewhere around 20-50% cash downs and floating interest rate loans that would be 10 years or less.
    It’s mechanical. If banks do only 10Y fully amortized mortgages and set payments to 35% of income max with 30% down, then prices will be set according to income. If that were the case, how much house can you buy with a 65K median salary? Not much. Creative financing, prop 13 and rent control are really helping unaffordable housing there.

  35. Posted by hangemhi

    Bayview might as well be on the moon. No one considering a Pac Heights condo would be caught dead living there. This is not an elitest comment, it is reality. “walkability” is incredibly important to real estate values. If all you want to do is live in your box of a home and in your car and in your office, then go live in Dallas, or Detroit.
    But if you want walkable access to coffee shops, restaurants, parks you’re willing to hang out in, etc, etc you pay for the lifestyle. There are only so many cities I’d live in to get that…. and within those only so many neighborhoods.
    And as someone else said, this was “subprime central”. Look up every mortgage of every purchase in areas like Bayview from ’04 to ’07 and I bet 90% are sub prime. It was obvious there was stupid s*** going on down there – and it is/was never obvious in “prime sf”

  36. Posted by Joe

    “Bayview might as well be on the moon. No one considering a Pac Heights condo would be caught dead living there.”
    Ah, marching out the old “not in Real SF” argument again.
    Doesn’t work that way. Prices for D10 houses went to 700,000, and that meant people justified paying 800,000 for a smallish condo in D5. And that meant that $1.3 million for a 2BR condo in D7 was justified. Meaning a nice but not spectacular D5 house is “worth” $1.8 million. And so on. Prices crash in one area and it affects all others. Exactly what we are seeing, even if the exact scope and timing differs a bit from neighborhood to neighborhood.
    And: “‘walkability’ is incredibly important to real estate values.” Some truth, but mostly in the minds of SF realtors. Big house, a yard, and a garage are more important to most people.

  37. Posted by anonn

    Joe, then can you explain the lag within SF’s own city limits? If you believe in an absolute relative nature within a local real estate market, how do you explain what has happened? There can be no doubt about the fact that D10 has been in this state for going on two years now. (By the way, a search for 800K+ 1-2 br TICs and condos in D5 that have sold or gotten into contract since April 1 shows 15.)

  38. Posted by Joe

    anonn, certain neighborhoods had more sales with subprime loans. Those ended around mid to late 2006 and, voila, prices started coming down in those neighborhoods shortly afterward. Other neighborhoods had more sales with other types of exotic loans. Those ended around late 2007 and, voila, prices started coming down in those neighborhoods shortly afterward. Even those better neighborhoods started trending flat to slightly down once the ripple out from the subprime nabes started. The “lag” is basically gone now and everything is falling all over town, per my post above:
    http://www.pegasusventures.net/wordpressblog/2009/05/02/districts-3-and-10-rip/
    But you know all this.

  39. Posted by San FronziScheme

    Joe,
    Big house, a yard, and a garage are more important to most people.
    Most, not all. I moved from a decent sized house in upper Noe to something smaller in Telegraph Hill mainly for walkability. 24th street is great but a bit overblown. The big plusses for me: 5 minutes to work, jogging to GG, great eating places all around, walking to buy groceries and the sound of parrots hovering near the garden. I save 1 hour per day at least and my car collects dust. This is true luxury for some, unlike commuting 3h/day to sleep in a McMansion you would spend very little quality time in.

  40. Posted by anonn

    Yeah, OK. I happen to have two sets of buyers looking for something nice with at least 2 brs 1 ba and parking in parts of areas 5 for under 900K. And it is not like they are growing on trees. You say prices are “falling all over town.” I think prices have fallen. “Are falling” ? Not so sure. There really isn’t a lot of inventory right now.

  41. Posted by anonn

    http://www.pegasusventures.net/wordpressblog/2009/05/02/districts-3-and-10-rip/
    You know that among other things, this chart treats all of the D3 the same way, right? Oceanview and Merced Manor are plotted as the same thing on it. March 2008 is supposed to be SF’s peak. Yet D3 and D10 show a 2005 peak. And that’s insignificant?
    I like the work Misha Weidman has done. It’s interesting. I could poke a million holes in it tho. Let us not pretend that it is conclusive.

  42. Posted by Maybe not

    Re: March 2008 is supposed to be SF’s peak. Yet D3 and D10 show a 2005 peak.
    anonn,
    That’s A peak, not THE peak. The peak for D3/D10 on Mish’s chart appears to be July 2007.

  43. @Rob…Did you just use the word irregardless and then accuse people (on this message board) of not being intelligent? Wow.

  44. “There really isn’t a lot of inventory right now.”
    Fluj, you need to stop with that. It is getting old. You have been saying it for years. There is inventory out there but it is typically overpriced crap…..OR it is not on the market because someone refuses to sell their property at a loss. You want inventory…go to Contra Costa bro.

  45. Posted by concerned

    @ Trip – if they are set on trying to keep the property, why don’t you ask your kid’s piano teacher to do a loan modification?

  46. Posted by anonn

    Bossy Yurt Man,
    I specified what type of inventory: nice, D5 (after Joe referred to same) 2 or more bedrooms, sub 900K. Why that would offend you, or why you took it to mean a monolithic all city comment escapes me. As for “saying it for years” I have said it from time to time. It has not been a constant.

  47. Posted by EH

    I’m pretty sure that sky was photoshopped in. Damn realtors.

  48. March 3rd 2008 Fluj wrote…”Seemingly the perception is that there is a lot of inventory, but is there, really? And as for prices, come on now!”
    March 14th 2008 Fluj wrote…”And 2005 and 2006 suffered from a lack of inventory.”
    Well that covers your “no inventory” call for 05, 06, 07, 08 and 09. ”
    Next stop Solano county! Heard they have a great ZipRealty office out there and you will never have to whine about inventory.

  49. Posted by Trip

    concerned, good point. I’ve never discussed looking into loan modifications with them (not like we talk about this often). From what I understand, it is quite rare for a lender to actually reduce the principal — is that right?

  50. Posted by ex SF-er

    From what I understand, it is quite rare for a lender to actually reduce the principal — is that right?
    that is correct, especially rare in a situation where the homeowner is paying the mortgage in full on time. I haven’t heard of a single case like that. They’d need to miss at least 3-6 mortgage payments to get the lender’s attention. IF they pay consistently on time what would be the impetus for the bank to reduce principal?!
    a lender has to take a loss if it writes down principal. unlikely in this environment.

  51. Posted by anonn

    I’m not whining about anything. I think I expressed myself rather clearly. In fact, you even agree that there aren’t a lot of good well-priced properties on the market right now. It’s a very simple matter of supply and demand, and yes, I’ve made that assertion from time to time. Really, tho I appreciate all the special attention, if you are unable to be civil, how about you don’t address me at all? Thanks in advance.

  52. Posted by anonn

    Oh, and Yurty, where’s my monolithic call for all of 2007? I’ll tell you where you won’t find it in the Socketsite archives. Fall 2007 — there was plenty of inventory back then. For your case, you seem to have found two separate comments about the same March 2008 market — a time frame that oddly coincides with blips northward in Misha Weidman’s charts, and others. Huh. Fancy that. Ditto 2005 and 2006, when the market was really hot. Or perhaps June’s look back at May of this year, even. Which is what I’m speaking on, now.

  53. Posted by bayview heights resident

    Hi, I just can’t resist a good Bayview thread. My wife and I are a Hispanic/Black couple that live in Bayview Heights. Yes, it is a real neighborhood in District 10 encompassing from Jamestown Ave. up the hill to Le Conte.
    I will not dwell on the negative/biased frankly horrible comments that most post on here about Bayview. Here is my take on the Bayview situation. Yes, prices have dropped dramatically. There is no doubt about it. Our all original 1906 Craftsman Bungalow was valued at about 900k (on two lots with a rental studio in back). Now, it would go for about 600K plus or minus.
    Ok about the neighborhood. It is really inconvenient to live here because we only have one Foodsco grocery store in the whole area. We have to go to Potrero Safeway or Lucky in Tanforan. We need more grocery choices in the area. There are very few restaurants in the area that are not fast food. We usually go to Bernal Heights for Mexican/Sushi, or drive to the Mission
    I have lived here for a long time, and the neighborhood is changing demographically. My block used to be 90 percent African American. Now, I have a German neighbor with little blond kids running around their restored 1900 Victorian home across the street. There are way more Latinos and Hispanics in Bayview and even some Arabics. Way more.
    Bayview Heights is quiet believe it or not. I live on Jamestown Avenue, have no burglar bars, have no kids hanging on the corners, have very little police activity, and have never had a burglary (knock on wood). The area of Bayview that is horrible is Hunter’s Point and Third Street from William’s up to Oakdale. I hate do drive down there, so I avoid it. Most of my neighbors are old timers that are passing away and being replaced by younger non black’s, hence the changing demographic.
    Bayview has a lot going for it weatherwise and it is easy on and off 101 and 280. I wish the city and developers would put a mall or store or shopping center by Candlestick with easy access off of 101. Any change is good change around here. It just seems like the city has just forgotten about our quadrant. Example: Bayview Hill behind my house has been chopped up by developers. If you climb up there, the vistas are breathtaking; from the peninsula all the way to downtown. If this was any other section of the city we would have every animal activist and preservationist picketing the destruction of the hill (there are families of skunks and other animals that routinely come down and into our yard from the hill). But, since this is Bayview, nobody gives a damn. I don’t blame them. Many ignorant people (Nation of Islan on Hunters Point) seem to have no purpose other than to try and fight development while offering no solutions. That must frustrate everyone. In the meantime, I will remodel my bungalow and hope for change.

  54. Posted by Jake

    Bayview Heights resident, latinos were (maybe still are) getting forced out of the Mission with TIC conversions and generally increased rents and have settled in (one of) the last remaining “affordable” neighborhoods, Bayview. I’m sure other immigrant groups have moved in due to the same affordability factors. So the neighborhood has become more diverse as the homeowning black population has moved elsewhere and cashed out on ridiculous RE prices (documented by various news outlets including the sf comical). I can’t speak to the germans, but I do know a couple of older well-off white families that live there and used to own swaths of land (and still a few big parcels) from 3rd street to 280.
    As for the “horrible comments” anyone has said regarding BV, why are they horrible? Because they say BV is, for SF, an undesirable area lacking in the services you documented and with a high crime rate? Those generally sound like facts to me. I don’t think anyone was saying that everyone who lives in Bayview are somehow “bad” but the fact of the matter is that lots of bad things do happen there and the area is seriously compromised in many ways including being surrounded by the last vestiges of true San Francisco industry.

  55. Posted by Chad

    @ bay view resident who says
    “There are way more Latinos and Hispanics in Bayview and even some Arabics”
    It is Arabs, not Arabic, you ignorant idiot !

  56. Posted by bayview heights resident

    Sorry, I apologize for the error. I should have known the term since my family includes Arab-Americans. But please don’t use name calling or hurtful terms on this site; it lowers the quality of the discussions. I was just trying to give a perspective of my experience as a resident of the area. Editor: can you remind people not to start namecalling?

  57. Posted by Dakota

    @ Chad
    A little harsh, bro. It was one slip from an otherwise honest critique of the area. Are you that outraged? It could have been a typo for all you know.

  58. Posted by Willow

    OK Chad, the guy made a mistake. Chill out. He provided some interesting first hand insight into living in that neigborhood.
    BHR – This area like lots of minority communities is in definite need of a grocery store with access to fresh food.
    One thing definitely lacking in San Francisco as a city is it’s distince lack of an AA middle class. Lots of my friends in the east bay avoid the city as much as possible because you don’t see many people of color.

  59. Posted by Living in the View

    I really appreciate the folks who actually live in the neighborhood posting on here. Cyber neighbors and real ones as well!
    First hand experience owning and living in the heart of the Bayview. In most cases it is a pretty decent and liveable neighborhood. Yes there are challenges with crime and grit, conveniences, and a roller coaster ride of property values.
    1. Demographics are changing for sure. I am a late 30’s gay white professional. I am not the only one flying my flag down here. Most of the change in demographics is from people buying property (immigrant families, young couples, blue collar, white collar, white, black, yellow, brown, purple, whatever). I have lived here for about 2 years and have seen an absolute uptrend in the condition of homes and new business on 3rd Street. Yes a bit of 2 steps forward and 1 step back with the roller coaster of propery values and resulting changes in ownership.
    2. Unfortunately there is a “problem” of lumping the Bayview and Hunter’s Point together. Bayview proper is an improving residential neighborhood with lots of housing character, neighborhood feel, shopping on 3rd, lots of churches, sidewalks, and the city is planting lots of trees. Hunter’s Point is largely dominated by industrial space, warehouses, power plants (many vacant and falling apart), old military complex, and large housing projects. As a resident who walks the neighborhood regularly with my dog I can say that there is definately a difference.
    I feel the Bayview will continue to have an organic evolution and improvement that is not linear and master planned. It will be block by block and grass roots. People make a difference!
    Hunters Point neighborhood will only change with substantial investment and large planned master development ideas.

  60. Posted by EBGuy

    Appreciate the comments from those who live (and walk) the area as I am an ignorant East Bay Arean. To be complete, here are the latest stats for Bayview Heights. Thirty-nine foreclosures (NODs, NOTS, bank owned) and 25 homes currently for sale. Plenty of inventory in the pipeline, but as someone said on another thread, they’re not making any more SFH’s in Ess Eff.

  61. Posted by viewlover

    It is Arabs, not Arabic, you ignorant idiot !
    Shouldnt this be They are Arabs instead of “it is Arabs” you ignorant idiot.

  62. Posted by jon

    Arabic=Arabic people.
    I am sure no insult was intended.

  63. Posted by San FronziScheme

    Arabic/Arab = Same issue than Hindu/Hindi. Everyone mixes the ethnic group with the language or the religion.

  64. Posted by ph goat

    Is there some law against street trees in this area? I wish more homeowners (in all neighborhoods) would make an effort to plant more street trees and plants.

  65. Posted by concerned

    From what I understand, it is quite rare for a lender to actually reduce the principal — is that right?
    that is correct, especially rare in a situation where the homeowner is paying the mortgage in full on time. I haven’t heard of a single case like that. They’d need to miss at least 3-6 mortgage payments to get the lender’s attention. IF they pay consistently on time what would be the impetus for the bank to reduce principal?!
    a lender has to take a loss if it writes down principal. unlikely in this environment.

    @ Trip – ex-SF-er is correct on all points. Mortgage lates are critical in getting a modification approved – lates and showing a close to maxed out DTI on the financial statement.
    A principal reduction is not likely, the lenders goal is to keep the borrowers paying, not to make them whole.

  66. Posted by Trip

    Concerned, ex SF-er, re loan modis, thanks for confirming what I had recalled. I suspect they’ll keep plugging and paying away. I think there has to be some point — perhaps another 30% down which I say is a given — where they realize it is not worth it anymore.

  67. Posted by LMRiM

    Just yesterday in this thread (comment of May 12, 2009 1:42 PM), I wrote in response to concerns about credit dings from walking away from your albatross:
    “Personally, I do not think the credit ding will be a very big deal in a year or two. This situation is nothing short of catastrophic, and I expect governmental policy that will force credit raters/providers to ignore (or deeply underweight) housing related dings like foreclosures.”
    Ask and you shall receive! Looks like I wasn’t “optimistic” enough on the timing, the most merciful Barack is unveiling it already:
    Thursday May 14, 2009, 12:10 am EDT WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration is expected to expand its mortgage aid program on Thursday, announcing new measures that would help homeowners avoid a blemished credit record even if they don’t qualify for other assistance.
    The new initiatives are expected to include ways to allow borrowers to avoid foreclosure by selling their properties or giving them back to lenders, according to people briefed on the plan who declined to be identified because it has yet to be announced. (Emphasis added.)
    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Obama-administration-to-apf-15239053.html
    LOL. It’s tough to tell exactly what’s up their sleeves, but I’m getting the sense that the foolish taxpayer is going to be funding a whole lot of “walking away” at zero cost (not even a substantial credit hit) to the underwater homeowners. I never doubted it for a minute, and I’m pretty sure if I search the archives I can find the same prediction well over a year ago. People who cash out refi’d and kept $0 at risk in the asset are going to be in the catbird’s seat as this all unfolds.

  68. Posted by anonn

    The numbers are out. Last year’s April inventory for SFRs is only 36 more than this year’s April, 988 to 1024, or 3.6% up. (For those of you who doubted my “inventory” thing, like Joe.) Now look at last May’s median. I’m not predicting a repeat of that. The market has changed, a lot. But the notion that the city is awash in SFRs for sale is not held by people who are in the marketplace.
    http://thefrontsteps.com/2009/05/13/data-yo-san-francisco-median-supplydemand-sales-rate-april-2009-v-april-2008/#respond
    [Editor’s Note: As we reported earlier this week, single-family home inventory in San Francisco is down 2.9% on a year-over-year basis. And we’d be willing to bet our counts are more accurate than any of those above.]

  69. Posted by Rillion

    Heheh, go double check the linked article there LMRIM, they appear to have edited it to remove the part you highlight.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles