Finally, a Real Bay Area house in Burlingame! (Commuter’s dream!)
1100 OXFORD Rd Burlingame, CA 94010
Price: $1,028,000
Beds: 2
Baths: 1
Sq. Ft.: 970
$/Sq. Ft.: $1,060
Lot Size: 4,819 Sq. Ft.
Age (Years): 68
Year Built: 1940
Type: Detached Single Family
Style: Ranch
Stories: 1 Story
View(s): Neighborhood
Neighborhood: Burlingame Gate/Burlingame GroveLocated on one of the most desirable Burlingame streets. Formal entry way, French door, crown moldings, and updated kitchen(granite Counters, many cabinets. .. ), elegant living room, comfortable and relaxing. Bonus room, new fresh hardwood floors throughout, landscaped lot, gorgeous yard, gold fish pond and Spa too!
Lately there’s been so much doom and gloom - luckily Burbed reader Jeff found this amazing property! There’s really no need to look at the photos, you just need to look at the price per square foot!
$1060!
Wowser! But wait! It gets better! This house is on California Drive, which people take instead of El Camino Real, and is also next to Caltrain!
Not only that, but this house last sold for $830,000 in 2004 - that’s a 24% gain! It makes sense - the unique setting enables this house to be a commuter’s dream!
Thanks Jeff. My spirits are soaring again. I <heart> the Real Bay Area!
September 15th, 2008 at 7:17 am
Jeff’s efforts won’t suffice to counter all the doom and gloom coming up on RealEstater’s favorite benchmark. 7:10am and already -2.6%
September 15th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Congratulations. You just found the first home that has a real mustache.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:38 am
Corner lot and 4,819 sq ft… Sadly, this is the cheapest house in the street according to Zillow…
September 15th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Hey Lehman Bros is bankrupted, you know what it means? Bailout! We have reached bottom, it is good time to buy. Market should go up a few hundred points from here.
September 15th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
I saw that story today as well. Un-freakin-believable. To me, this should further illustrate just how entirely reliant homes sales have been tied to completely flawed lending standards. Only now with seemingly every other financial company going under as a result, which is something Alan Greenspan called a once in a century event do we see just how out of hand things got.
May we never repeat this again.
September 15th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Lvnch time, -3.55%. I turn to RealEstater for an appropriate comment, if he’s not busy hiding.
September 15th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Here’s tiny bit of encouragement - the savings rate has risen from bob’s old statistic: (from today’s Washington Post)
Here’s another one not to be too alarmed about: Obama is flat-out wrong when he frets on his campaign Web site that “the personal savings rate is now the lowest it’s been since the Great Depression.” The latest rate, for the second quarter of 2008, is 2.6 percent — higher than the 1.9 percent rate that prevailed in the last quarter of Bill Clinton’s presidency.
They were also saying that the default & foreclosure rate is only a little higher than it was in 1985. The article seems to be at odds with many others I’ve read recently, so it’s tought to sift through the spin.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
I thought I’ve covered it pretty well for him already?
I wonder if he is the guy who had a book named “100 ways to put a smile on your face”. That guy’s appearance on the Comedy channel was hilarious.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
One more:
Stock market is down, that means people moving out of stocks and putting money into RE.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Guys,
Why are you listening those false news and media propaganda? Lehman is alright. Stock market is alright. Nation’s mortgage/credit problems are solved already.
Don’t listen to those absurd news propagated by media. Buy more houses.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Good thing that our credit problems are all solved. Otherwise, Lehman Bros.’ going belly-up might have me worried.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Here’s a new motto:
The reinsurance industry will save us all!
Who’s insuring AIG?
September 15th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
We all better hope AIG doesn’t go belly up. That would prompt one hell of a margin call. “Miles to go before I sleep” or something like that…
September 15th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
AIG is too big to fail.
Today we put down our “worried” hat, and put on our “happy” face. Everything is alright, America is better than ever.
September 15th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
>>Lvnch time, -3.55%. I turn to RealEstater for an appropriate comment, if he’s not busy hiding.
Guys,
I’ve never said anything that indicates I’ve taken a position in the direction of the stock market. A few people here try to distort as usual, and I already clarified that my comments were relevant to real estate, not stock market.
It should be no secret to the regulars here that I moved out of stocks earlier in the year. I argued a few times that the stock market is not worth the risk, but the Bobs of this board still insist that stock market is the place to invest. We agreed to disagree, and those people are hosed now. Their 401K are hosed now.
If instead, you are invested in RBA real estate, nothing has changed. You don’t care what happens to Lehman Brothers or Blues Brothers, your standard of living is unaffected. The more turmoil you see out there, the more evident RBA is the best place for your investment money.
September 15th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Guys,
Two things are king right now:
1. Cash is king
2. RBA real estate is king
I’m starting to feel royal already!
September 15th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
RealEstater - We only observe that, per your own words:
a) “the stock market is ever so optimistic” meant for you “The nation’s mortgage/credit problems are solved now”. Stocks are up? Buy real estate.
b) “The more turmoil you see out there, the more evident RBA is the best place for your investment money.” Stocks are down? Buy real estate.
In short, the Chuck Norris of tautology (thks anon).
September 15th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
DreamT,
Below are excerpts on statements issued by U.S. Treasury Secretary:
*******
- the American people can remain confident in the “soundness and resilience in the American financial system.”
- Paulson, who was heavily involved in the decision last week for the government to take control of mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, said if that action works as expected in helping to stabilize the mortgage markets, then housing should start to rebound.
“I’m not saying two or three months, but in months as opposed to … years,” he said.
*******
If you want to keep arguing the point, go argue with him.
September 15th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
RealEstater - The point argued here is the logic vacuity of your posts. You masterfully reach your desired conclusion regardless of the premises, as shown in post #17. Bob has a problem with multiple variables, whereas logic has a problem with you.
This is why you are everybody’s favorite troll - a rationalization guru - and the Chuck Norris of logic.
September 15th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
How much longer until a Google search for “Chuck Norris” shows burbed as the top result?
Come on guys!
September 15th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
DreamT,
When you guys are out of arguments, you go back to talk about Chuck Norris, airport security, and the like. In any event, what really matters is how you’ve positioned yourself. Like I said my positions were laid out months in advance, and it’s something no one can argue against right now.
September 15th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
What really matters is that you can divide by zero. Nobody else can!
September 15th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Yeah but RE told you he had a bunch of cash at the sidelines. What he didn’t tell you is that his cash account is with Lehman Brothers. Oopsies!
September 15th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
By the way, it looks like the house in question has had its listing price reduced to $928,000. Priced to sell!
September 15th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
They lowered the price by 100k, that sort of takes the punch out of this listing, it went from up 24%, to up 12% roughly, certainly not that interesting for 4 years.
But targeting the sub 1M market, clearly priced for the masses now.
September 15th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
DreamT,
Don’t get frustrated. All I’m saying is that whether stocks are up or down, it doesn’t affect real estate here.
Maybe we can do an informal survey. Is any here affected by the events of today?
September 15th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Cardinal - it’s a super lucky price too! It’s got a “2″ AND an “8!” Clearly if the owners had paid $828k instead of $830k they would have sold it by now with all of the extra luck the house would have.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
> Below are excerpts on statements issued by U.S. Treasury Secretary
When something is wrong, one of the first things that’s done is to tell everybody everything is fine.
September 15th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
“DreamT,
Don’t get frustrated. All I’m saying is that whether stocks are up or down, it doesn’t affect real estate here.”
BS. This is true on two levels, one actual, one psychological. When portfolios get squeezed, people become instantaneously less wealthy. They actually have less money to spend. When Google comes crashing down soon, those stock options are a whole lot less fun. Psychologically, people are much less likely to spend on big ticket items if they fear for their jobs.
September 15th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
That is interesting about the stock market, because both people I know bought property for their first time last year cashed out part of their stock options. But clearly this is a small part the RE market, most people here don’t get stock options, afterall.
September 15th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
I went to an open house a few months ago and while the price is attractive for Burlingame it’s only decent for the slightly less attractive Eastern side of El Camino.
It being on the corner of California is actually a major detractor as California is heavily trafficed and more importantly you’ll have the CalTrain tracks less than 100 yards from your house. Which means train noise from about 6am to 12:30am. The trains also blare their horns as they near the Burlingame station a few miles south from this property so you’ll definitely hear it from your home regardless of windows being shut or not.
Additionally the lot is super small and there is absolutely no room for expansion unless its vertically.
There is a reason why its been on the market for a while and perhaps many don’t share my sentiments but, there has to be something wrong for a house this cheap in Burlingame to stay on the market for so long.
September 15th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Yup, Vince is right. Quote of the day:
“there has to be something wrong for a house this cheap in Burlingame to stay on the market for so long.
“
September 15th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
I would not buy a house within 3 blocks of the train tracks. There is discussion underway to put bullet trains on these tracks in the future. If you think train noise is disturbing now, you haven’t heard nothing yet!
September 15th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Lionel says: When Google comes crashing down soon…
I thought it already had.
September 15th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Bring back 2007!
September 15th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Check that out: http://www.paloaltoonline.com/square/index.php?i=3&d=&t=5169
The comments say a lot about some Palo Altans…
September 15th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Herve,
I happen to agree with most of the comments. Palo Alto has done a good job of building a nice community, and now everybody wants a piece of it by building high density junks, which allows the government to mandate affordable housing units. The greedy builders don’t mind spoiling the community as long as they can make profit.
September 15th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
You know what else is wrong about this house? It is asking for the highest price per sqf, it is the smallest one on sale, and it asks more money than others. How about the California St one that is asking for under 900k, after listing for 100 days? I think that is clearly from a “weak hand” owner, you see, what’s truly wrong with this house is that the owner doesn’t really want to “give it away”, and there are still people willing to visit it, knowing they are getting a closet for a million dollars.
Has the management class people suddenly like to live in cubicle size homes, and pay a lavish private office for it? Maybe that is really what’s wrong with America nowadays - stupid management.
September 15th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Real Estater said:
“Is any here affected by the events of today?”
Yes, I made an absolute killing on my Puts.
September 15th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
> everybody wants a piece of it by building high density junks
RealEstater, do you know where these would be built?
Assuming population keeps growing, high-density housing should become more and more common and Palo Alto is not unique in that respect. Every city could claim that they did a good job building a nice community and reject high-density housing.
September 15th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
>>RealEstater, do you know where these would be built?
There are high density new constructions all over town to satisfy the insatiable demand:
1. 101 off San Antonio exit
2. Classic Communities on Loma Verde next to 101
3. Downtown next to Caltrain (completed sometime back)
4. Echelon in south PA near 101: http://echelon.vflyer.com/home/flyer/home/listings/real_estate/townhouse_for_sale/palo_alto_ca_94303/upscale_new_condominiums_in_palo_alto/1762225
5. A large condo community on the corner of El Camino and Charleston
I’m just glad I don’t live in South PA where most of these junks are built. Schools will be flooded and traffic will get worse.
September 15th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
I particularly like the comment “Next time you see a Palo Altan walking down the street - turn on your “high regard” emotion” about how a random Palo Altan in the street has likely paid cash his $2M+ house after “working hard”.
They should be called Palo Altier (yes, French joke)
It’s just as RealEstater said a few months ago. Buy into management neighborhoods, rub shoulders with the elite, and you can be one of them. Truly!
It does show that rich homeowners have as keen a sense of entitlement as today’s priced-out renters.
September 15th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
> There are high density new constructions all over town to satisfy the insatiable demand
Well I hope for you the buyers don’t like playing soccer
Gotta love the Classics Communities website: http://www.classiccommunities.net/area_map/index.html - Check out the NIGHT VIEW!
September 15th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Holy Chuck Norris! They even show planes flying over on the map, that’s hilarious! :-))
September 15th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Herve,
LOL. That’s a good point!
September 15th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
…I mean good point about soccer.
September 16th, 2008 at 12:20 am
July 14, 2008: 1,028,000
September 15, 2008 : $928,000
100,000 “loss” in 4 months.
Monthly equity burn: $25,000 (for REAL ESTATER: THAT IS 10 LCD TVs. per month)
(Yes I know this number is meaningless - its still funny.)
“They lowered the price by 100k, that sort of takes the punch out of this listing, it went from up 24%, to up 12% roughly, certainly not that interesting for 4 years.”
Absolutely. 928k for 960 square feet. That would cost around…2000 to rent?
DT: regarding your quote: “It does show that rich homeowners have as keen a sense of entitlement as today’s priced-out renters.”
Well played sir. The most entitled statements I have seen on this board are from the man who claims others shouldn’t act entitled.
September 16th, 2008 at 12:36 am
I challenge anyone to find a property in the RBA, in a good location, that’s “unraveling”.
It’s easy to pick on something like the above that has an undersized lot next to train, and think that it applies to the rest of the town. Try pick on a house you would like to buy! It will price you out before you can say “unraveling”.
September 16th, 2008 at 12:39 am
You’re damn right it’ll price you out that fast. Why? Because you can rent something nicer for cheaper.
September 16th, 2008 at 10:21 am
> I challenge anyone to find a property in the RBA, in a good location, that’s “unraveling”.
Here are a couple in Belmont:
http://www.redfin.com/CA/Belmont/1723-VALLEY-VIEW-Ave-94002/home/1766206
Date Price
Feb 08, 2008 $1,180,000
…
Jul 13, 2008 $869,000
Or even better:
http://www.redfin.com/CA/Belmont/706-ALAMEDA-DE-LAS-PULGAS-94002/home/1219982
Date Price
Oct 30, 2007 $1,499,000
…
May 30, 2008 $925,000
Or is Belmont not RBA enough?
September 16th, 2008 at 10:41 am
doh,
As I expected, what some amateurs view as “unraveling” is due to not understanding real estate. However, I still applaud you for trying.
House #1: Is this where you would choose to live, on a land slide?
House #2: Do you know what kind of streeet is Alameda De Las Pulgas? If not, think Lawrence Expressway or San Thomas.
September 16th, 2008 at 10:45 am
I have to admit, #2 was originally priced while someone was smoking crack. Based on the street and condition. (Also note it’s a Prop 13 beneficiary as well.)
September 16th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Alameda De Las Pulgas is one lane each way. Lawrence and San Tomas are three times as large. Hardly a valid comparison, no?
RE, is it your position that being on a busy street warrants a $570K (38%) loss for a house in a RBA location?
nomadic - I agree. I’m of the opinion that most of the RBA sellers were/are smoking something good when pricing their houses. It’s about time the high started wearing off.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:02 am
All that said, I think both of these houses are still way overpriced.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Another Chuck Norris tautology! If the price is dropping, then by definition the property is undesirable! Problem is, you will never get a definition of “desirable” from Chuckie. He did give us a hint that fewer than 20% of properties in RBA communities would even meet his high standards, so that means 80% of Palo Alto, Los Altos, Woodside, etc. are “junks.”
Funny, I always thought a junk was a Chinese sailboat with a more adjustable sail than the standard square-rigged design. Guess that explains why so many FBs are underwater.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Why? They have holes in their junk??
September 16th, 2008 at 11:36 am
I know, I know. Bad pun: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=junk , definition #3.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:38 am
doh,
Read what I said earlier. The first requirement is find a house you would personally want to own. Is it the case that you desire to live on a high traffic street?
Madhaus,
See above. Has nothing to do with definition. Stop distorting and trolling.
September 16th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
RealEstater - You are a sophist.
September 16th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Guys:
RE is right. Many of us claim RBA is overpriced and due for a fall, *but there is no evidence that that fall is happening yet*.
It’s just not.
We’ll see what happens when Alt-A defaults start kicking in, but right now, RBA has held up very well.
-zanon
September 16th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
RE,
Your original premise is flawed then. What does my personal opinion have to do with the state of the housing market?
Since there are busy streets in RBA, and there are houses on those streets, and those houses have people living in them, and those people are asking for a great deal of money when it’s time to sell, it’s quite obvious that the houses are of value to *somebody*. Whether it’s me or you or madhaus makes no difference whatsoever.
September 16th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Agreed. Momentum is waning, but there has been no crash like the bottom end.
However, he said that it has “gone up” even since the crash, which is not quite true. It has held its ground, at best.
September 16th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
doh,
The answer to your question was explained in post #48.
September 16th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
1.
I live near there, Alameda de las Pulgas gets a lot less traffic than Lawrence expressway, the only area with significant traffic on Alameda is near the shopping centers around Alameda and Ralston. Ralston gets a lot more traffic.
2. Prices have been dropping in Belmont for most of this year, it has been going up the price point ladder, and I think it is now at 1.2M, properties above that are desirable, below that, undesirable. See for example 2604 and 2602 Carlmont in comparison to the comps from 2007.
September 16th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
cardinal2007,
The point being, would you buy on Alameda De Las Pulgas, and pay mortgage to live there for the next 30 years?
If not, do you think many other people will? If you can follow your own logic, it should lead you to the conclusion that such property would have weaker demand, and thus price needs to be set accordingly. For someone to point to this house and extrapolate that the market is falling doesn’t make sense.
The purpose of this exercise is for people to come to grips with the failure in their logic through their own thoughts toward a specific property. In other words, I’m not giving you any definition. You determine your own definition.
September 16th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
“The point being, would you buy on Alameda De Las Pulgas, and pay mortgage to live there for the next 30 years? ”
Re, would you buy 250k home and live there for the next 30 years? Would you expect other people to? And yet, these are the properties you point to when you assert that there are still ‘affordable’ properties.
What exactly are you trying to say? Is this home overpriced?
September 16th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Oct 21, 1988 $330,000
–
Apr 28, 1998 $267,000
-2.2%/yr
May 22, 1998 $375,000
>1,000%/yr
May 10, 2001 $640,000
19.7%/yr
Jul 16, 2004 $830,000
8.5%/yr
Looks like they pulled it. Maybe they’ll be able to sell it for 1,150,000 next year. Best to wait out ‘the storm,’ no doubt.
September 16th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
All,
If you’re a risk taker, you might consider buying some AIG stock right now. Many consider AIG to important to fail, and there is chatter around a government rescue deal. If it comes through, your % gain can be huge.
If you’re not a risk taker, then stick with BA real estate.
September 16th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
I am not the one looking for 1m RBA real estate, so if you are not a risk taker and this is a good deal for it, take it!
September 16th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
anon says,
>>Re, would you buy 250k home and live there for the next 30 years? Would you expect other people to? And yet, these are the properties you point to when you assert that there are still ‘affordable’ properties.
We’re talking about the false claims of RBA “unraveling” here. Those $250K homes are not in the RBA, and are irrelevant to this discussion.
September 16th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
You’re a funny guy, RE. Madhaus was right, your “logic” is fraught with tautologies. Please tell me how one could determine a weakening market in a prime RBA location? I know, I know, we’re talking an impossible situation here, but indulge me for a moment. What indicators might one see in such a market?
September 16th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
I am not the one looking for 1m RBA house, so if you are not a risk taker and this is a good deal for it, take it!
September 16th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Sorry for the duplicate posts, burbed, did you employ a delay post feature now? I don’t see my comments posted right away like before. Sometimes for 10 minutes, or even lost it.
September 16th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
The gems keep coming.
1) “Many consider AIG to important to fail” Too important to fail - just like Freddie Mac and Fannie May? Importance determines whether or not a corporate entity is insolvent?
2) “chatter around a government rescue deal. If it comes through, your % gain can be huge.” Similar to how the investors in Fred and Fan saw gains?
This should be interesting to watch. I am not knowledgeable in this regard.
Care to comment, name?
September 16th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
>>Please tell me how one could determine a weakening market in a prime RBA location?
I sort of covered this already. If you find properties that are perfectly fine (e.g. not on high volume expressways, not on undersized lots, not backed up to train tracks, not at risk of a land slide etc), and yet it remains unsold and becomes negotiable, then this is a sign of weakening. We’re not talking about high standards here like remodeled kitchen or 5 bedrooms, just basic stuff stuff would consider when buying.
September 16th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
“We’re talking about the false claims of RBA “unraveling” here. Those $250K homes are not in the RBA, and are irrelevant to this discussion.”
So you are talking exclusively about homes that have not lost value (not unraveling). These homes have the following traits in common:
They are:
1) subjectively desirable from your point of view, and
2) in the RBA
What makes them desirable from your point of view is that they haven’t lost value.
What you’re essentially saying is they are not unraveling because they are not unraveling.
I’m sure you’ll say that your words are being distorted here. In fact, it is your logic that is distorted.
September 16th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
“If you find properties that are perfectly fine (e.g. not on high volume expressways, not on undersized lots, not backed up to train tracks, not at risk of a land slide etc), and yet it remains unsold and becomes negotiable, then this is a sign of weakening.”
This is sign of “realistic pricing,” not market weakening.
September 16th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
What about 2604, 2602 and 2606 Carlmont Dr. Belmont, CA.
All are selling or sold or failed to sell below last years comps.
September 16th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
anon says,
>>subjectively desirable from your point of view, and
Where did I say from my point of view? I asked everyone to first identify a property they would consider buying.
September 16th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
There is still no response, I see nothing wrong with the neighborhood. Please do let me know what is wrong with the end of Carlmont Drive?
September 16th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
“I would not buy a house within 3 blocks of the train tracks. ”
“The point being, would you buy on Alameda De Las Pulgas, and pay mortgage to live there for the next 30 years? “
September 16th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Here you go, RE:
http://www.redfin.com/CA/Los-Altos/1251-LISA-Ln-94024/home/1763365
Large home on a large lot in Los Altos. Not on an expressway, no railroads nearby, looks really nice inside. Yet unsold in 116 days, price dropped by 200K, “BRING ALL OFFERS”.
What excuses can you come up with to exclude this house from RBA?
September 16th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
“Where did I say from my point of view? I asked everyone to first identify a property they would consider buying.”
You then assumed they would be priced out.
“Try pick on a house you would like to buy! It will price you out before you can say “unraveling”.”
If they are not there, then they must be priced out, correct?
If they are there then they must not be priced out?
September 16th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Good find, doh. That is a perfect example of “unrealistic pricing.”
September 16th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
>>Here you go, RE:
http://www.redfin.com/CA/Los-Altos/1251-LISA-Ln-94024/home/1763365
Large home on a large lot in Los Altos. Not on an expressway
Stop right here. Do a satellite map. It’s right next to Fremont Ave.. Madhaus can tell you how busy that street is.
If you have $2M to spend, would you live next to a busy street, in South Los Altos (for the amateurs out there: South Los Altos goes to Mountain View High, and is not as prestigious as the North)
September 16th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Cardinal: Those are at the end of a block with a bunch of cheap apartments on it. They’re also a few steps from a trailhead which means visiting rednecks.
September 16th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
The cyclists on the trail are rednecks? Or is it the hikers that are rednecks?
Why would you care about the apartments, because you have to drive past them all the time? You can’t really see them until your near the beginning of that development. The park is actually pretty nice, when it is clear you can see downtown SF from one of the upper trails. The lots on that side (even) are between .33 and .5 acres each, granted I doubt you’re allowed to build on the hillside you can certainly do things with it.
That being said I wouldn’t want to pay 1M to live there, but other people do, and people did pay 1.2M for it in the past so clearly they are or were more desirable than some other properties at 800k or 900k in other locations, why should they be lower down the totem pole now, what has changed?
September 16th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
RE, there’s one in Los Altos that just went into contract. Unfortunately, I don’t have the exact address but it’s on Arbor Avenue. Last sold for $3.8M but was just unloaded for $3.1M.
Don’t tell me - it must have been another anomaly.
There’s also this one on Magdalena:
http://www.redfin.com/CA/Los-Altos/576-MAGDALENA-Ave-94024/home/1087905
Magdelena isn’t exactly a high traffic road, and this house is set back behind gates, so not entirely “undesirable.”
September 16th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Post #21 says:
When you guys are out of arguments, you go back to talk about Chuck Norris, airport security, and the like.
———
Wow! I missed some interesting stuffs.
Look who is raising the topic of airport security. Now he is blaming others. That’s so Chuck Norris.
We can’t help. If someone acts like a Chuck Norris, he IS Chuck Norris.
September 16th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
One more for you, RE. West Menlo:
http://www.campi.com/cgi-bin/campi/listTool.cgi?ID=1036
Redfin doesn’t have the listing for some reason. It’s priced at $2.57M; last sold in 2001 for $2.5M. Huh. Looks pretty nice to me. I’d live there. It’s been on the market for over four months.
September 16th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
RealEstater - We only observe that, per your own words:
a) “the stock market is ever so optimistic” meant for you “The nation’s mortgage/credit problems are solved now”. Stocks are up? Buy real estate.
b) “The more turmoil you see out there, the more evident RBA is the best place for your investment money.” Stocks are down? Buy real estate.
In short, the Chuck Norris of tautology (thks anon).
——-
You are right on, DT. Don’t those arguments sound so Realtorish. Ooops, I forgot, it should be Chuck Norrisish.
September 16th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Don’t tell me - it must have been another anomaly.
—————
Nomadic, it would pointless to show him homes like this. And this is not the first time he is playing same old trick. In past when Madhaus showed him homes, he had same excuses - “this house is within 2 miles of freeway”, blah blah blah. He will always find a fault in very home and then he will deem is as “this is not desirable”. And guess what, there is no perfect home. I bet even RealEstater’s own home has enough flaws.
September 16th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Guys,
After the big turmoil yesterday, the market stabilized. Dow is up. That means nation’s credit crisis is over. We are all clear to take off now. All the doom and gloom people are proven wrong. Buy home now, before you get priced out forever.
September 16th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Stop right here. Do a satellite map. It’s right next to Fremont Ave.. Madhaus can tell you how busy that street is.
If you have $2M to spend, would you live next to a busy street, in South Los Altos
———-
That’s nonsense. I have some familiarity about this area. Traffic condition of Fremont Ave on this area is lot different from traffic condition on Sunnyvale. Most of the traffic in Fremont Ave start from 85 junction and goes east.
September 16th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Pralay says,
>>And this is not the first time he is playing same old trick. In past when Madhaus showed him homes, he had same excuses - “this house is within 2 miles of freeway”, blah blah blah.
Show us the link. Don’t say something out of the blue. Your statement is simply not true.
September 16th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Magdalena is extremely busy, would not even build/live on it if I was given the land for free.
Fremont is not as busy on the Los Altos side, but it is still busy.
If you want to see what roads have a lot of traffic in Los Altos, look at the old Town Criers were the traffic tickets were getting thrown out because they lacked current speed surveys.
Here is one of the best deals in South Los Altos right now, new house for $2.29M on Thurston.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/Los-Altos/1240-THURSTON-Ave-94024/home/972062
Here is one of the worst deals in South Los Altos right now, new house that started at $4.3M, now at $3.5M, looks to have another $500K to $600K to go.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/Los-Altos/1520-MONTEBELLO-OAKS-Ct-94024/home/1705739
I don’t know what they were thinking, how many 1/4 acre lot houses have gone for over $4M in South Los Altos? I would venture to say close to zero.
Much of South West Los Altos is in CUSD and the high school is Homestead.
September 16th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
“RealEstater - We only observe that, per your own words:
a) “the stock market is ever so optimistic” meant for you “The nation’s mortgage/credit problems are solved now”. Stocks are up? Buy real estate.
b) “The more turmoil you see out there, the more evident RBA is the best place for your investment money.” Stocks are down? Buy real estate.
In short, the Chuck Norris of tautology (thks anon).
——-
You are right on, DT. Don’t those arguments sound so Realtorish. Ooops, I forgot, it should be Chuck Norrisish.”
Wow. Chuck Norrisish. I will be smiling about that for the rest of the day. Thanks.
What an entertaining place we have here.
September 16th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Rocket,
According to RE, your first house does not count because it is too close to Foothill Expy. After all, who pays 2M+ to live next to a busy street.
I love how the second house was bought for 1.8M in 2004 and is now sold for 3.5M. Dream on, guys.
September 16th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
“Magdalena is extremely busy, would not even build/live on it if I was given the land for free.”
Does anyone remember the house in San Jose that looked like a bomb had exploded in it, to which this guy replies buy there is “nothing wrong” with the land?
September 16th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
doh - that house was built in 2007. So the old house was purchased for $1.8M and TORN DOWN. I bet the new one is quite a bit bigger than the last one.
Can you believe that? A teardown on 1/4 acre going for $1.8M… That’s a helluva optimistic builder.
September 16th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
http://www.redfin.com/CA/Los-Altos/1240-THURSTON-Ave-94024/home/972062
The thurston ave listing is interesting.
8752 sqft lot with permits= $800,000 ??
Erect 2880 sqft (lucky) structure = $650,000
Total amount spent = $1,450,000
Total Price: $2,298,000
Hey, look. RE: your math works.
September 16th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
what’s a speed survey? that seems like something to know the next time i get a traffic ticket.
September 16th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Anon - link please for this quote:
“this guy replies buy there is “nothing wrong” with the land?”
Or do you do you mean “some guy” and not me.
September 16th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
I meant RE and I am too lazy to search. Sorry.
September 16th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Thanks Rocket for your comments. Always appreciate a second opinion to keep the amateurs in check.
September 16th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
>>Can you believe that? A teardown on 1/4 acre going for $1.8M…
That’s typical. Most homes in my neighborhood that are torn down are worth at least that.
September 16th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Whats wrong with this house is the following-
- less than 100 sq ft
- one bathroom
- less than 5K sq ft lot
- busy street
the lot size is the deal breaker for me. You can’t build out, too small. And the situation of the lot is also bad. I don’t know what this house is worth- maybe $750K, yes even in Burlingame.
September 16th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
>>If you’re a risk taker, you might consider buying some AIG stock right now. Many consider AIG to important to fail, and there is chatter around a government rescue deal. If it comes through, your % gain can be huge.
Guys, AIG rescue is confirmed now!
September 16th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Mercury News article says - Buy now.
Excerpts:
The collapse of investment bank Lehman Brothers and the bargain-basement sale of Merrill Lynch won’t have much direct negative impact on mortgage borrowers, experts say. Some borrowers may even benefit: the turmoil on Wall Street has resulted in lower rates for some home loans, which should be good for the housing market.
The demand pushed down yields on U.S. Treasury bonds. Rates for 30-year mortgages, which often move in the same direction as Treasuries, declined slightly as well. For loans of $729,750 or less, the average rate was 5.72 percent on Tuesday, according to a daily survey from Bankrate.com.
“For us to move back into the 5’s is pretty substantial,” said Bob Walters, chief economist for Quicken Loans. “I wouldn’t tell people to go out and buy a home unless they’re ready. But if they’re ready, this is going to prove to be a heck of a time to do so.”
Buying when everyone else is afraid and selling when everyone else is greedy tends to be beneficial over time.
“If you can get over all the hurdles, you may find some of the lowest cost financing available to you this year.”
September 16th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Los Altos Town Crier article about traffic speed surveys.
http://www.latc2.com/wordpress/2007/07/04/communication-an-issue-as-city-rushes-to-restore-radar/
One excerpt:
It’s up to public works department officials to reinstate radar use, said Jim Gustafson, assistant public works director. On major streets - including El Monte, Magdalena and Fremont avenues, San Antonio and Springer roads, El Camino Real and Foothill Expressway - it could take approximately one month. On the 38 other street segments, including many residential areas, speed survey updates could take up to three months, he said.
September 16th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
RE - did you see anything about what rates are doing for loans above $729,750? That’s the important one for RBA homes. Gotta borrow $1M for that $2M home! Seriously, it’s an important statistic for the move up buyers.
And you didn’t say what was wrong with that house in West Menlo (post #90). ?
September 16th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
>>RE - did you see anything about what rates are doing for loans above $729,750?
Don’t get that loan. Assume it’s not offered. That’s my advice.
>>And you didn’t say what was wrong with that house in West Menlo (post #90). ?
Gee, I really should start charging real estate consulting fees for these questions. West Menlo is good, but not far-West Menlo, which is unincorporated area, meaning you’re not entitled to go to Menlo Park schools. Does that help?
September 16th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
So anyone who has to borrow over $730k isn’t “entitled” to buy a place in the RBA? Did you see what happened to the LIBOR today? Record jump by 3.33% to 6.44%!
If these crazy buyers who want to borrow for admittance to the RBA can’t get their fix (a jumbo loan), the pool will be smaller and prices will be affected. They could go so-called conforming for the first chunk, but that LIBOR rate is going to make the rest very expensive.
Fortunately, that $730k actually isn’t material for buyers with really good credit. Many banks (ING for one off the top of my head) don’t follow those Fannie/Freddie designations anyway. They don’t sell their loans and will be more generous (that is, lend a higher amount) if you put at least 25% down.
And don’t worry, I won’t ask for any more “advice” from you. I know you won’t take an objective stand on anything. Not that it really matters to most of us, but it seems to matter to very much to you if you could possibly be wrong about some point or another. (The referenced area of Menlo Park is not unincorporated, btw.)
September 16th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Nomadic says,
>>And don’t worry, I won’t ask for any more “advice” from you. I know you won’t take an objective stand on anything. Not that it really matters to most of us, but it seems to matter to very much to you if you could possibly be wrong about some point or another.
I’ve given you straight answers to all questions asked, to the best of my knowlege. Up to you whether you agree, but you can always verify.
September 16th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
>>So anyone who has to borrow over $730k isn’t “entitled” to buy a place in the RBA? Did you see what happened to the LIBOR today? Record jump by 3.33% to 6.44%!
Like I said, who cares what that rate is. It’s not offered as far as I’m concerned. Move up buyers don’t need it. They just roll their equities into the next house, and put up some cash to make up the difference.
Your assumption is that the only way to afford a $2M house is to borrow tons of money. That’s possible, but it’s the wrong way to get there. People who must borrow their way into a house mostly live in Stockton, rather than RBA.
September 16th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
I love it when RealEstater shows us the danger of taking advice from amateurs. Take this comment:
If you have $2M to spend, would you live next to a busy street, in South Los Altos (for the amateurs out there: South Los Altos goes to Mountain View High, and is not as prestigious as the North)
Well, gee, I foolishly thought that higher API scores were good. Here RE is advising you to choose the lower-scoring school.
So which is it, folks? Is RE too stupid to do second grade math or too stupid to know which high school has been considered the stronger one by anyone who knows the Los Altos market? Oh wait, one more option — is RE too stupid to know that the Mountain View High School on Castro Street was closed in 1982 and replaced by Awalt High School, which was then renamed Mountain View High School. Kind of reminds me of when he gave bad real esate advice because he didn’t know Fremont Union High School district changed their boundaries either. In 1981.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Yes.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Madhaus,
I expected you to come out and make this stupid point, so my statement was carefully worded.
I said North Los Altos is more prestigious. I did not say anything about API. If you want API, just go to Cupertino. Homestead High in CUSD has higher API than anywhere in Los Altos. If you want Mountain View High for API reasons, just buy MV. You don’t need to spend freaking $2M!
September 16th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Of course, if you want it all, including API, there’s no substitute for PA.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
anon, you’re absolutely right!
September 17th, 2008 at 12:21 am
Another example. Atherton is the “Rolls Royce” of addresses on the Peninsula, but you can never tell by looking at the API score of Menlo Atherton High.
September 17th, 2008 at 3:59 am
What’d I win?
September 17th, 2008 at 8:04 am
RE, better keep quiet about not borrowing gobs of money to move up. The people buying my place are borrowing MORE than $1M to move up to my $1.6M place. I’m sure they are NOT alone…
The $729,750 limit is bogus now anyway; the interest rate is ridiculously high with Fannie/Freddie. If people can only move up $500k at a time, it will take too long to get to a $2M house. And why the heck would someone want to sink $1.5M CASH into a place anyway? Really stupid investing. If you truly believe in RBA then buy three houses with $500k down on each!
September 17th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
lurker, are you cashing out to rent? We seriously considered that, decided not to. We have to live somewhere, after all, and at this point our mortgage is less than rent, and our property taxes aren’t too bad either.
I kind of wish I could sell call futures on my house because I see some of that lovely equity going bye-bye. We should be okay, we only owe about $120K. So even if the 40% meltdown hits us, we still will have 75% equity. But it’s going to hurt a lot of other people very badly.
September 17th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
madhaus, I remember in 2006 or 2005 reading an article about a company offering interest free loans to certain homeowners provided they shared part of the future equity gains with the group.
The deal was something like the couple had 30%+ equity, on a $1.1M home, and got a $100k 0% loan up to the point they sell the home, (at least 5 year in the future), the company got 25% of any future appreciation, the loan would be paid back when they sell the house. Normally I would say the company is getting a good return, if the market is not overpriced, but in this case I was certain this company or group would lose a lot of money, or potential gains doing this. This is just an estimate I don’t remember the particulars.
Anyway, you could’ve certainly tried that then, I wonder if they are still offering such a thing.
September 17th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Okay I found a company that does this, they are called REX Agreements, they provide 15% of a house’s appraised value as a 0% loan, and take 50% of the future appreciation provided a sale 5+ years in the future.
If you had a house in Brentwood for example, purchased in 2000 for $300,000 valued in 2006 at $750,000 apparently they share in the loss too. So you get 15% of the 750k value, 112.5k. In 2011 you sell the house for $410k, “Loss” = 340k, 170k loss goes to REX, so they get nothing. You pocket the 112.5k for yourself, any interest you made out of it you keep, oh, and they get none of the actual 110k gain. Clearly if you knew of the REX Agreement, and you could foresee the fall in prices you could do that. The risk is that the price out your house actually increases, but then maybe you did want to hedge for a possible loss using such a tool, since Brentwood was WAY OVERPRICED in 2006, almost as much as Tracy.
September 17th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Yes, madhaus, I’m cashing in my chips and plan to stick ‘em in a CD for awhile. (Spread to enough banks to get FDIC coverage!) I bought in early 2005, prices flat in my area so far, and I don’t see any appreciation for at least 2-3 years. I posted previously that I can use my property tax savings and CD interest to pay the rent in full. The not-inconsiderable interest on my loan will be all savings.
Then when things start to look better I can buy again. I don’t have kids to worry about like you. I see too much turbulence in the markets and honestly, on the job front, to stay put.
September 17th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
lurker - not worried about the strength of the dollar to park it all in a CD?
September 17th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
What’s your strategy DreamT?
September 17th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
burbed - My Personal Strategy: spend as little as I can until I get a job!
But if I had some savings to invest, I’d research stocks and be 90% in, with 10% bonds. And I wouldn’t short, because I’m a newbie. I wouldn’t invest in real estate because I wouldn’t want to lock my funds, and I’m confident the housing prices will keep decreasing except maybe in some foreclosure areas, where I wouldn’t have the heart to buy.
Which stocks… I would look at anything tied to real estate (construction), credit/finance, and energy, with a 5 to 10 year horizon.
And yours?
September 17th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
DreamT - that’s what the other 50% of my portfolio is for. The market is too volatile to put my nest egg in there; especially if I may want to buy another house in a couple of years. If the Alt-A crash doesn’t materialize then maybe I’d be ready to buy in 1-1.5 years.
September 17th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
cardinal, I dunno about the interest-free loan, that doesn’t let me gain on an equity loss, it just lets me play with someone else’s money for free. It’s like I need to find a portfolio of RBA real estate and short it.
September 17th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
I wouldn’t recommend mine. I’m down between 10% and 30% for the year.
September 17th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
madhaus, actually, they share in the equity loss, if the house falls in value 30% between the time you get the money, and the time you sell you don’t have to pay back the 15%.
I don’t know about the fees or anything, but if you feel confident enough that the prices will drop you will be putting 50% of the loss on someone else.
September 17th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
“They just roll their equities into the next house, and put up some cash to make up the difference. ”
RE, how will the new generation of buyers who have negative equity perform this “roll up?”
September 17th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
lurker,
May I ask what city your house is in?
September 17th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Heh. No answer? Well, we’ll all watch and see as trade-up homes lose their value for lack of “rollupable equity.”
September 17th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
anon,
Read up on #124 to get a sense of what happens over time. Time is always on the side of home owners.
September 17th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Please elaborate.
September 17th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
anon, what he’s getting at is that if you wait long enough the house will eventually gain in value. Inflation may outpace you but the nominal price of the house will go up.
The problem, at this point, is that the future “move up” buyers in the non-RBA are getting disproportionately hammered, so unless the RBA prices drop at some point, they will be “priced out forever.” Eventually those homeowners in the RBA will need to sell, and unless the foreigners bring their suitcases full of money (or Google II is founded and goes public creating a bunch more millionaires), prices will be affected…
I’m rambling now.
September 17th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
hehe anon, I just realized you said the same thing! I’ll shut up now.
September 17th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
> unless the foreigners bring their suitcases full of money
Wait another few months and they will add a Real Estate section to the SkyMall magazine…
September 17th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Did you all hear about Tesla Motors building a big plant in San Jose, and planning to hire 1000 workers?
September 17th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Regarding Tesla, while I love the concept I am a bit dubious about their business.
Are they planning on having a network of dealers in the US?
September 17th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
1000 Jobs (salaries) eh? That’s enough to buy 500 homes. There are currently 9,914 homes found on Trulia in San Jose alone.
“Time is always on the side of home owners.”
RE, I think what you mean here is that over time, real estate appreciates. This is necessarily true, and the Stock Market does too. So what?
September 17th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Nomadic,
Needless to say, I agree with you. There’s also the fact that people in those areas don’t leave any way other than feet first.
Still, RE: Now’s a good time to sell.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
>>Regarding Tesla, while I love the concept I am a bit dubious about their business.
It’s a tough business, but eventually they may get bought.
>>Are they planning on having a network of dealers in the US?
They’re sta