Purchased for $675,000 in March 2003, public records would suggest 31 Clipper has actually been bank owned for the past two years (and taken back with $857,500+ owed).
“Freshly painted” but unfortunately not as freshly renovated as well, the Noe Valley 2/2 (with an unwarranted 1/1 below) is now seeking a non-bank buyer at $757,800.
31 Clipper is one of only 39 new listings in San Francisco over the past week, thirteen of which were either bank owned (10) or seeking a short sale (3).
∙ Listing: 31 Clipper (2/2) – $757,800 [MLS] [Map]
Ok cognoscenti. Is this in Noe or not?
Protected tenant in the unwarranted unit… and let’s just say you might want to have it cleared for hazmat. They were probably cooking what they were selling/consuming.
Yeah, it’s in Noe. It’s also a bank owned fixer on Clipper with an entrenched tenant in the unwarranted apartment, asking 80K more than it was bought for.
Tenants are protected in unwarrented units? What if you’d like to tear it out? Report yourself?
Is the rental income legal?
I guess the in-law tenant enjoys the whole house to them self as long as they stay. Even if they can’t access the rest of the house, it’s got to be more pleasant not having people above you…
If what chip says is even close to true, then a new owner shouldn’t have that much trouble evicting the tenant in the illegal apartment, no?
Anyway, it’ll be interesting to see what the rate is of the “shadow inventory” moving into the MLS proper.
I was curious about that. i’m betting the city wouldn’t kick the person out, even though the unit is unwarranted.
Brahma: Not the tenant. The former “owners”.
This is definitely not your “classic” foreclosure. And yes, I’m sure the tenant is at least as ecstatic as the nearby neighbors to no longer have the people upstairs.
I’m pretty sure the unwarrnated unit tenant issue has been discussed here before. As far as SF is concerned, those tenants have protection too.
It also seems that a number of places have de-listed in the last week or two. The upper end of D5 has changed, and that spot on Grant seems to be gone again. Did we see some very nice Christmas presents going on, or are they just taking a rest?
Chip,
So the former owners were the “cookers”? If the tenant is protected, but not a bad tenant, then perhaps this isn’t a terrible deal. (Assuming the clean-up isn’t too difficult.)
The upper end of D5 has changed,
What is your perception of the D5 change?
The MLS doesn’t even mention rental income. Are we to believe someone lives in the unwarrented garage but doesn’t pay rent like a troll?
Only in San Francisco could I believe this might be possible
Looks like they tried a couple of times to get the ‘owner’ out, but perhaps didn’t know the local laws and customs. At any rate, the latest attempt was successful. I only mention a collections agency (Cach, LLC — love the name) in passing…
EBGuy
Can you explain what is going on there
It looks like three or four of the +2mil houses in D5 have gone off the MLS in the last week or two. I was just wondering if there had been a surge in upmarket sales, or if some folks were deciding to just hold for a bit. It seemed fairly static for a while there, then poof.
No grand insight, just a question, really.
Well, the CW is that this time of year is a lousy time to sell. And if any of them still live in the properties you can definitely understand not wanting to get hassled over the holidays. Did you notice the two Noe Valley, and I believe one Liberty Heights, 2M+ sales in the second week of November?
Hahaha… Somebody just used “shouldn’t have that much trouble” and “evicting the tenant” in the same sentence. You made my day, sir.
As others have pointed out, even though the unit is unwarranted, SF extends the same tenant laws to the them. The fact that the entrenched tenant is not out leads me to believe that they are protected, or it is unresolved as to whether they are protected or not. If they aren’t protected, I don’t understand why the current owner hasn’t removed them yet, as it obviously effects the property value.
Watch what you do with this hazmat deal. Most states require that the property sit vacant for a year after the clean up. I am presuming you´re talking about a meth lab.
Beware what you wish for.
Yes, I understand that this is the annual low spike in the volume charts. I did notice the Liberty house, just because it was kind of nice, but I hadn’t seen the two others the same week.
Not being in the biz, I don’t have the most up to date info, which would be part of why I read this site. From what I’ve been able to tell, three in a week in that range is not the norm these days. It just struck me as interesting that D5 all of a sudden only had three 2M+ listings. The last paragraph of this post seemed to relate a bit, so I thought I’d mention it and see if anybody knew if there were sales.
Anybody? Bueller?
Oh, it’s definitely not the norm these days. And right now if you’re treading those waters you’d better have a really nice property on your hands. More than one amenity count against and you’re most likely certain to chase its market down a bit. I do think that really nice larger properties can still get 800 a foot in the better parts of 5, tho. Maybe even 850 if it’s great.
I hope that spring will bring the return of 1000/ft to D5 don’t you all?
^ Nope
^not even a little?
4751 25th st is a good Noe apple for you’s
sparky-b…I sold. and I’m waiting to buy…. 🙂
Needed to be $1.475M on 4751 25th to beat inflation from that prior sale of $1.375K in September 2006. Sold for $1.345K last week.
Also, has SS mentioned 631 29th in Noe? 3/1 for $756,500 on Dec 3, originally listed at unknown price in March, later cut to $849K in September, and $799K later in September. Must have been the first sale in a while, since Redfin reports the tax value at $146K.
Great curmudgeon, I’m glad I was able to win you over. Anybody else?
Da boys and me, we’ll take that under considemeration. Just shy of eight a foot, even wit da coib appeal of a Joisey mutt what’s been chasin’ parked cars ain’t bad, I suppose.
</Leo Gorcey>
So what happens if you buy a house with a protected tenant in an unwarranted space and there’s an electrical fire and the tenant dies? I assume you as the owner are legally responsible. How do you get around that problem as a potential buyer in that situation?
562 Sanchez sold for 2.6M today. It got 650 a foot, and was a 4000 ft 3 br 3 1/2 ba.
562 Sanchez was originally listed at $2.695M in September, then de-listed in late October, presumably with the sale pending.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/562-Sanchez-St-94114/home/1841144
Guess you had to look past the furnishings and the columns, but looks like they did a number on the remodel.
Wow. big number, but big house anonn
I was under the impression that it is relatively straightforward to get a permit to demolish an illegal unit, is that not correct?
“I was under the impression that it is relatively straightforward to get a permit to demolish an illegal unit, is that not correct?”
Not if there’s a tenant.
“So what happens if you buy a house with a protected tenant in an unwarranted space and there’s an electrical fire and the tenant dies? I assume you as the owner are legally responsible. How do you get around that problem as a potential buyer in that situation? ”
Um, you walk away and don’t buy it. I looked at an awesome old victorian, had a crazy old crack lady living in an illegal unit in the basement. I ran way. Not worth the hassle in SF.
But it is also illegal to collect rent from a tenant in an illegal unit. What are you supposed to do in this case?
This suggests that it is relatively staightforward to evict someone in an illegal unit, as long as you get the permit to demolish it first:
http://www.sfrb.org/index.aspx?page=976
Is this not how it works in practice?
Heh, in this city, they’ll probably refuse to give you a demo permit so as not to remove a rental unit from the housing stock.
Not sure what would happen then. Maybe you could claim a variance by implication!
This was a historically significant meth lab. One of the first meth labs of its kind in a residential part of San Francisco. Good luck getting a demo permit!
“Is this not how it works in practice?”
It’s relatively easy to begin the ‘just cause’ eviction.. but then it can get tricky. If the tenant claims a disability (depression for example), or claims protected status, or claims pretty much anything, then you begin a lengthy and expensive process. Which you might not win.
Clearly, slow does not mean dead.
There was an open house this weekend. The bones of the place appear to be in pretty decent shape, but most of the finish needs to be gutted. It’s a real strange place… At least the tenant apparently will take $1040 off your monthly mortgage. IMO, this place is liveable in only the technical sense and needs a ton of work.
Just to clarify: the people who lived in the main house were the druggies, *not* the downstairs tenant who is still there.
this property went into contract over the weekend. surprising it went so quick given the tenant issues and the overall condition of the place. as a previous commenter noted, this place was barely habitable. i saw the tenant coming out when we visited the downstairs unit and he looked quite frail and elderly, so you’ve got to think he’s protected. anyone else care to comment on how to deal with this guy?