CFAH

819 Haight Street
As we wrote this past August:

A renovated Victorian at 819 Haight Street hit the market in 2005 asking $1,395,000, it sold for $1,635,000 ($240,000 over asking). No word on what role the buyer’s agent played in advising their client on how to “win” in a competitive situation (“pay more!”).

As a plugged-in tipster notes, back on the market today and asking $1,595,000. One and one-half rather nice baths then, one and one-half rather nice baths now.

The August listing was delisted in November without a sale, but 819 Haight Street was re-listed anew at $1,535,000 a couple of weeks ago. It’s still active, available, and with only 18 official industry days on the market. We continue to dig the kitchen.
819%20Haight%20Kitchen%20redux.jpg
∙ Listing: 819 Haight Street (3/1.5) – $1,535,000 [819haight.com] [MLS]
A Four Year Hold For A Renovated 819 Haight: A Winner’s Return [SocketSite]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by mikey woodz

    how many sq ft is this? seems very pricey for a 3 bdrm 1.5 bath on haight

  2. Posted by bernalkid

    nice collection of store front images on the mls
    probably someone commented similarly on previous ss post, but the exterior color isn’t doing it for me as well as the slate stairs are pretty unauthentic for the “painted lady”
    pretty nice interior, though

  3. Posted by SFHawkguy

    I like the kitchen as well. It’s nice and open. Although the island could be bigger.
    That’s going to be the main food prep area and there is much more space available.
    Also, why aren’t there pantries in SF? This place doesn’t look to have much in the way of cupboard space. Where do they put the canned foods, etc.? A big ole pantry with a door (next to the back door maybe) would have been good.
    Maybe bulls don’t believe in pantries because there will never be bad times.

  4. Posted by EBGuy

    On the last thread, LMRiM noted: Property shark shows $350K in the first loss downpayment position.
    Just a quick note, financing was provided by Greenpoint Mortgage (bought by North Fork, which was then acquired by Capital One) and CitiBank West. Looks like there was some additional home ATM/refi activity in Feb. ’07 courtesy of National City (PNC has since bought NCB).

  5. Posted by anonm

    @mikey Supposedly 2260 sf.
    I’ve become even more bearish since my last prediction (which was $1.45m), so I’ll just say “low 1.40s” now.
    Last I checked the bulls were predicting “high 1.40s”, which seems a little low if you believe that prices haven’t dropped significantly for SFHs since the peak (i.e. circa 2007), but whatever.

  6. Posted by SFHawkguy

    Unfortunately for the owner, this is priced just a bit over the government-sponsored welfare pricing that is enabling a new breed of sucker to recklessly speculate on San Francisco real estate.
    The new welfare programs ensure a bid on SF housing at about $800,000 and below.
    The current owner made a mistake of using traditional financing by putting ~20% down (if LMRiM is correct). Back in the day he could have recklessly speculated on this property and put nothing down and when it went kaplooey he could have just walked away without losing anything (after living rent free for a couple of years to boot). That’s what most suckers did–leaving the taxpayers with the toxic loans.
    Now the government is putting it’s seal of approval on loose underwriting and those that want to speculate on housing for under $800,000 can do so with only 3.5% down–government welfare guaranteed! Will the next sucker please step on down!
    At least this is one sucker that will lose his own money and us taxpayers won’t have to pay for it.

  7. Posted by anonn

    How would you value this property, SFHawkguy?

  8. Posted by EBGuy

    Time to buy in the Haight as Mayor Newsom is about to do to this area what Mayor Moonbeam did for Jack London Square.
    Mayor Gavin Newsom had been reluctant to push a sit/lie ordinance, telling The Chronicle editorial board earlier this month it was just too divisive to support. Then he took his 5 1/2-month-old daughter for a stroll on Haight Street one Saturday morning. “As God is my witness, there’s a guy on the sidewalk smoking crack,” Newsom said. Suddenly, the issue became more personal. On Friday, Newsom revealed that he will introduce a sit/lie ordinance to the Board of Supervisors next week.

  9. Posted by SFHawkguy

    Anonn,
    I like the layout and looks but I’ve lived in two different locations in the Lower Haight and I don’t think this house fits with the neighborhood.
    This house is a good family house and it would sell much better if it were in a more family-friendly neighborhood. I personally am more interested in family-friendly neighborhoods so I wouldn’t be interested in this.
    As far as value goes . . . I would pretty much put it at parity to renting and then minus a little (or a lot) because I expect mortgage rates to go up and the market to decline in the future.
    From my own experience and a quick perusal of Craigslist . . . I don’t think this place gets more than $4,000 a month in rent.
    So I would value this at ~ $900,000.
    But, I expect mortgage interest rates to go up and therefore the future price to go down. So, I would probably not buy this unless I got a further premium, say down to $800,000 or so.
    But who knows what the next sucker will pay to buy this house. I’m sure there are plenty of suckers that want to pay more than me. The question is how will the jumbo market fare now that most of the welfare is at ~$800,000 and below.

  10. Posted by BDB

    Did anyone see the Units at 528 Broderick over the weekend, well the upper was the only one open as the lower had already sold for 1.15M
    Upper is listed at 1.05M – Nice fixtures and detail but small bedrooms

  11. Posted by kathleen

    There seems to be more ivf twins in the Lower Haight then anywhere else in the city!
    The lower haight is a family neighborhood.

  12. Posted by anonm

    @SFHawkguy
    I suspect that when anonn says “how would you value it”, he actually means “what do you think it will go for?” Obviously it will go for more than $800-900k.
    I disagree that it would only get $4k in rent…I suspect it might fetch $4.5-5k. Still, clearly it can only be supported by fundamentals at $1m or below, and I fully expect anyone that pays $1.4m or more for this place to lose a large sum of money (vs of they waited longer).

  13. Posted by SFHawkguy

    Kathleen,
    Have you ever lived in that neighborhood?
    Have you ever had a gun pointed at you?
    I spent some of my misspent youth at some of the neighborhood places, like Noc Noc and Toronado, so granted, I may have attracted some unwanted attention and may have been looking for trouble . . . . but it is not a family-friendly neighborhood. I’m pretty liberal and open minded and don’t mind raising a child in the City but not here! It’s especially worse a few blocks to the East and North.
    I have personally seen many crimes in this neighborhood.
    Plus, this little block contains some of the nicer homes on Haight (or I should say one or two nicer homes). The rest of Haight–especially going down the hill to Market–is not so nice. There are lots of sketchy people that walk buy and mingle in the street–not to mention buses. I would love to see a time-lapsed video to show you.
    In fact, is this the house that plugged in the electric car overnight? If it is one should ask the owner how many vandals messed with the car and electric plug.

  14. Posted by anonn

    No, I wanted to know if he was in the comparable rent should equal mortgage after downpayment camp. He is. Then he subtracted a personal preference premium.

  15. Posted by SFHawkguy

    “I disagree that it would only get $4k in rent…I suspect it might fetch $4.5-5k.”
    You could be right anonm. But one problem is that most SFHs or larger flats on the rental market are used as shared housing. With only one bathroom and the smaller bedrooms this makes it less likely to be used by more than 2 separate households. Sure, maybe 3 roommates could each get a room but no more than one person to a room.
    But, the open areas (like the kitchen) and backyard and garage make it nice for families. But again, people spending $5,000 a month on shelter may not put this neighborhood at the top of their list. I think there are many other comparable places that are better.
    For instance, even though I work downtown and need to go the Financial District I would consider renting a SFH in Berkeley or Albany or other areas. One could get a much nicer place for much less than $4,500 or even $4,000 that this place may ask.
    To even rent a place for $4,000 one must have a household income of at least $175,000 using traditional debt to income ratios. To go up to $5,000 one should have a household income of $220,000 or so. There simply are not that many households in San Francisco to support these rents. Not every house in San Francsico is above average! Not every dwelling in San Francisco can be utilized by the top 5% of income earners.

  16. Posted by Willow

    The big drawback as I see it is the lack of a second full bathroom. At this price you’d have to think a lot of prospective buyers are going to look elsewhere.

  17. Posted by anonm

    Then he subtracted a personal preference premium.
    If you read it again, you’ll see that there was no personal preference premium. The premium he subtracted was to account for the fact that interest rates will rise in the future (obviously, since they’re at historic lows), which will act as a drag on prices. Hence appreciation is likely to be modest at best.
    There simply are not that many households in San Francisco to support these rents. Not every house in San Francsico is above average!
    True, but I feel as if this house is far above average (either overall or on a per square foot basis) for SF rental stock.
    Regardless, on this one we agree much more than we disagree. It’s hard to make any reasonable case that the fundamentals can support a price well north of $1m for this property.

  18. Posted by ex SF-er

    To even rent a place for $4,000 one must have a household income of at least $175,000 using traditional debt to income ratios. To go up to $5,000 one should have a household income of $220,000 or so.
    Traditional debt to income levels break down when you get into the higher income percentiles IMO.
    There is a certain amount of “fixed” living costs that eat up a lot of one’s disposable income when one is at the median to lower quintiles. But when one is in the upper quintile you can push the DTI ratios more comfortably
    as an example: I made around $219k last year just with my primary job (not including investments, spousal income, blah blah blah). I have 401k contributions, health/dental/life/disability insurance, Social Security, State and Federal Taxes deducted from my check before I get it.
    I max my 401k every year, I put just shy of $900 per check for 16 checks into the 401k, so my first 16 checks are about $900 less than my last 10 checks.
    My biweekly checks last year were 4410.28 when I WASN’T putting money into my 401k (which was around 10 checks), and 3525.92 when I WAS putting money into my 401k (which was around 16 checks).
    I also got a disbursement of 17,734.78
    (I draw a salary, and the disbursement “settles” things at the end of the year).
    so add that up and my checks totalled about $118,252.30 or just shy of $10k/month.
    I could thus easily afford $5k/month on my day-job salary alone. it leaves $5k for all my other expenses.
    so although I think it extremely unwise to spend $5k/mo rent/PITI on a $10k/mo take home pay, I also think it can easily be done, although one will need to make sacrifices elsewhere. (like early retirement, college education for kids, vacations, etc).
    when one makes good money, one needs WAY more money in retirement to feel “comfortable”. Thus, one needs to save/invest more than people at lessor income quintiles (all IMO).

  19. Posted by SFRE

    @ex SF-er: Nice post, and I agree.

  20. Posted by curmudgeon

    This is a good (and family friendly) neighborhood. This house is only around the block from the house on Carmelita that sold for $2.5 million. Granted, Haight is busier and not worth quite as much, but I don’t buy the “you’ll get held up at gunpoint” argument dissing this location. This particular block is on an uphill slope from the lower haight to the upper haight, and is almost completely residential except for some corner businesses on Scott and Divisidero. I have no exact prognostication for what the actual market value is now, but I just wanted to make the point that there are expensive SF comps in the neighborhood. It will be interesting to see where it goes, but it has to be well north of the 800-900K that SFHawkguy states.
    Also, the whole 1.5 vs 2 bath issue is intriguing to me. From what real estate folks tell me, 2 full bathrooms at this price level are perceived as required. However, in a traditional two story victorian/edwardian, where all the public rooms are on the ground floor and the bedrooms are upstairs, the sensible layout for bathrooms is often 1/2 bath under the stairs on the ground floor, and one full bath upstairs. The mania for private baths requires converting living space to bathroom space, usually creating a master “suite”, but forcing awkwardly small rooms otherwise. Personally, where space is relatively constrained, I’d rather have more living space than additional bathrooms, but I guess I’m the outlier.

  21. Posted by Willow

    Curmudgeon: This is a relatively large home. According to MLS it is 2260 SF. There’s ample room here for a second bathroom without compromising on space. A four person household for instance, (married couple and two kids), will all have to share the one bathroom. That’s doable but for 1.5MM why would you bother?

  22. Posted by sparky-b

    I used to have a house with this exact layout. I converted the sitting room off the biggest bedroom (picture 15) into the second bathroom upstairs. The bedroom will layout better without that opening as well. They staged it as a upstairs living room because there is no wall to put a bed currently.

  23. Posted by SFHawkguy

    I want to take back a little of the comments about the hood. I like the Lower Haight. I think its fine to raise kids here–I just would prefer other neighborhoods instead. I’ve already lived in the hood so I’m ready to move on.
    Also, anonn, as in other threads, you do not fully understand the cost of ownership calculations. I am not forgetting the down payment and simply counting the monthly mortgage payment and comparing that to rent. The COST OF OWNERSHIP includes an opportunity cost for the down payment (I use irvinghousingblog’s calculator and it uses a 3% opportunity cost). It also includes tax savings from the mortgage interest deduction. Among other things. So when I look at fair market rent I compare it to the cost of ownership for a typical buyer (or the specific buyer if one is buying a house for oneself or has that specific information). A rise in interest rates really effects the cost of ownership.

  24. Posted by sparky-b

    ^^^
    SFHawkguy,
    You used to live in the hood or you live there now? You have kids and would raise them here, or you don’t have kids but think when you have kids it would be a decent hood for them? Also, if you don’t live there anymore when did you live there?

  25. Posted by SFHawkguy

    One more comment about the hood.
    It’s very local. If one goes one block to the South the neighborhood improves a lot. Around Duboce Park is nice.
    However, by Fillmore and Haight, and the blocks around there, especially the greater neighborhood between the lower Haight and Hayes Valley, can be very dicey. This area rivals the Bayview in murders and gang activity. There have been a number of murders only a few blocks from this house! So one must be careful. Also, Haight St. itself can be a little sketchy, even if one block away, say on Waller, it is much nicer.

  26. Posted by sparky-b

    ^^^
    I think you just answered my questin about raising kids there.

  27. Posted by SFHawkguy

    Sparky,
    It’s been 5 years since I’ve lived there. I have a kid on the way 🙂 so I’m thinking about future options and have kids on the mind. So I wouldn’t think someone is crazy for having kids here–I just prefer to raise my children elsewhere.
    It’s doable. But at this price I would choose other hoods. If prices were cheaper then that would help me to move there. I love the central location (but it’s not as easy to commute as one would think–it still takes a good half hour–or did for me). I love the restaurants and bars, etc. But I prefer the quieter neighborhoods of Noe Valley (where I currently live) and the Inner Richmond and Berkeley (where I’ve also lived).

  28. Posted by anonn

    Also, anonn, as in other threads, you do not fully understand the cost of ownership calculations
    Sure I do. But I didn’t term your 900K to 800K devaluation properly. Sorry for getting pie in the freaking sky slightly incorrect, and have fun storming the castle.

  29. Posted by SFHawkguy

    “and have fun storming the castle.”
    Thanks. I am.
    And have fun manning the ramparts.

  30. Posted by anonn

    Ha. Good one. But don’t think I wouldn’t have fun cashing a 2.5% commission check on a 800K purchase of the property in this thread. I would. It would be a very fun dreamland experience indeed.
    Hey, if I hear some of these posters right I might just be doing those very things come summer time. HAFA has laid out that banks can no longer nickel and dime agents at the 11th hour. After months of telephone calls to “No sorry. That department isn’t in Florida, this is the loss mitigation communications department, not loss mitigations, they are in California. Here’s the number. (Number doesn’t function.)” and stuff. So bring on the eventuality that is the tidal wave of foreclosures with guaranteed 3% commissions!

  31. Posted by anonn

    err, short sales, not foreclosures

  32. Posted by curmudgeon

    re: bathroom. Willow and Sparky…if the house is actually 2260 sq. ft. I concede the point on the 2nd bath; there would be plenty of room, and it would certainly be desirable. I was thinking this was more like 1650-1800 square feet or so.

  33. Posted by SFHawkguy

    I agree Anonn, you would be foolish to pursue a 900,000 listing price. I’m talking about intrinsic value and not the fair market value when I say it’s only worth about $800,000 (and that may be high). But I don’t know if the seller will sell–doesn’t he have to get up to 1.3 or something to get his down payment back? I would bet it goes for 1.350.000.
    I believe there are still massive market distortions inflating prices. Therefore, the prudent move would be to rent until the rest of the people come to their senses or are forced to downsize and liquidate. My guess is that people are jonesing for SFHs in San Francsisco and now is the time to sell these to the suckers
    Curmudgon, I agree that the Sq. footage is larger than I originally thought as well. Usually these old places have really tiny rooms so I would have thought it was much smaller.

  34. Posted by anonn

    Yes but one massive distortion is San Francisco itself. Lots of people have provided links speaking to the local historical imbalance of strict rent versus own interpretations in this forum. Sanfrantim I think, has provided that material more than a few times. It used to be cheap to rent here in the early ’90s. Dirt cheap when compared to a lot of desirable cities. But the buying premium was huge back then too.

  35. Posted by SFHawkguy

    Anonn,
    My understanding is similar to what J has posted earlier, that there has historically been a premium to rent, not buy.
    Maybe the last 15 years in San Francisco has been different and that is why publishers like Forbes only go back 15 years when looking at historic rent vs. buy comparisons. Someone posted some really good local info maybe a year or so ago, from some outfit like Blackrock (?), about historic San Francisco rents and prices. But my understanding is the data for San Francisco is incomplete and not widely available. And I think your industry likes it that way.
    I would love to see some unadulterated numbers going farther back than 15 years. I am suspicious that the premium to own in San Francisco is a historical fact beyond the last 15 years. And if there is indeed a historical premium to own, it can’t be as extreme as it is currently (pretty much the highest premium in the country).

  36. Posted by noearch

    Having a house at this price point, and with 3 bedrooms and ONLY 1.5 baths is just not gonna make it.
    Every house I remodel, esp in Noe has 3 bedrooms AND 2.5 baths. Buyers expect the master bedroom to have a bath fully attached.

  37. Posted by anonn

    The solution here was to make the fainting room a master bath, and they didn’t do it.

  38. Posted by curmudgeon

    I guess the question is how much should one knock off for the lack of a full bath. In money terms it shouldn’t take more than 25K to put in, should it? But there is clearly not a one to one relationship between what buyers are willing to pay, given that most don’t want to deal with the process. Any thoughts, noearch, anonn, or others?
    What I’m getting from some of the comments is that with 2.5 baths this might be worth the list price (plus or minus). 25K seems like small change related to a $1.5 million house, but buyer psychology is buyer psychology…

  39. Posted by noearch

    To add a master bath where there is no adjacent plumbing supply and waste can be expensive and complicated, but possible. You will need to route up to that location hot and cold water lines (all copper) and route a cast iron drain line down to the main waste. This can be tricky and expensive. You will need to open up existing walls and ceilings to route these pipes. An exhaust fan routed to the exterior wall or roof is needed.
    Assume a new master bath of high quality would include a toilet, double sinks and nice vanity, shower and separate tub, new lighting, ceramic tile floor and walls. Fixtures should be Toto, Kohler, Grohe or similar quality. Assume the bath is about 8’x10′ or 80sf.
    Budget for all the above I mentioned at around $500-800/sf and you come up with a real cost in the range of $40k-$64k. I’m including permits, design fees and all of the work done by a qualified, licensed general contractor.
    That’s what it will really cost.

  40. Posted by anonn

    We did it with a house with the exact same floorplan and I’m sure it cost under 40K. Probably half that. But this was back in 2001.

  41. Posted by sparky-b

    All of those pictures of restaurants and Cuco’s doesn’t make it. THE BEST BURRITO IN SF is Cuco’s Chili Colorado Beef Burrito (Super).

  42. Posted by noearch

    @anonn: This is not a pissing contest. I don’t doubt that you did your bath BACK IN 2001 for under $40k; I’m sure that was possible. Also, I really have no idea as to the complexities or ease of solution to your project, nor the actual brand or quality or materials. Fast forward to 2010 and one needs to add in inflation and increased costs of labor and materials over a 9 year period. A LOT.
    Each project is unique. I’m sure there are master baths done today that can cost much less than what I described. I simply developed a set of assumptions and level of quality to create a scenario. I do often find that clients come to me seriously thinking that their “dream” bath can be had for $25k…until they sit down with me and begin to understand the REAL issues and real costs to building it.
    I love it when bids come in less that what I have estimated. The client is happy as well. But, from my experience that NEVER happens.

  43. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    If you want a real low end remod project quote from a decade ago, I redid a bath AND ajoining kitchen for a little less than $40k. The appliances were pretty basic though and I got a great deal on custom cabinets (which go all the way to the ceiling. heh.) This remod involved a little wall and ceiling movement too.
    I doubt that I can repeat that feat in the future.

  44. Posted by curmudgeon

    My question is how much would you discount the price for the lack of a 2nd full bathroom. If Noearch is anywhere near right (and I kinda assume he is given the likely plumbing complications of trying to develop a new bath on the second level in a place that’s not adjacent to the current lines), then I would assume that the cost and inconvenience/frustration would knock about 100K of the the market price of a 3BR/ 2 1/2 Bath house?
    But, as in another thread relating to the marketability of condos without parking, perhaps the fact that many people won’t even look at a house without a separate master bath would suggest an even greater impact on price?
    This is all good for me, because I’m in the market (eventually), and I don’t care about having lots of bathrooms 🙂

  45. Posted by anonn

    A pissing contest? I answered a question. A question stemming from a solution that I suggested, not you, as I had commissioned this very job before. On this very house, a common house in SF. Of course you viewed it as what you say goes and everyone else is an interloper. That’s just the way you are.

  46. Posted by anonn

    Curmudgeon, that 100K might be about right in this case. I don’t think a house on Haight without another bath is going to go for much more than ~1.45M.

  47. Posted by anon

    “A four person household for instance, (married couple and two kids), will all have to share the one bathroom. That’s doable but for 1.5MM why would you bother?”
    I’m with Willow here. It seems like a waste to do a remodel without adding a bathroom to me too.
    If you’re going to pick on a weird thing for people to go overboard on — I always thought kitchens for people who don’t cook was a good one.
    And anonn, can you call the kettle black one more time, please?

  48. Posted by anonn

    Huh? Man. You just have it out for me. That’s cool. But come at me with something other than a cliche once in a while. It plays a lot better, “anon.”

  49. Posted by df

    Classic case of “your mileage may vary” when you talk about $25k or $40k or even $60k bathrooms. In these old houses things tend to be very tightly coupled. By way of analogy, think for a moment about the process of adding air conditioning to a 1920’s Rolls Royce. All sorts of issues can be triggered…take it from someone who has just been through the issues…and opportunities of course. If you get it right these old houses are wonderful pieces of living history. Just make sure you go in with eyes wide (very wide!) open.

  50. Posted by A.T.

    I see this was reduced to $1,470,000, just over 10% off the 2005 sale price. If they get the new asking, I’d say they are pretty lucky.

  51. Posted by info

    The upper room that is shown as a sitting room has plenty of space for a bed, and the closet in that room (currently wired throughout the house for an audio system) could be converted to a full bathroom, as could the linen closet outside that room. The previous owners (who remodeled the home) also developed blueprints with a local architect to build out the basement, which is already plumbed, and that would provide either a family room or another bedroom, as well as a large full bathroom.
    The kitchen photo is out of proportion to reality. The island is very large (someone commented on that), and the aisle to the left of it is not as wide as it appears in that shot. Also, not in the frame, is significantly more cabinet space, as well as a built-in desk. Plenty of room for food. The kitchen size was doubled in the remodel, and the space was very well-used.
    The posts that comment on the costs to add bathrooms are probably right, particularly given the finishes on this house. Some of the best possible materials were chosen throughout–tile, fixtures, etc. The front porch is an aberration. A quick fix prior to the sale in 2005, replacing even more inappropriate and very damaged Spanish tiles.
    As for the neighborhood, that block is entirely residential, with the exception of Zephyr. There are several families on the street who enjoy the proximity of Duboce and the dog park up the street. It’s a very walkable neighborhood, and contrary to the suggestions above, safe. You might find graffiti on your trashcans, but aside from that, no car break ins or the usual petty things you’d expect. (Petty criminals don’t like hills.)
    We’d buy it. Again. But then, we’d be buying it for less than we sold it for in 2005, so we’d consider it a bargain. 😉

  52. Posted by sfrenegade

    Thanks for the info, info!
    This house, which I believe is an apple, is currently pending with the last list price at $1.399M (changed June 3) and was de-listed on June 27. The original listing at $1.595M was just over a year ago, so these guys have been trying to sell for a while.

  53. Posted by A.T.

    And sold! For $1,380,000. Down 16% in exactly five years (plus selling costs, owner’s premium vs. rent, etc, etc. — a very expensive 5-year hold).
    Really nice place, great neighborhood, and a much lower cost-of-ownership for the new owners. Too bad “info” — the 2005 seller — was not the 2010 buyer (maybe he/she is?) as that would truly be a great story!

  54. Posted by Mark

    You cannot value a Single Family House or even duplex in a prime neighborhood like the Lower Haight on a basis of rental income.
    For one thing, SFD are NOT RENT CONTROLLED properties so the upside for rents is much higher. Additionally, there are Victorians on the market and they are worth a premium…plus many Victorian bldgs quality for tax incentives if you “donate the facade” to the State. This increases the cash flow through enhanced depreciation…
    Frankly this property is probably worth the asking price on an appraisal basis, although as an actually selling price it might sell for $100k-$200k less…
    We will see what happens.
    [Editor’s Note: We’ve seen: A Winner’s Circa 2005 Curse (And Seller’s Boon).]

  55. Posted by info

    Alas, it was not us. But we thought hard about it. Maybe next time!

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles