Dude, where’s my house?
2852 SAN JUAN BL, Belmont 94002 (Belmont)
$619,900 Beds: 2 bed(s) Baths: 1 bath(s) MLS: 80815233
Bed/Bath: 2 / 1
SqFt: 720
Lot: 8,000 sq ft
Yr Built / Age: 1958 / 50 years
List Price: $619,900
Assoc Fee:
Great Westside Value! Large 8,000 SQ FT lot with studded redwood tree setting, cozy and expandable rancher, 2 car garage, hardwood floors, bank owned REO. Opportunity knocks!
Great Westside Value! Large 8,000 SQ FT lot with studded redwood tree setting, cozy and expandable rancher, 2 car garage, hardwood floors, bank owned REO. Opportunity knocks!
Now granted this is a rather large lot, but still… I’d feel better about paying $861 a square foot if there was a house in this photo. Is it just the garages? How perplexing!
Maybe that’s the point - that’s all you need - two garages and you’re set. Minimalist living at its best. It can be yours, here in Belmont.
July 14th, 2008 at 7:50 am
Zillow says the lot is 348,480,000 sqft - hey, WillowGlenner! Here’s an investment property for you!
Interior pics on Redfin: http://www.redfin.com/CA/Belmont/2852-SAN-JUAN-Blvd-94002/home/1192060
July 14th, 2008 at 8:37 am
This is the longest driveway ever! Minimalist staging too.
The main question on lots on San Juan Boulevard is: how much of it is flat?
July 14th, 2008 at 8:47 am
I actually would consider something like this but I like to keep things below 450K, and preferably below 400K. I used to live in San Carlos/Belmont area though, and I think San Juan is a good street. Its back there by Crystal Springs trail (which means they could have a mountain lion problem these days). I can’t tell from the picture how much of this is a flat lot, but an 8000 sq ft flat lot is what I look for.
The thing I have learned over the years is that with investment properties, 1)Lots/area are where the appreciation potential is and 2)from a rental perspective it really doesn’t matter what condition the house is- all that matters is the # bathrooms. So you never want to pay for a remodelled house for a rental. I would be happier to buy this place if it were $100K lower price and 50 year old appliances and bath- then I would have my construction contacts look at it and verify the work was done right.
They did do a fair amt of rockwork on the driveway though, I wonder what was the story with that.
July 14th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Not bad at all. Very private, up in the hills yet with good access to the shops at Ralston/Alameda and the freeways, excellent schools. But the small size of the structure means it’s strictly for an investor with the means to tear it down and start over.
July 14th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Is this area excellent schools though, sonorrat? My recollection is that NO San Mateo/belmont school districts were any good except for Foster City. The San Mateo area that reminds me of willow glen called Aragon never had good schools. Schools are a secondary consideration for property up there.
But quality of life in that area is great. Fantastic weather, views, etc.
July 14th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Cipriani Elementary: API 851
Ralston Intermediate: API 860
Carlmont High: API 800
My understanding is that anything from 800 up is very strong, especially at the HS level.
July 14th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Yes you are correct, thanks for the clarification!
This also illustrates how areas can gentrify and schools can change, too. Carlmont, when I was there was a rough school. That was 15 years ago. The entire area turned around. Thats one reason to use school district only as one datapoint when buying investment real estate.
July 14th, 2008 at 9:29 am
“Opportunity knocks…” but it has to knock on the garage door. Hey now!
July 14th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Its pretty sad when schools are used heavily as bargaining cards for buying “investment” properties. I swear, I’m SICK of continuously hearing about how good schools are in this area or that. It highlights the problem of this area and state, which is that most schools are in fact poor, and if you want anything good- better shell out the money before the investors get there first…
July 14th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Bob, I agree completely, everyone has to remember that these schools are not great, they are just relatively better than the rest of the fetid cesspool that is California public schools.
If you really cared about your child’s education, he/she would already be in private school.
July 14th, 2008 at 9:56 am
San Mateo’s Aragon limps into the “good” category with an 800 API score for 2007. Hillsdale and San Mateo high hover around 750-775.
The elementary schools, on the other hand, seem to be faring a bit better, especially on the west side:
Baywood: 928
Highlands: 873
Laurel: 834
West side is the best side! w00t!
July 14th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Another thing: Just because a school is “good” doesn’t mean your kid will be Mr. rocket scientist when he/she grows up. 90% of a Child’s education is parent involvement. Me, my Brother, and the rest of my family were all products of ordinary, everyday public schools in rural locations. We all turned out just fine. But that was because our parents beat it into our heads that we had to do well in school. This is why I think that people who desperately try to get their kids into the “best” schools are making too much of a big deal over this aspect.
July 14th, 2008 at 10:09 am
bob, I couldn’t agree with you more. You can get really smart kids out of very average schools (my husband is an example of this) and really dumb ones out of excellent schools (as evidenced by some of my HS classmates)! Parent involvement is a HUGE factor that shouldn’t be overlooked.
July 14th, 2008 at 10:21 am
nomadic & bob,
These are great points, I think a lot of these people are using the “good schools” as a substitute for parental involvement.
July 14th, 2008 at 11:11 am
I agree with the above comments. I grew up in Utah and didn’t learn a thing in public school until I hit algebra in 7th grade. For this I credit my parents, both for taking an active role in teaching me how to read, and for stressing the need to succeed in school (perhaps a little too well).
On the other hand, might school ratings be of some use in trying to minimize the number of gunshot wounds you’d expect your kids to sustain while at school?
July 14th, 2008 at 11:22 am
I agree that parental involvement is probably the biggest factor in a child’s current school learning and his future success. Just about all the experts agree that children whose parents read to them do better at school because they choose to read more, and learn more.
That’s why I detest the No Child Left Behind laws so much. They ensure that everyone’s so panicked about test results that there’s no more learning in school, just teaching to the tests. Cupertino district was nailed by this, look, this is a district that parents are doing anything to get into, and according to NCLB they were “non-compliant” because, and I kid you not, just 3 too few learning-disabled kids took the math test. Yup, they weren’t non-compliant on scores (every school in CUSD is over 800), they were non-compliant in participation.
Are you familiar with the term “scatter” in statistics? If you slice and dice a big population smaller and smaller, the numbers become less meaningful (the standard error gets huge). Well, NCLB requires both test scores to rise and compliance rates of over 95% not only for the whole district but for a bunch of subpopulations. I can guarantee that just about every district will be noncompliant if you measure it that way, and that’s what happened. So I heard the old farts in the diner complaining that Cupertino schools had “failed” the test, and this is exactly what the a–holes who came up with NCLB wanted to happen in the first place. Come up with a bunch of impossible measurements and then punish the schools for “failing” them, meanwhile you’re blaming the school system for “failing” instead of Prop 13 for starving it in the first place.
btw I am involved in my kid’s schools up to the wazoo.
July 14th, 2008 at 11:24 am
as to today’s lucky property, check out the pictures on redfin. I am not sure about that kitchen, it looks like something from the Exploratorium, the walls join at a 60 degree angle. Is it a triangular kitchen?
also check out the aerial views. This property has a long, narrow lot, but next door — scrumptuous!
July 14th, 2008 at 11:35 am
>>btw I am involved in my kid’s schools up to the wazoo.
but that’s only because you were lucky enough to buy in during a time when people needed 1 income to buy a house. and then you got rich on stock options.
July 14th, 2008 at 11:54 am
800 is considered good? Oh boy.
July 14th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Studded Redwoods aren’t that great. Boiled Redwoods are better vs. Piercing weapons, and if you’re worried about Bludgeoning then you should use Scale Mail.
July 14th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
>>btw I am involved in my kid’s schools up to the wazoo.
but that’s only because you were lucky enough to buy in during a time when people needed 1 income to buy a house. and then you got rich on stock options.
Boy, you seem really upset about the stock options. I think I mentioned them once and you bring them up every time you address me. I also told you, I think 5 different times, that we could not and did not buy our house on one income. Both of us worked for 4 years after buying it.
Were houses more affordable then? Absolutely. Were we fortunate to be buying then instead of now? You bet. But knock it off, already. I am not RealEstater and I am not telling you Now is the time to buy, you’ll double your money in ten years, guaranteed. I’ve been saying all along I expect an RBA correction because prices make no sense. So I’d really appreciate it if you’d cut it out, you’ve made your point. Repeatedly.
July 14th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
>>but that’s only because you were lucky enough to buy in during a time when people needed 1 income to buy a house. and then you got rich on stock options.
It hasn’t been possible to buy a house in the Bay Area on one income since the 70s, unless it’s a Larry Ellison income.
July 14th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
hey Crossroads you are dating yourself. Even in the 80s it was impossible to buy a house on one income here. There was serious rigidity in the mortgage market then that didn’t allow more than 30% of your income going to mortgage under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. Plus the only banks writing jumbos then were the loansharks Home Savings and Great Western. It is easier to get into a house now, than then. And affordability for some of the midrange areas like Fremont is easier now than then.
July 14th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
None of my friends bought before ‘00 with two income. Just look at the prices over income in the 90s and the price per square feet data in any middle class neighborhood.
July 14th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
WG our original loan was non-conforming (jumbo) but I don’t think either of those companies. I’d have to pull out the old paperwork to figure out who wrote our first loan. Back then conforming loans were ridiculously low, like $108K or something. It wasn’t until our 3rd refinance that we had a conforming loan because it was bumped up to the low $200Ks.
July 14th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
I know people who bought in the eighties with one income. You needed a first, a silent second, and a really ominous third, but it was doable. Thanks to steady appreciation, it all worked out in the end.
People wrote bad paper in 2006 in no small part because it had worked in 2003, 2004, and 2005. It’s only a “liar loan” if you get caught, so to speak.
July 14th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Well, Home and GW were huge at the beginning of the decade Madhaus. Honestly it seemed like 3 out of 4 mortgages in the bay area were made through them, because they were the only ones who made their own loans and anybody selling to fannie/freddie had to adhere to the 30% max mortgage to income (which was really ridiculous). As it turns out it didn’t matter with the declining mortgage rates but for those complaining that SIVs for mortgages with wall street backing is so bad, they didn’t see what the alternative was. For some reason people think it was George Bailey thrift and loan making all those loans in the 90s.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-10742874.html
July 14th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
A guy I used to work with bought a SFH on just his income in mid/late-2004. He didn’t even have a green card yet. Wife had no permission to work in the states. He earned around $100k or a little more, and got a house in the mid-$500k range. Lucked out and sold the place last year.
A cynic would point out that LOTS of people were getting houses on one income with liar loans over the last few years.
July 14th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Assuming your former colleague covered his purchase price, I’d hate to be his knife-catching purchaser.
July 14th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Well, WillowGlenner, turned out it wasn’t Home or GW. I pulled out the paperwork and it was not either of those banks. If you send me an email to this username at gmail I’ll let you know what bank we used, assuming you really care. I don’t care to share that info publicly. That isn’t my regular email, it’s one I’ve set up just for you.
Also since it wasn’t a conforming loan, it couldn’t be resold to Freddie or Fannie anyway.
July 14th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
No kidding! It’s in a part of SJ that is okaaaay but definitely susceptible to foreclosure issues. Surprisingly, another former colleague who lived in the same neighborhood just sold her place too. She’s been there for 10-15 years though, so could absorb some price drop. She’s looking to catch a knife out in Livermore or Tracy now. Not something I’d be willing to do right now.
July 15th, 2008 at 1:35 am
Drove through Livermore today on the way back from Sacramento, and the downtown (halfway between 580 and 84) looks actually really nice, a bit like downtown Menlo Park. I thought the Tracy/Stockton path was foreclosure ground zero so I was expecting to see… some kind of ground zero scenery. Not sure what the commute is like during rush hour, but Livermore to Milpitas or to Newark does not seem that crazy of a thought, it’s just about 25 miles. Nice wind turbines too. Anybody could expand on the Dublin/ Pleasanton/ Livermore/ Tracy/ Manteca / Stockton arc? Are they all overbuilt, overpriced and doom to sink further?
July 15th, 2008 at 1:42 am
Anybody could expand on the Dublin/ Pleasanton/ Livermore/ Tracy/ Manteca / Stockton arc? Are they all overbuilt, overpriced and doom to sink further?
In a word, yes.
July 15th, 2008 at 2:32 am
madhaus - Very expansive indeed!
July 15th, 2008 at 8:29 am
Jesus. Can we please just stop with the HURR DURR BUBBAL POPP permabearing? This is not a message board. It is a blog, and a blog that’s about poking fun at ridiculous Silicon Valley properties. It’s not as though there’s nowhere else to express Marxist sentiment.
July 15th, 2008 at 8:49 am
This blog is full of permabears, Density. Its ok- you know you are going to get the permabears when you come here. The only issue I have with it is the ridiculous claims that some make here that the STOCK MARKET, in this decade is some kind of superior investment vehicle to housing. Its ridiculous. Housing will continue to outperform stocks until the dollar stops sliding, and the dollar is sliding due to government overspending. Just today another rout in the markets and a new dollar low of $1.60 against the Euro. You can claim that housing is not worth investing in and gold is better- but to claim that STOCKS are somehow more lucrative than Real estate is pretty ridiculous.
But anyhoo, Density aren’t you from Evergreen SJ? 95135 I think? I just discovered that those are the best schools in SJ, rivaling Almaden. Any good deals there?
July 15th, 2008 at 9:00 am
WG,
No matter what, stocks go up 7 out of 10 years. Are we in a recession? Yup. Probably one of the worst that we’ll see in decades. Guess what caused it? The crash in housing. Anyone that claims that RE outperforms stocks over the long term will get laughed at by anyone with an iota of basic economics.
You seem to be suggesting that we’re all screwed and the dollar and the economy is toast, hence Armageddon is upon us. But if that were the case, then not only would the entire US economy be wiped out, but so too would be the ability of consumers to spend money on housing. So if all hell is now upon us, then we’re all screwed equally. Buying a house in a recession to me isn’t exactly the best use of money.
Sorry, but you’re dead-wrong. RE has never outperformed stocks and investments over the long term, and it will never do so. To say otherwise is complete misinformation.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:16 am
I am not wrong bob, I have an equity portfolio in the millions, I can assure you I know all about the ins and outs of the stock market and in this decade stocks are LOSERS. I have you pegged as a kid that has no real world investing experience. This entire decade is a secular bear, and the only way to make real money is a secular bear (which are flat markets that zig and zag as opposed to markets in a definitive trend like bull or bear) is a hedge fund- but then you run a high risk of losing substantial amts of your capital. I don’t know *anybody* committing new monies to stocks now, executives in great companies like GOOG are dumping stocks as fast as they vest, not because they don’t think GOOG is a great company, but because the market is not what it used to be (I made my money in the 90s btw, and to sell now I would have to pay a lot of taxes). My investment advisor started the decade with an expectation of 15% for my portfolio, which was typical, then it was 10%, then 5% and now we are just trying to break even. And most high net worth individuals I know are in the same boat. You shout out generalities that are not workable and even if they are, only work with small sums of money. Anybody who invested in stocks in this decade has not done as well as RE and I believe that will likely continue. We might be able to have a debate GOING FORWARD, with liquid assets (which are highly dependent on currency) vs real estate going forward, but up until this point 2000-2008 stocks have been a signficant loser. And your “no matter what” just sounds like an 8 year old kid’s stubbornness.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:20 am
bob>> RE has never outperformed stocks and investments over the long term, and it will never do so.
The period 1965-1982 which was the LAST SECULAR BEAR featured real estate outperforming stocks at about a 10-1 ratio (if you looked at returns on actual monies paid in to RE vs the entire cost of the house).
Well here we are another secular bear.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:39 am
WG,
Let me tell you a couple of stories about ordinary people who now do very well. All of whom didn’t buy tech stocks, houses ( except their primary) oil, or any of the other bubblicious crap that has essentially been the cause of the majority of the downfalls of the last decade.
First- My parents. Their home is paid for. My dad is a maintenance man after spending years in HR. My Mom is a school teacher. Their home is worth 180k. But they also invested in basic no-nonsense mutual funds and so forth. They never jumped into any of the glamorous bubble stocks. They’re in their 50’s and worth several million. They will retire in less than 5 years. They didn’t do anything crazy or look to get into the next big get-rich scheme.
Second, my Wife’s parents. They also have a fairly modest house, drove modest cars, live modest lifestyles. His Wife didn’t work but owns a small rental house bought in the 70’s. The rent she got was invested again- in extremely boring, ordinary stocks and mutual funds.He invested in much of the same things. They too are worth several million dollars.
Lastly, l’ll let you in a bit on my investment strategy. I too have basic, diversified investments in various mutual funds and international growth funds. All in all, the worst years over the last decade was between 2001- early 2003. In those years, my combined investments were down approximately 3-5%. But in the subsequent years afterwards, the overall investments were up an avg of 10-15%. So my investments match precisely what the overall stock market avg is, which is roughly 10% annual appreciation. That compared to the typical 4% you gain from RE, no matter where you live.
Basically, just about anyone I know who’s taken this modest, gradual approach has done very well for themselves, investing a minimal amount of their incomes ( 10% annually) over 20-40 years. In the end, their retirements were secured. They didn’t have to take risks. They didn’t buy into the latest fad.
Now if you were someone who does the opposite, looking to buy the riskiest stuff- aka- overpriced RE and google stock, then yes- you’re probably going to get burned unless you’re just extremely lucky.
Anyhow, I’ve said my peace. If you wanna buy RE, go for it. Nobody is stopping you and I’m sure there’s lots of people happy to unload it on you. But it helps to not ignore history when it comes to investments.
-end-rant
July 15th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Bob I think you sort of proved his point. His claim was that the last decade was a secular bear, and all of your example were from the time period before.
Maybe prove is too strong, but it certainly didn’t help.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:05 am
DreamT, I will expand on why I think that area, or any exurban area, will continue declining.
Six-dollar gas.
bob, you are a broken record (and you’re old enough to know what that is). Various people give you background, links, data, personal experience, what have you, and you just keep repeating yourself, mostly it seems to hear yourself talk. If what someone else says doesn’t fit your take, you ignore it and keep on with your original claims. You’ve done that to many people here. It’s tiresome. I have a healthy stock portfolio too, and we’re not doing well on it, which is why I’m making new investments abroad. I might not always agree with WG but he explains his positions well and has experience with this sort of thing, so I respect his opinion (even if he thinks I don’t). You’re completely self-contained, and it seems little gets through to you. Do you ever come to this board intending to learn something new? I suggest you mindfully try it.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:07 am
I don’t know how to make this sound any simpler than what I’ve already said. But I’ll try again. Over the long term as in 30 to 40 years, you will do better investing in stocks and investments over RE. We’re talking about a 100 year track record.
If you want to believe that somehow, this time it’s “special” and the good ole’ days are long gone and everybody is going to start stuffing money under their mattresses, then go right ahead and buy up a lot of real estate- with cash of course.
People that jump in and out of the market,every time there’s a blip are wasting their time. You will never make money that way, and in fact, the smart people who do very well tend to buy when all the hamsters start fleeing.
Anyhow, I’ve said enough about this already. Choose to believe what you want. But I believe in what I know has worked for basically everyone in my family as well as some of the world’s richest people. And it ain’t covered in plastic siding or pink colored paint…
July 15th, 2008 at 11:25 am
If I had a dime for every time bob said he was done discussing stocks vs real estate, I could make a down payment on today’s Tiffany house. If I had a dime for all the topics he’s done talking about, I could buy it outright.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Madhaus,
Do you take pride in the amount of time you spend making those “fantastic” puns? Aren’t you the person who’s husband works while you stay at home? If so, then what in the hell are you doing sitting inside, not enjoying the fantastic BA weather? I know I sure as hell would be doing a lot more than typing drivel online if I didn’t have to work.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:39 am
madhaus - Very expensive indeed!
I posted a little while back several reasons why I think the $6 is unlikely to become a permanent reality. Even then, the gas price hike wouldn’t be enough to justify paying four (?) times as much for the real-estate equivalent in the south bay.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:59 am
DreamT, I see long commutes as falling out of favor with higher gas prices. That means far-flung areas such as Stockton/Tracy/Livermore will lose value and closer-in areas such as Mountain View will hold or increase value if not for other downward market pressure. The implosion of the mortgage market may have more downward pull than the location, location, location push.
bob, stay at homes are rarely at home, we’re always on call as a taxi service. So I’m just puttin’ up my feet until the next call comes in. And at some point it will be time to pick up the guitar.
Actually both my kids are in camp and I’m off to lunch. But thanks so much for your concern!
July 15th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Madhaus,
Well you had me fooled because you’re on here A LOT.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
bob, what’s up, you taking over for RealEstater? I see you have his signature move, the Deflection Two-Step, down pat. Feel free to address what I actually said when you have a moment.
Toodles!
July 15th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Madhaus,
You seem pretty good at making statements to push buttons, which I’m fairly good at ignoring. So I apologize if I actually replied in kind. How un-gentleman-like. My hat’s off.
Perhaps the reason I feel strongly about this one item is because it is something that even the most basic, bare-bones economist will tell you.I’m not making any revelations. Yet there’s people here getting out, buying houses, gold, etc etc? Sorry, but that’s absolutely nuts, and that simply amazes me.
You claim that I haven’t learned anything here. I can tell you that I’ve learned a lot, which is that perhaps there’s a reason why this area is so incredibly volitile and at many times economically unstable.Its because the number of people I’ve met here who don’t actually understand investing or money is astounding. Some of what I’ve read here confirms that. Oh well. That’s not really my concern.
July 15th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
WillowGlenner: 95138, actually. South of town, off of Silicon Valley Boulevard (the other end of Bernal Road.)
I can’t say anything about the schools, because I’m a single guy with no prospects; schooling wasn’t a driver for me.
July 15th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
SPX 10yr
7/20/98 =1140.80 close
7/15/08 =1214.91 close
July 15th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
bob, you need to read more carefully before accusing me of saying things I didn’t. I asked if you learn anything here, only you know if you do. It seems to me most of the posters here are pretty well informed so I don’t get your claim that people here are ignorant of economics and investing. If you’re talking about the general population, well, that’s true almost anywhere. If you want to see a bunch of people who really don’t understand debt vs wealth just check out the irvinehousingblog.
July 16th, 2008 at 7:38 am
Madhaus,
I have nothing else to say other than that the feeling is mutual that we agree to disagree.So let’s leave it at that shall we? I have no qualms with you or anyone else on this blog, and in most cases, I enjoy chatting here.
But I’m not going to back off of my previous statement either. I’ve read some really ignorant comments from people on this blog who clearly haven’t got a clue about financial investments. But hey- what do I know? I’m just a kid aren’t I?