From the listing for 3022 Pine Street when listed for $1,395,000 in April 2005: “Remodeled Victorian Beauty with great detailing on 3 levels with 2 car parking and a beautiful landscaped garden…Send your Victorian Lover Clients who expect the best.”
The Lower Pacific Heights home which ended up selling for $1,525,000 that June is now back on the market as a short sale listed for $1,299,000 but “subject to lender approval.”
UPDATE: While not as restrictive when it comes to single-family homes, we did miss the “transfer of possession subject to tenant rights” notation for 3022 Pine Street and have since removed our original “apples to apples” tag.
Currently rented for $5,300 a month, we’ll let you run the numbers on a $1,299,000 ask.
∙ Listing: 3022 Pine Street (3/3) 2,350 sqft – “$1,299,000” (short sale) [Redfin]
Not a bad deal. I’d probably go for something like this if I was in the market. But, “subject to tenant rights” is a red flag for me.
Hard to believe this sold for that much in 2005 and over asking.
http://mobile.obeo.com/viewer/ipad.cfm?TourID=322432
Not a terrible deal at 1.3. Those sqft in the attic seem highly suspect.
Having lived in a room in the attic where I constantly hit my head, I consider the whole third floor suspect too.
The non-staged pics from eddy’s link are a time capsule into 2005. CRTs were still everywhere.
5300 in rent. That’s a 245 ratio at asking.
Deduct 1200 in property taxes, 3600+ in interest with 20% down. Taxes on the rent might be offset by the interest deduction.
Plus maintenance and other stuff.
People will not buy this for the cash flow as most properties in SF.
dormers for attic renovation would have been the way to go,but i guess that is for houses worth more than $1.3 million
the lease it thru next Sept – that is probably going to mean a non-owner occupied loan or 30% down or so. otherwise this seems like a decent deal. not for an investor, but for someone who waits out the tenant and does get to owner occupy.
btw – the mls link goes to redfin…. have i missed that before? if not, why the change? revenue deal?
hangemhi: they link to redfin sometimes
^^^ I suspect that’s because Redfin links do not break as easily than the MLS. We can also see pics from older listings even after they’re sold.
Look at older SS links. Most MLS links are broken.
ALL older MLS links are broke. Every one. Worst system ever. Thank you Adam for Redfin linking.
I’m interested enough to take a look at this one. couple open houses next week on it. victorian isn’t really my thing but my wife likes it. although this part of pine is kind of busy.
whoever buys this place doesn’t have to wait out the tenant, they can evict them via owner occupy clause of the ellis act them with 30 day (if tenant has been there [less than] 1 yr) or 60 day notice.
high potential for that to get messy though and you then owe them up to $15k in relocation assistance. could be better to just wait.
I don’t know if you can kick someone out if they have a lease, which hangemhi mentioned that that had until next September.. You can certainly OMI/Ellis is if they are month to month, but I think the current lease thing might kill this one.
But I could be wrong.
You cannot kick someone out who has a lease. You take the any property subject to whatever lease is in effect and then you are required to honor it.
The Ellis act allows someone who has a rent controlled tenant to evict the tenant at the end of the lease. Typically, it is used when the lease term ends and the lease then turns into a month to month lease. Because the property would be subject to eviction controls, you couldn’t just tell the tenant to leave.
you guys are right, thanks for the clarification. this makes a big difference. but guess we’ll still pop into the open house and see how low that attic ceiling feels in person.
One can always try to buy off the tenant if you don’t want to wait for the lease to expire
If someone is interested into seeing how a tenant can get in the way of a earnest buyer, look no further:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Save-the-CCC-Page-for-the-Community/218450118231385
$168,000 buyout + Outlandish demands + the buyer was eager to keep the CCC in the building = Good reading for the holidays.
I am surprised no-one has run with this story yet.
In addition, this property was on the path of the occupySF movement. With the tenant making a speech.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMBcQoQVI1I
Very sensitive issue.