CFAH

79-81 Valley
We featured it in April but missed it when it closed escrow in May. Luckily a plugged-in reader did not. Purchased from the Sierra Heights sales office for $769,000 ($540 per square foot) in February 2007, the bank owned sale of 55 Sierra #101 closed escrow on May 22, 2009 with a reported contract price of $569,000 ($400 per square foot). That’s a 26% drop in two years.
And earlier today a reader takes us to task for missing what onthe surface appears to be an “apples to apples” sale pair for 79 Valley, a three-bedroom, two-bath Zack | de Vito designed and renovated condo. Purchased for $1,109,000 in November 2006 and then sold this past April for $1,095,000 (which would suggest a net 1% drop since 2006).
Unfortunately, a review of the sales history and refinancing records for 79-81 Valley suggest the two units might have been purchased as TICs in 2006 and subsequently converted to condos in which case it’s no apple for you.
Apples To Apples And A Fall From For Sierra Heights: 55 Sierra #C101 [SocketSite]
New Developments: Sierra Heights [SocketSite]
A New Valencia Corridor Comp Coming Soon (3615 20th Street #6) [SocketSite]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Julie Peisner

    I never saw that unit but it doesn’t look nearly as nice as the apple I just listed. 25 Sierra #203 is on the market now for $925,000 which is only $16,000 more than what my sellers purchased it for in 2006. Open tomorrow for broker tour 2-3:30pm.
    [Editor’s Note: Before anybody suggests otherwise, offering another apples to apples listing in the same development is on topic and a perfectly acceptable comment as far as we’re concerned. And we’re the ones that added the hypertext link to the address above.]

  2. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    Is that really a crack running down the middle of the mosaic floor on the website for 25 Sierra #203 ? I do like honesty in marketing but am baffled why this image of a defect would be used on the listing’s home page.
    http://www.openhomesphotography.com/25Sierra203/

  3. Posted by Po Hill Jeff

    Today I received some “email marketing” for a condo, 25 Sierra #203, a 3/3, asking $925K ($557/sf), or $19K more than it sold for in 2006.
    There’s a condo for sale across the street from me (North Slope, top floor) for over $1M. It faces another that recently sold for $850K (reduced from original asking of $1.1M).
    I don’t understand how these guys are coming up with their pricing. Either they’re in complete denial or this is part of a more subtle marketing strategy than I can understand.

  4. Posted by Po Hill Jeff

    oops, sorry Julie.

  5. Posted by 45yo hipster

    Milkshake- we should do a mash up of our names. I’ll be the hipster of despair and you can be the 45yo milkshake!

  6. Posted by LMRiM

    “25 Sierra #203 is on the market now for $925,000 which is only $16,000 more than what my sellers purchased it for in 2006.” (Emphases added.)
    I can’t help it, I just find this unintentionally hilarious.
    I’ve got the listing bookmarked – I do hope the sellers didn’t put down too much in the first loss position.

  7. Posted by BobN

    but am baffled why this image of a defect…
    Most of the world’s best mosaics have cracks…

  8. Posted by SFLooking

    I toured a couple of these with a friend about two years ago and was completely underwhelmed with the design/layout, finishes, and baffled why highway 280/ shipyard “junkyard” views, with the PROJECTS directly next door would ever warrant those prices. Lipstick on a pig….staging is the ninth wonder of the real estate world.

  9. Posted by San FronziScheme

    Little boxes, on the hillside…

  10. Posted by rabbits

    A sale for unit #203 at the ppsf of unit #101 would mean a $664,800 price. Why would anyone pay more in this market? Also, $259K in the “first loss” position.

  11. Posted by gowiththeflow

    Off Topic – apologize in advance. Does anyone remember a thread where discussion took place regarding the new CA law regarding payment of estimated taxes for 2009 being changed. LMRiM I thought it was you that mentioned it and I am in the middle of dealing with such on my end. I recall reading something about accountants noting what was due but that good accountants knew of a way to juggle this a bit legally and with little if any additional penalty. Any help leading me in the direction of that post would be appreciated. Thanks.

  12. Posted by LMRiM

    That wasn’t me, GWTF. I’m looking at the question myself now, though, specifically whether the risk of penalty on underpayment is worth being a bit aggressive on knocking down the estimated payment. Who knows if CA will have any money by next April, and you sure don’t won’t to inadvertently give these clowns an interest free loan (always a possibility if you have very variable reportable income).

  13. Posted by gowiththeflow

    Exactly; reason I am looking at it as well. I thought it was this blog, perhaps another; will keep searching. Thanks for responding. While your researching, there was from what I heard a new rule implemented this year by CA – different than past years regarding having to pay in the full estimated amount due. When I find it I will post back. For some reason I am thinking CA changed it up where you technically can’t underpay anymore, as you could in past if desired.

  14. Posted by gowiththeflow

    Disclaimer – Not advice, just clipped from web site info. Not an expert on the topic.
    A new law, enacted last year, changes the percentage amount for estimated tax installment payments from four equal installments of 25% of the required annual amount to installments of 30% of the required annual amount for each of the first two installments and 20% of the required annual amount for each of the last two installments.
    This new law did not change withholding requirements.
    If, however taxes withheld for a taxable year and credits for a taxable year do not reduce taxes owed to less than $500 for the current year or the prior year, then a taxpayer may need to make estimate payments, paid in the required installments, to avoid the penalty for underpayment of estimated tax.
    For Example:
    Old Rule New Rule
    Total Estimate of Tax $4,000 $4,000
    Taxes Withheld and credits (2,000) (2,000)
    Amount to be paid as estimates $2,000 $2,000
    Estimated Tax Payments:
    Voucher 1, due 4/15/2009 $ 500 $ 600
    Voucher 2, due 6/15/2009 $ 500 $ 600
    Voucher 3, due 9/15/2009 $ 500 $ 400
    Voucher 4, due 1/15/2010 $ 500 $ 400
    Total Payments $2,000 $2,000
    This change in the law is designed to get more tax revenue into the state coffers by June 30, 2009, the end of the current fiscal year. There is no corresponding change for Federal estimated taxes.
    [Editor’s Note: Estimated Payments Update. And now back to the apples…]

  15. Posted by SocketSite

    After three months on the market the list price for 25 Sierra #203 has been reduced to $899,000, now asking $10,000 less than was paid in 2006 rather than $16,000 more.

  16. Posted by SocketSite

    After four months on the market the list price for 25 Sierra #203 has been reduced to $875,000, now asking $34,000 less than was paid in 2006 rather than $16,000 more.

  17. Posted by SocketSite

    After 130 days on the market the list price for 25 Sierra #203 has been reduced to $849,000, now asking $60,000 less than was paid in 2006 rather than just $16,000 more.

  18. Posted by eddy

    Is it just me, or do these places feel like really nice low income housing?

  19. Posted by SocketSite

    After 147 days on the market the list price for 25 Sierra #203 has been reduced to $799,000, now asking $110,000 less than was paid in 2006 (rather than $16,000 more).

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles