1426-1430 Jackson
The three unit Nob Hill building at 1426-1430 Jackson was purchased for $1,800,000 last December having been listed as “3 big vacant Ellis Act fixer flats” for $2,050,000.
Having been “painstakingly remodeled with extreme attention…undergone major seismic upgrades, allowing expansion to a five-car underground garage…[and containing] new systems throughout,” the building is back on the market as the “Jackson View Flats.”
1426-1430 Jackson View
The list prices for the three TIC units now range from $1,199,000 to $1,399,000.
And interestingly enough, we didn’t notice any mention of the prior evictions in the marketing materials or listings this time around.
∙ Listing: 1426 Jackson (3/2.5) 2,080 sqft – $1,399,000 (TIC) []
∙ Listing: 1428 Jackson (3/2.5) 2,020 sqft – $1,199,000 (TIC) [MLS]
∙ Listing: 1430 Jackson (4/2.5) 2,390 sqft – $1,399,000 (TIC) [MLS]
Prohibition On Condominium Conversion Passes [SocketSite]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by plantguy

    These seem pretty pricey, so it will be interesting to see if they get snapped up and how soon.

  2. Posted by ab

    nice… too bad they there is a school directly across the street (pretty loud in the mornings).

  3. Posted by ok

    This will be interesting to watch…hats off to the developer for taking a pretty big gamble here.

  4. Posted by eddy

    Seems TICs have been getting creamed in this market. The high LTV requirements are certainly impacting this market greatly. Sort of an interesting valuation angle I haven’t really thought about before.

  5. Posted by tNOB

    Wow! My wife and I toured this building when my in-laws had some money to invest. Couldn’t even get into the top floor unit, since the tenant had not been evicted yet. I am an architect, and could not have envisioned this coming out of it in my initial walkthrough. Great job by the developer and architect, it was a dump.
    To be honest, I didn’t look at it long enough to truly visualize it. I was simultaneously educating myself about the Ellis Act. Didn’t get too far into it without advising them to invest somewhere else.

  6. Posted by rabbits

    I got in to see the whole building after the last tenants were gone, and I agree that they did a fantastic job. The top unit was absolutely disgusting when I toured it. I’m really impressed just based on where they started from. Killer views, and they expanded the garage.

  7. Posted by justme

    Looks nice, but the pictures are a bit misleading. They’re using the same shots for all the units, and implying that the views are the same and that the lower unit has front bedrooms with bay windows.
    Not the worst, but it’s a pet peeve. It makes me wonder what else is being, um, informed by convenience.
    Otherwise, pretty sweet. I am partial to “period details” but it doesn’t sound like there was much to preserve in this case. In that light, it’s a nice redo.
    What, exactly, is the impact of having been Ellised? Or is that too big a can of worms?
    [Editor’s Note: Try following the “prior evictions” link above.]

  8. Posted by tNOB

    @justme – It is a can of worms. The furthest I got in my research basically told me that once you evict someone from multiple units, you are ineligible for condo conversion for 10 years. Worse if they are senior, handicapped, etc. Hence, being TIC’s. Even if you pay people off to move, there are stories of them coming back and screwing it up for you anyway…
    [Editor’s Note: See Prohibition On Condominium Conversion Passes as linked above.]

  9. Posted by resp

    Excellent turnaround time on the flip. congrats.
    Now the agent will use his typical playbook. One of these units will show “active contingent” within a week or two. Then the “better hurry, one’s already in contract” pitch will occur. Then mysteriously the first will fall out of escrow after at least one other buyer is secured. It’s the first buyer of a multi-unit TIC building that takes the highest risk, all else equal. This will be the solution. Again.

  10. Posted by [anon.ed]

    Huh. Can you cite a previous example of this supposed ploy being utilized, please? Or even just a specific anecdote?

  11. Posted by observantneighbor

    Anyone care to venture (with comps) what these would sell for as condos?

  12. Posted by Skirunman

    20% (maybe 25%) or more like $700 to $800 per sq. ft. versus $585 to $675 they are asking. Typically a 2 unit TIC that can be condo converted is 5-10% less than condos. 3-6 unit buildings without evictions or other issues 15%-20%.

  13. Posted by sfrenegade

    “Can you cite a previous example of this supposed ploy being utilized, please? Or even just a specific anecdote?”
    The shadiest sale I’ve seen in a small development was 1327 7th Ave #10 (a development SS has featured before, see link):
    The selling agent double-ended the sale, for one thing. And then look at the selling history:
    Feb 12, 2010 Delisted — — Inactive San Francisco MLS #366335
    Feb 12, 2010 Listed $1,158,000 — Inactive San Francisco MLS #366335
    Feb 12, 2010 Sold (MLS) $1,158,000 — Inactive San Francisco MLS #366335
    Jan 21, 2010 Sold (Public Records) $1,158,000 — Public Records
    Why would the public records indicate a sale 3 weeks before MLS did after a 1-day fake MLS listing? The buyers of #8 and #11 bought before this fiasco, for what it’s worth, but the sale of #10 does not look arms-length.

  14. Posted by [anon.ed]

    You’re calling something shady and you don’t even know what actually went down. Typical + lame SS behaviour. How about you back away from the search engine and, like, know things before casting stones, dude? Someone bought that unit before it was marketed, and they put the MLS in as an afterthought”
    Agent Remarks Entered for comp. Pre-final construction sale.

  15. Posted by rr

    Turned out the agent handling the sale of the newly-TICed building I now live in used a variant of the strategy resp mentioned on our now-neighbors. The agent was shady all around. I won’t mention her name, because we could never gather enough evidence to file suit and I fear potential libel implications. But, suffice it to say our neighbors got hosed both on price and on unit selection.
    On the topic at hand, you’d either have to be a moron or rich to buy an Ellis-acted TIC. My understanding is that Ellis act evictions involving multiple tenants currently ban you from the condo lottery FOREVER. By buying a TIC, you are assuming market uncertainty risk (regarding future loan availability, market desirability, law changes affecting TIC status, etc) in return for a somewhat lower price and the eventual ability to condo convert. Lacking that chance to convert means no way out should TIC fractional funding go the way of the dodo (which it likely will should SF prices ever return from the heavens allowing normal people to buy condos).
    If you’re wealthy enough to insulate against TIC uncertainty, you probably wouldn’t buy it anyway, because you can just go off and get a SFH.
    So, in short, the strategy here is to pray on the naive, which is just a more generalized version of what resp mentioned.

  16. Posted by [anon.ed]

    Be that as it may, the specific example that SFrenegade gave was completely in error.

  17. Posted by sfrenegade

    Why even bother putting it on MLS except to scam people?

  18. Posted by resp

    oh look. 1430 Jackson shows “active contingent” on MLS as of noon today.
    lemme guess. sunday open house. “we have an all cash offer on the top unit already”

  19. Posted by [anon.ed]

    “Why even bother putting it on MLS except to scam people?”
    Your opinions aren’t good enough to pay any attention to any more. I’ve asked enough times already.

  20. Posted by sfrenegade

    Whatever you say, fluj. You provided an answer from a search engine from a self-serving biased source and did not give us any personal knowledge whatsoever. So much for being the person with information that you claim to be.

  21. Posted by EBGuy

    1430 Jackson shows “active contingent” on MLS as of noon today.
    Nice. That said, if you go into a TIC thinking its like a condo (because someone told you that), well, nothing like free advice. How about it’s like a condo, and a coop. Except the buyer has to act like the coop board and interview potential TIC co-owners (including those who are ‘active contingent’). After all, you’re going into this endeavor with the sword of Damocles hanging over your head (aka. partition sale) and want to make sure that the bank will be unlikely to choose the nuclear option. Fractional financing makes this less likely, but nothing like knowing your potential TICmates have deep pockets for the long lottery slog.

  22. Posted by ryan

    Fractional financing is here to stay. Why would banks give up a lucrative product? There is only 1 foreclosed TIC from the last 3 years according to my contact at Sterling Bank. Rumor has it First Republic is investigating offering a product too.
    If you buy real estated at a 15-20% discounted price, even if the loan terms are worse, you still owe less money. It’s much better than a co-op. With fractional financing the other owners can’t reject a new buyer.
    For all you fractional financing / TIC haters, this product is really a good way give ownership opportunities to more people. Do we need to go into the benefits of owner occupants to a city vs. renters?

  23. Posted by ok

    From what I hear, it’s the lower unit that is in contract…

  24. Posted by anonee

    calif. dre pretty much forced any/all lenders in the tic space to offer 30 year terms on their loans, be they group or fractional. the terms are limited to a certain margin over an index (ie libor etc.)and typically feature a 5/1 arm type structure.
    those who predict that the financing will go the way of the dodo are misinformed, as usual here on ss…

  25. Posted by dB

    Why the new name [anon.ed]?
    Is it so relative SS newbees will think they’re reading an editor’s comment? You’ll always be fluj (anonn) to me!

  26. Posted by resp

    yes sorry it appears to be the lower unit in contract. did anyone see it over the weekend? any word on the buyer of the one unit? thanks.

  27. Posted by A.T.

    TICs are cheaper for a reason. They are a huge risk, and fractional financing only lessens one part of it — liability for loan non-payment by a co-owner. Title is still held in all owners’ names, so you better hope there is no big civil judgment against one of your co-owners. You aren’t going to be able to fend off creditors by pointing to your fractional loan. Also, pre-1979 TICs are under the rent control ordinance, unlike condos. You get what you pay for.

  28. Posted by SocketSite

    The sale of 1428 Jackson Street closed escrow today with a reported contract price of $1,130,000 ($559 per square foot).

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles