District 7b Map
To be honest, we probably wouldn’t have taken the friendly wager. Or more accurately, we wouldn’t have taken a wager that defined the southern boundary of Pacific Heights as north of Clay (it’s technically north of California, both old and new).
But the dollars to doughnuts wager between a couple of readers on the basis of whether or not we’d see a single-family home sale in Western Pacific Heights (“defined as north of Clay, south of Green, west of Fillmore, east of Presidio”) close for under $1,300,000 before the end of 2010 was accepted.
And on July 9, 2010 the sale of the single-family home at 2807 Clay closed escrow with a reported contract price of $1,275,000. Granted, the listing noted “Kitchen and bath are very dated, and all systems need major work,” but fixers weren’t specifically excluded from the wager as long as they were habitable, only “no fires or acts of God” and “delivered vacant free of tenants” (the listing also notes possession at close of escrow).
The only potential sticking point, 2807 Clay is on the south side of the street. That being said, in the language of the party defining the boundaries, “I deliberately left out the area south below Clay because there are a few very small Victorian places, from when PacHts was still the Western Addition” which would suggest both sides of Clay were included, but that 2807 Clay was exactly the kind of property said party was trying to exclude.
The Income Might Look Interesting But Don’t Neglect The Principal(s) [SocketSite]
San Francisco Real Estate Districts: Maps And Neighborhoods [SocketSite]
San Francisco Association Of Realtors New Neighborhood Map [SocketSite]
Apples To Apples (If You Ignore The New Bath): 2203 Broderick [SocketSite]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by jimmythekid

    The boundary language excludes everything north of Clay street, that necessarily means every Clay st address is included.
    There is no other way to look at it. If one wanted only one side of the street they merely had to say so. They apparently did not.

  2. Posted by polip

    ha – I was wondering about this bet yesterday – I must be clairvoyant.
    If you go back to the old threads, you will see I asked precisely this question. It was answered by one party and then the other never answered back. I’ll dig for the relevant responses…

  3. Posted by polip

    I’m terrible with html, and linking things, etc, so here is the relevant part of the thread
    tipster answered, I retorted, and then conifer never answered back
    hmmm, sounds like a classic out clause (I don’t recall…)
    editor, if yu can link it, or italicize it or clean it up, I would appreciate it!
    see below:
    this is a nice little wager
    too bad LMRIM can’t establish a secondary market for this wager – you know, so those of us who are uninvolved but interested observers could make massive derivative bets and then write bet default swaps to hedge our risks (without corresponding collateral of course). if any counterparty was unable to meet their obligations, I’m sure our benevolent editor would be happy to provide the necessary backdoor capital to make everyone whole. wouldn’t that be swell. oh I forgot the part where the editor would take forced financial contributions to make himself whole. for authenticity purposes of course.
    now, if I had to lay odds, I’m going to have to say 5:6 on conifer, largely because the (smartly) negotiated geographical restrictions will decrease the number of sales and thus will protect him against that pesky rational marginal buyer and seller.
    not to open a can of worms, but due to geographical restrictions include the street itself, the side of the street towards the interior of the rectangle, or do they exclude the street (my reading is the last of these options, which is bad for tipster of course – if not I might raise my odds to 9:10!).
    **I’m not making any bets here, I only do that on various crooked equity markets.**
    Posted by: polip at April 11, 2009 9:46 AM
    ugh, no preview function 🙂
    should say: ‘but do the geographical restrictions include the street itself…)
    sorry for the typo
    Posted by: polip at April 11, 2009 9:49 AM
    Both sides of the named streets are included.
    Posted by: tipster at April 11, 2009 11:03 AM
    why would both sides of the named streets be included?
    and if they are, I’m changing my odds!

  4. Posted by tipster

    I understood what he was trying to include or exclude and he explained it pretty well. Some of Pac Heights up to Sacramento was originally western addition. When you look at the propertyshark neighborhood definitions for some parts of pac heights up to Sacramento, it says “Western Addition” on those properties. I understood he wanted to exclude those.
    This home does not have that designation. It was outside of the original western addition neighborhood.
    I consider it in what the boundaries of the wager were.

  5. Posted by polip

    I”ll ask again, because I actually read te bet as the other way
    doesn’t ‘north of clay’ mean just that: north of clay? If I say something is ‘north of San Francisco’ I don’t mean that it is inclusive of AND north of San Francisco. Chrissy field is not ‘north of San Francisco.’ The Marin Headlands are ‘norh of San Francisco’ The original wording seems to exclude clay, hence my question more than a yearago… That is just plain poor use of the English language, imprecise, and directionally challenged. To his credit, tipster quickly expanded the boundaries, and conifer disappeared. So, tipster wins in my mind, but only by changing the language in his favor and receiving tacit approval by the lack of response from the engaged counterparty.
    see below:
    defined as north of Clay, south of Green, west of Fillmore, east of Presidio. If you do not find one, you have to deliver 100 donuts to my house, where all other members of the list will celebrate on New Year’s Eve day, Dec 31, 2010, at 11 am.
    Posted by: Conifer at February 18, 2009 2:56 PM
    not to open a can of worms, but due to geographical restrictions include the street itself, the side of the street towards the interior of the rectangle, or do they exclude the street (my reading is the last of these options, which is bad for tipster of course – if not I might raise my odds to 9:10!).
    **I’m not making any bets here, I only do that on various crooked equity markets.**
    Posted by: polip at April 11, 2009 9:46 AM
    and then again from me:
    why would both sides of the named streets be included?
    and if they are, I’m changing my odds!
    Posted by: polip at April 12, 2009 8:57 PM

  6. Posted by lol

    conifer had unilaterally set up the boundaries probably to increase his own odds. Tipster had every right to do a minor amendment.
    All of this 1/2 a year before the deadline. There’s still time to have a more “central” comp though I do not see where this one would come from.

  7. Posted by polip

    The boundary language excludes everything north of Clay street, that necessarily means every Clay st address is included.
    There is no other way to look at it. If one wanted only one side of the street they merely had to say so. They apparently did not.
    Posted by: jimmythekid at August 6, 2010 10:20 AM
    actually it INCLUDES everything north of clay street.
    what that means is up for debate apparently
    must be that new fangled language we cal English these days

  8. Posted by sfrenegade

    If Conifer’s stated goal was to cut out Western Addition from Pacific Heights, then I think tipster definitely wins.

  9. Posted by Denis

    I’m not going to get into this… When the house came on the market several months ago, the bet should’ve been brought up. Conifer was clearly trying to exclude exactly this type of home- the tiny, fixer Victorians on Clay and Sacramento. There are still a handful left. The good news is that this home sold for almost 30% over the asking price.

  10. Posted by lol

    Suddenly 1500sf has become “tiny”. 95% of Real SF dwellers will take that tiny anytime.
    The funny thing about all of this: Realtors do not even agree with their own official map. There’s the “Pacific Heights” used to pump up prices. Then there’s the “Pacific Heights” used to dismiss a low sale price as “not real PH”.
    Sigh.

  11. Posted by jimmythekid

    Let google settle it. I went to Google maps and searched – everything north of Clay San Francisco- the results included Clay street address’s. This should settle it for most objective observers all others are merely welchers

  12. Posted by polip

    sorry to be a ‘welcher’
    I just favor a bit of precision in the use of the english language
    I wasn’t aware google had become the arbiter of all disputes. I weep for my own generation.
    I will agree on this fact: tipster replied to my question, conifer didn’t. Conifer loses by tacit approval of tipster’s terms, in my opinion, even if he goes by a new handle like deciduous now.

  13. Posted by A.T.

    I think we only have a “welcher” [sic: welsher] if Conifer refuses to pay up. If I recall contracts class (I don’t currently practice law but maintain my license), where the language is amenable to two different interpretations, one can consider extrinsic evidence to determine the intent of the contracting parties. And I think polip has it right that the terms were clarified during the give-and-take in the thread and Conifer’s acquiescence.
    FWIW, no way one could reasonably deny that this address is “real” or “prime” Pac Heights.

  14. Posted by tipster

    “Conifer was clearly trying to exclude exactly this type of home- the tiny, fixer Victorians on Clay and Sacramento.”
    Maybe we should have just limited the bet to 500 square foot and above homes on north Broadway. With a view.
    It’s sort of bizarre how this came up. Conifer said we’d never see a 1.3M sale of an SFR in Western Pac Heights ever. I said I’d bet dollars to doughnuts that we’d start seeing SFRs in Pac Heights hit 1.3 by the end of this year. Conifer took the bet. Then he started making all sorts of exceptions. I didn’t parse them so carefully: I just saw the usual western Pac Heights boundaries, with the exception of Clay, which I understood to mean he wanted to exclude Sacramento, which is good and bad, block by block.
    In any event, what really matters is that we have sales of SFRs in western Pac Heights under 1.3 (!!) whether or not this hits the numerous exceptions he added in. It fits in anyone’s definition of Western Pac Heights. It was in good shape and had no tenants.
    And it’s only going to get better! Whether he wants to donate or not, everyone wins!

  15. Posted by polip

    FWIW, no way one could reasonably deny that this address is “real” or “prime” Pac Heights.
    on this, I think we all can easily agree

  16. Posted by anonee

    ‘prime pacific hghts’ requires a view.

  17. Posted by anonee

    typical tipster nonsense.
    one fixer (which still sold for$850/sq.ft)does not exactly equate to ” we have sales of SFRs in western Pac Heights under 1.3 (!!) ”

  18. Posted by jimmythekid

    According to Merriam-Webster dictionary Welch is a variant of welsh.
    welch (wlch)
    v.
    Variant of welsh.
    welsh (wlsh, wlch) also welch (wlch)
    intr.v. welshed also welched, welsh·ing also welch·ing, welsh·es also welch·es Informal
    1. To swindle a person by not paying a debt or wager.
    2. To fail to fulfill an obligation.

  19. Posted by NoeValleyJim

    Good win tipster, too bad we won’t all get to have donuts together!

  20. Posted by REpornaddict

    Clay St is not north of Clay St.
    Or am I missing something??

  21. Posted by Denis

    There’s one bank-owned SFH north of this place that I think could sell for less than this one. It’s so awful that I can’t imagine what it could sell for… If it goes to auction… well, it should be interesting.

  22. Posted by anonee

    so let me get this straight..a lot with a tear down sells for $1.275million in the midst of ‘the great depression II’ and this is seen as a validation of the bear case here on ss?
    i guess you guys don’t let the facts get in the way of your dearly held beliefs.

  23. Posted by REpornaddict

    The use of the term ‘welsh’ or ‘welch’ on a bet is now considered highly derogatory and offensive as well by the way….especially to this Welshman 😉
    Guess it’s still OK to use offensive terms against certain countries in today’s topsy turvey PC times…

  24. Posted by eddy

    Conifer should go double or nothing on this home coming back in 18 months @ 3100 sqft with a $3.1 sale price.

  25. Posted by Denis

    ^ oh I totally agree with that…

  26. Posted by A.T.

    “this is seen as a validation of the bear case here on ss?”
    Nope — just a bet. Conifer bet that no Pac Heights SFR would go for under $1.3M and tipster took him up on it.
    Now THIS is validation of the bear case:
    http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/2922-Sacramento-St-94115/home/1739534
    and this:
    http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/250-King-St-94107/unit-1312/home/12402062
    And I could go on all day, but you know what’s going on in the market. Your comment does illustrate one point however, which is that SF still has much farther down to go because prices remain far above what fundamentals can support.

  27. Posted by julfy james

    LOL at the editor giving Tipster a thread involving accoutability, one, and “north of Clay” is not “on Clay,” two.

  28. Posted by anonee

    “Now THIS is validation of the bear case:
    http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/2922-Sacramento-St-94115/home/1739534
    $800/sq.ft…that’s your validation?
    sounds like a real fire sale..just like you guys predicted.

  29. Posted by A.T.

    Well, seeing as this big, really nice Pac Heights SFR went for a hair under $900/sf NINE years ago, yeah, I’d say that’s some pretty solid validation. Just like us guys predicted. And this guy predicts that three years from now SF will be down another 15-20%.

  30. Posted by mac

    “sounds like a real fire sale..just like you guys predicted.”
    No. Fluj. Just less than 2001 prices. Thats notable for your clients that bought 10 yrs ago..
    Thats it. Nothing more to see.

  31. Posted by lol

    Less than 2001 prices? The 2001 buyer must have overpaid of course 😉
    (hint hint, everyone has been overpaying since 1998 FWIW, time when rent-vs-buy went beserk in SF)
    Most people I know have more or less the same salary than in 2001. Some even saw a decrease in the past 3 years!
    Therefore it is normal that RE price will catch-up to that level sooner or later and maybe overshoot. Either it’s fast (and we will heal faster), or it’s slow and we will have a generation who will remember this situation as “the mess our parents left us”.
    Pull the band aid already.

  32. Posted by diemos

    “$800/sq.ft…that’s your validation?”
    Admittedly it’s not as bad as it could be.

  33. Posted by anonee

    “Well, seeing as this big, really nice Pac Heights SFR went for a hair under $900/sf NINE years ago”
    i’ve been inside that sacto house and it needs plenty of updating.
    so mac,at & lol, are you saying that d7 was $900/sq.ft. in 2001 and that’s where it is now?
    [Removed by Editor]

  34. Posted by A.T.

    Of course no one can say “D7 is at $900/sf” or $800/sf or $1100/sf because different size/quality places sell for different $/sf. But it is all related, all pieces of the same market and subject to the same market factors and stresses. What this example shows is that D7 is has taken a pretty decent hit along with everything else in SF.
    As to the “predicted 40-50% off,” some neighborhoods and properties are already there or close to it. All are still moving in the downward direction. Some will never get that far. Some will decline farther. We have at least three more years of this.

  35. Posted by Rillion

    I’d say “north of clay” includes the houses on the north side of the street but excludes the houses on the south side as they are not north of clay.

  36. Posted by eddy

    with respect to 2922 Sacramento – that house already has architect & contractor signs up on it looks like someone is about to pour a few hundred grand into that project. The 01/04 sales at $2.9 are strikingly high.

  37. Posted by Conifer

    I have read all the posts.
    Of course, north of Clay Street does not include the south side. The houses on the north side of this block, while “Victorian” were clearly built for richer people than this small workingman’s shack.
    This is exactly the kind of house that I intended to exclude, something built before the idea of “Pacific Heights” was in the mind of the City.
    Nevertheless, I accept that there is some ambiguity. This house today is clearly in Pacific Heights. Its value is in its location, not its quality.
    I think it is time to put the bet to sleep. I am willing to pay $100 in the form of a contribution to either Episcopal Charities (which helps provide housing to those without) or to the California Historical Society (which documents the history of SF and the rest of the state.)
    Assuming no one disagrees with this offer, I will let tipster and other socketsiters decide which of these two of our favorite charities gets the donation.

  38. Posted by A.T.

    Conifer, you’re a good guy (or gal).

  39. Posted by Conifer

    A.T.
    You’re a good gal (or guy.)

  40. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    Yeah, I think Conifer is being generous here. To me “north of” a street means the properties on the north side and beyond. A street is a ribbon of pavement in the commons and used for transportation, not the street+houses abutting it. Consider a property with entrances on more than one street. What street is that property on ? Properties are privately owned and can abut the street on either side. So I see :
    HHHHHHHH…
    CCCCCCCC…
    NNNNNNNN…
    where H are houses north of Clay, C is Clay street itself and N are house Not north of Clay. But given the argument above this seems almost a matter for the Philosophy Courts.
    (Editor : if you enable the -pre- tag I swear your readers will create some totally awesome ASCII graphics and tables 🙂

  41. Posted by anonanon

    MoD,
    Counting both sides of a street is not completely unprecedented. The official SFAR district map has California as the southern boundary for Pacific Heights, but both sides of the street count as district 7-B. Hence, you have MLS listings like this one for 2605 on the south side:
    http://sfarmls.rapmls.com/scripts/mgrqispi.dll?APPNAME=Sanfrancisco&PRGNAME=MLSPropertyDetail&ARGUMENTS=-N431893480,-N246284,-N,-A,-N24606930

  42. Posted by REpornaddict

    anonanon yes, so snything north of Pine is considered Pac Hts!
    There is no way, when standing in this house, that when asked which direction Clay St is you would say south. Hence it can’t be north of Clay St…
    Anyway, kudos to Conifer for coming forward with his offer.

  43. Posted by tipster

    Conifer,
    Yes, let’s end it. Either one is fine by me.

  44. Posted by anonanon

    “anonanon yes, so snything north of Pine is considered Pac Hts!”
    No. California is the boundary, but both sides of the street are included. A house on the north side of Pine, like 2210, would be district 6-C.
    http://sfarmls.rapmls.com/scripts/mgrqispi.dll?APPNAME=Sanfrancisco&PRGNAME=MLSPropertyDetail&ARGUMENTS=-N898583737,-N248724,-N,-A,-N24612373

  45. Posted by lol

    Well, per the SFAR’s map, California is indeed PH. But everyone knows this is an outright lie. All this section is the REAL lower PH, not what used to be called Western Addition. The real PH starts at the shopping cart line.

  46. Posted by Conifer

    Thank you tipster.
    I polled the current residents of our house, with the following results:
    Wife votes for Episcopal Charities, since we recently made a rather larger contribution to the California Historical Society.
    Champion Mother Canine votes for Episcopal Charities since she was blessed as a puppy by the Bishop of California.
    Champion Son Canine votes also for Episcopal Charities since he was blessed as a puppy by the Canon Precentor of Grace Cathedral.
    So it is $100 to Episcopal Charities!

  47. Posted by polip

    well done, Conifer
    charity beings in the home, and then continues on socketsite!

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles