As we outlined back in the first quarter of this year:

“Touting its location, location, location on “one of the most coveted blocks in Dolores Heights,” a block and a half from Dolores Park, the “one-of-a-kind home” at 352 Cumberland Street, which totals around 2,800 square feet (including two vacant studio units which front the street), was purchased for $3.75 million in September of 2014.

In addition to an open floor plan, the main residence features panoramic views from both levels of the home, not to mention its roof deck and back patio (which overlooks a terraced garden and lower deck).

And having returned to the market listed for $3.75 million last month, a sale at which would have represented apples-to-apples appreciation of 0.0 percent for the Dolores Heights property since the third quarter of 2014, the list price for 352 Cumberland Street has just been reduced by $500K to $3.25 million.”

Withdrawn from the MLS in March without a reported sale, 352 Cumberland was just listed anew with an official “1” day on the market and a further reduced list price of $2.995 million, a sale at which would now be considered to be “at asking” according to all MLS-based stats but would represent an actual 20.1 percent drop in value for the luxury home on an apples-to-apples basis.

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Dave (Seattle dude)

    The two vacant studios may not be the draw they once would have been. Being a small time landlord in SF (and California) is not easy. It is so difficult to evict – even for cause. Personally I know of someone with a legal in-law who went through hell with the last tenant. They no longer rent it out, but use if for guests or family members who visit every now and again. Plus, there is a fair chance California will pass a bill requiring owners of rentals to rent to Section 8 families. Today one has the option not to. Still, this is a great location and the outsized price drop is surprising.

    • Posted by not sure why this is all caps

      We have a legal in-law unit that we will never, ever rent for exactly that reason.

    • Posted by future investor

      Could a California real estate investor get around the new rent control and anti-eviction laws by buying single units in multiple buildings, and renting or AirBnbing the units out, instead of having multiple units in one building? They should be considered single units and outside of the purview of these laws?

      • Posted by Dave (Seattle dude)

        No, the new laws would apply to single units. A single rental home or condo. As rent control becomes more draconian in California the traditional exemption for the small time landlord – single units – is going away. Best option for California real estate investors is not to – invest in California that is. More and more investors are exchanging out of the state. Or leaving units empty in the case of in-laws.

        • Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

          Instead of continuing to just spread FUD, why don’t you cite the bill that has “a fair chance” of passing? If you’re referring to AB 1482, it would not apply to a home like 352 Cumberland St. if the owner lived in the main home.

          You must be talking to some Chicken Little small time landlords. I am not in the “real estate game” myself, but I know several landlords and none of them have stopped looking around for investment properties locally because of “a fair chance” that some bill will pass in the future.

          They aren’t worried about “Section 8 families”. They know that they can use social media to run targeted ads so that anyone applying for a given apartment fits the ethnic and socio economic profile they want in potential tenants. Which is illegal, but they know they can get away with it.

          They know they can take rent-controlled units off the rental market and “AirBnb the units out”, which is illegal, but they know they can get away with it due to lax enforcement.

          Not one of them — small time landlords all — is investing in some remote market they aren’t familiar with and aren’t physically located in just because of some potential expansion of rent control.

  2. Posted by jenofla

    Nice views. No garage in a nabe with challenging parking. 3 units. I know cars are considered a bit extraneous by some, but I’d think someone at that price point, in that neighborhood, would still want the ability to drop by wine country on the weekends or pop down to the Peninsula for a meeting, and not have to park on the street. Limit the buyer pool, limit the sales price.

    • Posted by jimbo

      especially considering the car break-in epidemic in SF

    • Posted by Anonoly

      The garage issue existed in 2014 when the house sold for $3.75 million.

      • Posted by jimbo

        the rampant car break-in problem significantly worse now though and more people live in the neighborhood decreasing on-street parking and increasing the rent rate of leased parking

    • Posted by Miraloma Man

      But with jackknifed fuel trucks a daily occurrence on top of already FUBARed base-level traffic seven days a week, how does anyone ‘pop’ anywhere with a car?

      • Posted by bachman_erlich_overdrive

        By moving to the Richmond or the Sunset.

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles