44 Rockaway
As we wrote about the remodeled single-family home at 44 Rockaway Avenue in August:

Purchased for $1,272,000 in 2007, and having sold three years before for $1,088,000, the rather well kept and updated Forest Hill Extension home at 44 Rockaway Avenue returned to the market this past February listed as a short sale for $989,000.

As a plugged-in tipster notes, the three-bedroom Spanish Mediterranean home has been in and out of contract twice since, and the listing now notes a previously approved short sale price of $995,000, twenty-two (22) percent ($277,000) below its 2007 sale price.

And yes, there’s a bidet (along with Cararra marble) in the lower (unwarranted) bath.

The sale of 44 Rockaway closed escrow on Friday with a reported contract price of $860,000, twenty-one (21) percent or $228,000 under its 2004 sale price, thirty-two (32) percent or $412,000 under its 2007 sale.
That being said, and although hearsay, a reader reports: “Heard that there is $100k+ in water damage to lower structure / foundation from faulty plumbing. Don’t know if it’s related to the work without permit (or inspection).”
On The Rocks At 44 Rockaway [SocketSite]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Average Joe

    Related to the unwarranted construction: since DBI is funded by permit fees, why have they never been more aggressive about pursuing issues like this? I mean, any quick perusal of the MLS would generate dozens of new fines/penalties/permit fees from “reasonable suspicion” type inspections, which could easily pay for better service for those of us actually trying to be legit. And just the threat of any sales listing drawing penalties would dramatically change the value proposition for doing work illegally.
    For those who might argue that DBI is corrupt already and certainly doesn’t need MORE authority, wouldn’t garnering a personally engaged populace be just the thing to force change at that department?

  2. Posted by SFBuyer

    We are doing this type of reno now(room and bath down) in this area. So far we have spent $12.8K to make it legal (architect, engineer & city permit). It’s less than 10% of the total reno budget.

  3. Posted by [sdfsdfds]

    Maybe you should get the full story before reporting it.
    [Editor’s Note: We think we’ve captured the relevant pieces of the puzzle and have provided more insight into the sale than you’ll find anywhere else, but if you have something of value to add or a fact to correct, please feel free.]

  4. Posted by A.T.

    It’s just a blog, not the New York Times.
    32% below peak is not even remarkable anymore. It’s right in line with the local market generally.

  5. Posted by Tripp Knightly

    I remember really liking this house in 2004 and the shock of the then 2004 price (only to later see the 2007 price). The master suite downstairs seemed a little contrived and problematic.
    The views of the full sweep of Forest Hill from this place I think are awesome.

  6. Posted by El Bombero

    Down 32% from the top is a pretty strong showing for that kind of a house in that sort of neighborhood, pretty “resilient” if you ask me!

  7. Posted by SocketSite

    UDPATE: The salary discussion sparked by a reader’s comment has been moved to: The Rising Rents Versus Falling Prices Paradox And Salary Debate.

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles