Please buy before it gets squashed…
Reports
428 EUCLID AV
San Bruno (San Bruno) 94066
Detached Single Family (Class 1)
Bed/Bath: 2 / 1
SqFt: 720
Lot: 2,500 sq ft
Age: –
List Price: $498,888
Assoc Fee:
Remarks
BEAUTIFUL CUTIE IN EXCELLENT LOCATION. REMODELLED KITCHEN,BATH,UPDATED THRUOUT GRANITE COUNTER,TILE IN KITCHEN& BATH. HARDWOOD FLOORS.NEW PAINT IN & OUT.
Sometimes I wonder if selling agents really deserve their commission. This one does.
If you don’t buy this house soon, he’s going to squash it.
I don’t know about you, but I’m reaching for my checkbook already! (Fortunately, the price ends with 888 so this house has some luck!)
October 24th, 2007 at 8:30 am
I LOLed so hard. Is this San Bruno week? Because these are priceless!
Also of note in this town: Shelter Creek.. one of the biggest “Ellis Act” apartment conversions ever undertaken. This month there was a studio listed under $200K there, which is the first habitable property I’ve seen on the peninsula for that price since I started following real estate. As a location with a ridiculous overabundance of inventory, it is likely a good bellwether for what is about to happen to the rest of homes.
I heard on the news that although sales have slowed, prices have been holding up so far. If San Bruno is any indication, that will change.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:40 am
Well, I wasn’t going to buy this house at first, but with a price ending in 8,888 how can I possibly go wrong? I need to buy it now…in fact, if you increase the price to 888,888 I will buy it even faster! Yay!! I love the bay area.
October 24th, 2007 at 10:43 am
I notice all the real gems on here have listed as their age, “-”
October 24th, 2007 at 11:12 am
I notice all the real gems on here have listed as their age, “-”
I noticed that as well. Nobody wants to make light of the fact that the vast majority of houses in the Bay Area are at least 40 years old.
October 24th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
To be fair, there’s nothing wrong with houses that are 40+ years old. I’ve seen plenty of 60-70-90 even 100 year old homes that were in fantastic condition.
But, uh, they were all not in the Bay Area.
October 24th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Maybe they were built cheaper here because of that little earthquake problem we have.
October 24th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Maybe they were built cheaper here because of that little earthquake problem we have
Makes me wonder how many people in California or the Bay Area have bothered to invest in earthquake insurance.
October 24th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
It’s also a good reason to buy something old, cheap and run-down, but in an expensive area. The Emerald Hills region of Redwood City is full of places like that. Buy it, insure it for earthquake damage. Then when “the big one” hits and it caves in, use the insurance payout to rebuild. Sweet!
October 24th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
I’m sorry burbed, but I must correct you. The realtor must be the guy in the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT12hgxZhmQ
That house is definitely being Crushed. Not squashed. I’m guessing a bunch of flat heads live there. HAHAHAHA.