Would you live on Hillview in Bayview?
17 Hillview Ct, San Francisco, CA 94124 | MLS# 355706
17 Hillview Ct San Francisco, CA 94124
Price: $420,800
Beds: 3
Baths: 2.5
Sq. Ft.: 2,004
$/Sq. Ft.: $210
Lot Size: -
Property Type: Modified, Single-Family Home
Style: Contemporary
View: Bay
Year Built: 1984
Community: Bayview
County: San Francisco
MLS#: 355706
Source: San Francisco MLS
Status: Active
On Redfin: 7 days
Bank Owned Property in Good Bayview Location. A newer property overlooking the Bay. 3 large bedrooms and 2 full baths (1 Master bedroom suite) on the upper level. On the main level there is a living room, family room and kitchen 1/2 bath. There is also a good sized yard- perfect for children or a family pet! On the ground level there is a 2 car side x side garage and plenty of additional storage. The home needs some work, Take a look anytime. Offers will be reviewed as received.
Heh. The price is 420. Heh.
But here’s what Burbed reader Jason had to say:
Check out this beautiful 3/2.5 house in Bayview. It certainly has a beautiful bayview, as the neighborhood name suggests, of the gorgeous Bay Bridge, East Bay, SF’s Fidi, and an illustrious smokestack. This can be had for a bargain price of $699,999. What a steal.
Well, you have to admit that the immediate neighborhood doesn’t look to shabby:
Honestly, I really don’t know enough about this area to make a call on it.
Burbed readers – especially those with more San Francisco tastes – your input please!
May 6th, 2009 at 7:20 am
Most white San Franciscans take a wide berth around the Bay View/Hunters Point area. It has a reputation as being a crime-ridden ghetto, but any stats I look at seem to indicate that the crime levels are similar in the Mission. Hipsters seem to be okay with the Mission grit, perhaps they will eventually come to find Bayview is acceptable.
It’s also a bit disconnected from the rest of the city, but the recent addition of the 3rd St light rail has improved things.
All in all, the geographic location of BV has a lot going for it- it’s warm/has little fog, has good access to the peninsula, has good views… but there is still an overwhelmingly negative perception of this area.
May 6th, 2009 at 7:22 am
A newer community in Hunter’s Point is still in Hunter’s Point. It’s a poor neighborhood with a high incidence of violent crime.
May 6th, 2009 at 7:46 am
The Mission has a lot of things going for it that the Bayview does not. It’s right on top of BART. You’re pretty close to most of the MUNI corridors. You’re reasonably close to downtown, SOMA, the Castro, and lots of other cool places.
I won’t bother looking up the crime statistics, but I would definitely rather be in the Mission alone at night. My general perception (and I think one which is shared by a lot of people) is that you stay the hell away from Hunter’s Point, EPA, Richmond and West Oakland.
May 6th, 2009 at 7:48 am
Clarification: The city of Richmond. Not the district. Though I wouldn’t really want to live out there either.
May 6th, 2009 at 7:53 am
I actually sent Burbed the link to a property at 15 Hillview ct: http://tinyurl.com/cowojg
The link to that property has a picture of the beautiful bay view of the illustrious smokestack.
May 6th, 2009 at 9:12 am
Bailout, Menlo Park Style!
The city would have an equity stake in the home. It would get repaid when the home is sold (assuming it sells for more than today’s price) and would also receive half of the home’s appreciation above the current market value. If the home sells for less than today’s price, or is lost to foreclosure, the city could lose part or all of its investment, because it would be in second place after the bank that did the refinancing.
New Menlo Park idea to cut foreclosures
May 6th, 2009 at 9:25 am
San Francisco has done that for years. They give you $150,000 towards a home and they get a stake in the house.
May 6th, 2009 at 9:30 am
I’ve heard of BMR units that cap the sale/resale price but never of SF getting directly into the loan business. Got a link to that program?
May 6th, 2009 at 9:54 am
And they sure as heck feel the pressure to have a plan for high-end foreclosures:
Foreclosures: More Movin’ On Up!
(whistling as he walks by…)
May 6th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Just goes to show: plenty of wealthy folks are stupid too. However, it does make me wonder how they lucked into money…
May 6th, 2009 at 10:09 am
Rich people don’t have to be smart, they just have to have someone at least one generatin back who was.
In Sunnyvale I had somce Black neighbors who’d moved from EPA, they had more weird shit happen there in Sunnyvale then in the EPA, and they said there was no community, in the EPA you go away, your neighbors look out for your place etc. Our common nemesis in Sunnyvale was a kid who looked like EminEm, and his assorted hangers-on, most of them melanin deficient. BTW if teen wolf packs are giving you headache in Sunnyvale, the guy to know is officer Jim Davis of the Sunnyvale PD Crime Prevention Unit.
Impersonal crystal formations like this property that are actually designed to discourage any kind of neighborliness are probably worse to live in than a place where people know each other more. Then again, I lived in the San Jose ghetto for a short while, and everyone knew each other and there was STILL boocoo crime. At least it was cheap, and I didnt have to live in something that looks like scraps chipped off of Superman’s Fortress of Solitude.
May 6th, 2009 at 10:10 am
#9, nice article.
And what happens when the mid-to-high range goes into foreclosure and prices drop? That will force the low-to-mid prices down even further. That’s why it’s ridiculous when many in the press and some in the blogosphere say the low end has bottomed.
May 6th, 2009 at 10:55 am
I’ve heard of BMR units that cap the sale/resale price but never of SF getting directly into the loan business. Got a link to that program?
Sure. The Menlo Park program is different because it’s basically a brokered short-sale then refinance, whereas the SF program is for new purchases, but it’s the same principle.
Down Payment Assistance Program
May 6th, 2009 at 11:10 am
#12, I think your scenario is a signficant risk. I’m not promising it’ll happen to low-mid neighborhood X, Y, or Z, but I admit to being surprised at how many RE speculators are willing to gamble.
At this point, they have to have real skin in the game, b/c no one is writing giant $0-down NINJA loans to people buying their 12th property.
If they can’t get paying tenants, those buildings will foreclose, too – just that much more inventory.
Maybe they got a 1/2 off sale that will pay off – maybe they’re screwed. Obviously, it will be some of both – the question is how much?
May 6th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Wow, nice to see the city getting into the subordinate loan business.
San Carlos has something similar except it’s an actual interest-accruing 2nd loan by the city.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:22 am
You guys have to be kidding, right? The primary reason you don’t want to move to the Bayview is not crime. The incidence of asthma and various cancers is so much higher in that neighborhood. Read ‘Fallout’, the award-winning investigation published in the SF Weekly a few years ago for the history about the chemicals buried underground and the radioactivity cleanup that took place half a century ago. Back during the dot com boom, I remember reading that “something” had been burning for months underground in the Bayview, there was this strange, bad smell and fumes, etc.
During bad weather, the water treatment facility abovehills was known to leak and flood the Bayview (although I don’t have a link to substantiate that, but Google it and you find stuff like http://eelink.net/EJ/bayview.html). And finally PG&E’s infamous local hyper-polluting power plant was only recently forced to be closed by the city, but I’m not sure that’s happened or will happen.
You can’t do worse than the Bayview if you care about your health and your children’s.
May 6th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
DreamT- careful with the conflation of the entire Bayview area with the naval shipyard. While the spot-pollution at the shipyard can’t be denied, it’s unlikely that it reaches the Western portions of the Bayview district.
Your observation that the polluting power plant has been closed (it was demolished in 2008, a worker died during the demolition in a collapse IIRC) points to improvements in the area that make it more liveable.
With respect to the asthma/cancer incidence, I wouldn’t jump to any conclusions: it’s very difficult to divorce socio-econmoic factors from the geographic factors.
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/160/2/178
http://www.labmeeting.com/paper/28858760/clegg-2009-impact-of-socioeconomic-status-on-cancer-incidence-and-stage-at-diagnosis-selected-findings-from-the-surveillance-epidemiology-and-end-results-national-longitudinal-mortality-study
That said, I wouldn’t be running to live there anytime soon. Especially when I can buy a free-standing home in San Mateo for the same price as a crypto-cabin.
May 6th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
SM, yes, the lowland, the shipyard and the projects Bayview is worse than the western hills. I did drive through Hunter’s point a few years ago (morbid curiosity), and a few blocks do make a big difference, although the most dilapidated, *scary* place we passed through was a project atop a hill.
But regarding the cancer and asthma rates in the Bayview, I recall it being several notches above the ‘standard’ 1.7 and 3 times mentioned in your second link.
May 6th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
The primary reason you don’t want to move to the Bayview is not crime.
Speak for yourself! Yes, the Bayview has a pollution problem, but so does Potrero Hill. In fact, that super-polluting power plant you’re referring to was on Potrero Hill. And people fall all over themselves to live on Potrero Hill. No one is breaking down doors at open houses to score sweet digs in Hunter’s Point.
May 6th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
well I never understood why people want to live in Potrero Hill either;) I attended a local Potrero Hill history session with projected photographs several years ago (we were by far the youngest!), and the gentrification that has been happening to that neighborhood is stunning. Potrero Hill was already considered overpriced in 2000 amongst my coworkers.
May 6th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Hi guys, I see some of the old friends here. Just checking in, now that the dismal Sharks season is over and I’m done crying in my beer. A few datapoints are that the low-midrange houses I buy are recovering pricewise and availability-wise in the south bay (meaning there are fewer houses on the mkt), while the rental climate has loosened up from when I posted here last. Last year it was impossible to rent. Not so much this year.
And another piece of news, does anybody remember that press release about starbucks closing in Willow Glen on Lincoln? It got a lot of play here, because we have something like 6 coffee places on Lincoln already and Starbucks is a drain on the independents and caused a lot of negative press when they came in. The closure was heralded as a power to the people kind of thing- except here we are months later and the SBUX on Lincoln and Minnesota is still there. Turns out, it was ANOTHER Starbucks on Lincoln that closed, there was another one literally TWO storefronts away, also on Lincoln, and the residents erroneously assumed it was the big one that closed not this other, small one. It used to be located in an old movie theatre called the garden that they have partitioned into all these storefronts- turns out there was a starbucks in there, and THAT was the one that closed. The small one was literally 100 feet from the big one, with no street facade. Amazing. So, we still have tons of starbucks out here and have not been successful in any meaningful way at pruning the virus. Pshah!
May 6th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Last year it was impossible to rent. Not so much this year.
Welcome back, WG. Regarding your statement above – do you mean impossible from the renter’s perspective or the landlord’s? Do you have vacancies?
May 6th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
nah I meant it was impossible to rent last year from the renters perspective. I don’t have any vacancies but I never have any vacancies because I never raise the rent. But this year there definitely are more rentals available. I was a renter for many years and I hate to see really tight rental conditions because a lot of people are forced to put up with all kinds of ^&%* from the unscrupulous landlords around here (but I am not one of those). I rented a house last year for $2300 that had about 40 applicants which was really out of control. Even though rents are lower this year that price for that house is a good deal.
May 6th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Good to have you back, WG!
May 6th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
> I rented a house last year for $2300 that had about 40 applicants which was really out of control.
Make yourself a favor then and increase the rent. You’ll get less applications and you won’t feel like a big tease :-p
May 6th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
So, WG, where the heck have you been? Buyin’ up foreclosures?
May 6th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
oh, neato – our favorite slumlord is back.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
“Turns out, it was ANOTHER Starbucks on Lincoln that closed, there was another one literally TWO storefronts away, also on Lincoln, and the residents erroneously assumed it was the big one that closed not this other, small one.”
LOL – do you actually live in willow glen?
The Starbucks across the street from Peets is the one that closed.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
>>oh, neato – our favorite slumlord is back.
Neato, our slum tenant is speaking again.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Neato, our liar investor is speaking too.
May 7th, 2009 at 12:02 am
Neato, yall are bitin’ my style.
May 7th, 2009 at 12:23 am
Neato, the slumdog is here too.
May 7th, 2009 at 12:31 am
Bitist!
May 7th, 2009 at 12:34 am
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1010048/ , beyotch.
May 7th, 2009 at 8:06 am
WG’er: Welcome back!
May 7th, 2009 at 10:52 am
It’s quite warm outside today. But that doesn’t mean things need to heat up here.
May 7th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Barclays Strategist Predicts a ‘Surprising Rebound’ in 2009
“Most of our clients have missed this rally,” Kantor told CNBC. “[But] there’s plenty of scope for some more, as long as if the economic data goes from mixed—which is what we have right now—to decisively positive.”
Guys,
How many of you can say, “I bought at the bottom”?
May 7th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
You must be stupid.
He does not care about an actual recovery. All he cares about is the perception of a recovery.
And he’s got you right where he wants you.
May 7th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
That Barclays “article” is the stupidest thing I’ve seen in awhile. It says absolutely nothing of value. They’re saying the market will continue to rally if the economic data improves. Well duh. And they go on to say if the economy continues to do well, the banks will do well too. Uh, if this is news then the public is even more dumb than I thought (which is saying a lot). The fuss about the stress tests has pretty much been saying the same thing for months now.
May 7th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
#37 – people are paid to write tripe like this?
May 7th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
#40 – as long as people gobble the trip up, as in the case of #37.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
I’m not a slumlord- I guess you don’t know what a slumlord is, anon. A slumlord is somebody who buys a ghetto style property, rents to section 8, and makes no improvements in the land whatsoever. Exactly the opposite of me. I am somebody who buys property at the bottom and makes significant improvements. Plus my neighborhoods are not deteriorating they are appreciating. You know, real estate 101 kind of stuff.
from wikipedia,
A slumlord (also spelled slum lord) is a derogatory term for landlords, generally absentee landlords, who attempt to maximize profit by minimizing spending on property maintenance, often in deteriorating neighborhoods.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
nomadic, nah haven’t bought anything new since I was here last. I bought that one house last year and tried to get one late in 08 but was outbid and since then, nothing. Family went on an extended vacation and haven’t had time to look much, but I plan to try for something this fall.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Herve, on rental rates, the thing is, if you are in a rental price bubble like we were last year, you don’t do yourself any favors by jacking up the rent really. I learned that the hard way- personally I never really felt like it was imperative to get the absolute max on rent, since my houses are mostly for appreciation anyway (thats the price point I buy). But when I started out I had this rental service doing the credit checking and renting, and they used this property survey or some such nonsense to determine what rents should be. They always tried to get the absolute most rent out of the properties they managed, and the result was tenants were constantly moving and that doesn’t help either the landlord or tenant. The best thing is to rent your place for a fair price or slightly lower, and then when the market settles out like it is now, people don’t feel like they need to move. Thats my approach anyway.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
anon- ok, whatever. Most here thought they were going to close the starbucks on Lincoln and Minnesota, and it did not close, another one closed, that was less than a block away. I didn’t even KNOW there was a starbucks next to Peets, I try to avoid starbucks and instead frequent the monsieur beans like everybody with a conscience should do anyway. But hey, thanks for the Starbucks location factcheck.
May 7th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
“But hey, thanks for the Starbucks location factcheck.”
No problem. If you have any other questions about willow glen, please let me know.
May 8th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
oh, snap!
May 9th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Menlo Park’s idea should be implemented in the federal level long time ago, risky but manageable with deep pocket. The S.F. program is really absurd. It make government take all the risk but share only 20% of the potential return. Sounds like a sub-prime, 0% down housing purchase all over again.