House that lost value in Palo Alto. OMG.
994 LOMA VERDE Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94303 | MLS# 80918726
994 LOMA VERDE Ave Palo Alto, CA 94303
Price: $1,185,000
Beds: 3
Baths: 2
Sq. Ft.: 1,779
$/Sq. Ft.: $666
Lot Size: 6,000 Sq. Ft.
Property Type: Detached Single Family
Style: Contemporary
Stories: 1
View: Neighborhood
Year Built: 1958
Community: South Palo Alto
County: Santa Clara
MLS#: 80918726
Source: MLSListings
Status: Active
On Redfin: 24 days
Delightfully sunlit Eichler-designed home has remodeled kitchen with granite counters, custom cabinetry & Bosch appliances. Includes high ceilings & skylights, beautiful tiling throughout most of the home, and newer roof. Inviting backyard lawn & garden setting. Solar-powered for energy efficiency! Quiet neighborhood–don’t be fooled by the street name! Close to parks & library. MUST SEE!
Well this looks good. I mean, it’s got solar power, it’s Eichler, it’s got Bosch appliances/struts/spark plugs… it’s in Palo Alto. I don’t get the joke about the street name, but that’s ok. (Do you?)
But then I saw this:
This is good news and bad news.
Good News: This proves that house prices in the Real Bay Area double every 10 years.
Bad News: There’s been a set back. This person is selling it for $115k less than what he bought it for!
Will this house reach $1.46M like it rightfully deserves to by 2011?
I hate to bum people out on a Friday, but I think this needs a real call to action. What can we do to fix this? Halp!
May 22nd, 2009 at 7:22 am
This is a house with more issues.
And $666 per sq ft? Satanists, make your offers!
May 22nd, 2009 at 8:31 am
It’s also in 9430_3. NRPA and therefore NRBA.
May 22nd, 2009 at 10:13 am
interesting house. we know RBA double ever 10 years, so the 1999 buyers were foolish to sell in ’07 when they could have sold for 1.5M in ’09
and, before RE chimes in with some $1.3 was the peak misinformation, let’s look at what happened next on that street.
1038 Loma Verde Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94303
LAST SALE: $1,378,000 (10/24/2007)
BEDS: 4
BATHS: 2
SQ.FT.: 1,494
YEAR BUILT: 1958
that’s $922 sq ft – a lofty figure unobtainable withouth the september 994 loma verde sale. I’m sure we would have seen $1.45 or even $1.5 on that street had someone sold in spring or summer ’08. however, comps work in the other direction too. recently a desperate seller was willing to part with:
1018 Loma Verde Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94303
LAST SALE: $920,000 (03/06/2009)
BEDS: 4
BATHS: 2
SQ.FT.: 1,494
YEAR BUILT: 1958
that’s $615 a sq ft and a great explanation for why the larger, further from the freeway 994 loma verde couldn’t sell at $1.23.
granting “velocity in buyable inventory” implies stagnation for everything else. at some point the less desireable homes (like 1018) do sell and that price discovery creates comp for all sales (buyable and non-buyable) going forward.
looking around the corner, this sale:
3340 Kenneth Dr
Palo Alto, CA 94303
LAST SALE: $1,200,000 (07/01/2008)
BEDS: 3
BATHS: 2
SQ.FT.: 1,360
YEAR BUILT: 1958
helped these lucky bidding war winners convince themselves that:
3405 Thomas Dr
Palo Alto, CA 94303
LAST SALE: $1,800,000 (08/15/2008)
BEDS: 4
BATHS: 2.5
SQ.FT.: 2,014
YEAR BUILT: 1958
was truly worth $1.8M. now that’s some icing!
for buyers, all values are relative, and that creates bubbles on the way up and a popping sound on the way down.
May 22nd, 2009 at 10:56 am
one other note. propertyshark does not show a mortgage. assuming a sale at $1.15M this month (generous), that means the 9/07 buyers will have paid $250,000 ($150K loss, $69K commission, $30K property tax and insurance) for 21 months of pride in ownership. That’s $12K/month.
Perhaps they should have rented MLS: 80907452 instead? (photo)
125 Northgate DR
Woodside (Woodside) 94062
Detached Single Family (Class 10)
Bed/Bath: 5 / 7
SqFt: 12,000
Lot Size: 2.90 ac
Date Available: 02/11/2009
Rental Price: $12,500
May 22nd, 2009 at 11:07 am
But 1018 Loma Verde Ave was flipped and recently listed at $1.25 and went pending within a week or two.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/Palo-Alto/1018-Loma-Verde-Ave-94303/home/593156
This one also went pending within two weeks.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/Palo-Alto/1048-Loma-Verde-Ave-94303/home/594904
It will be interesting to see what the final sale prices are.
May 22nd, 2009 at 11:16 am
What do they mean by “don’t be fooled by the street name”? Is it a busy road? I can see it runs all the way from 101 to Alma, but it doesn’t run all the way to El Camino.
May 22nd, 2009 at 11:17 am
(capital)Steve, good additional data. 1018 looks like pro flip, and the contractor should do well. 1048 will be brutal on a per sq ft basis (as it should be for something so hideous).
1048 LOMA VERDE Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Price: $1,195,000
Beds: 5
Baths: 3
Sq. Ft.: 2,124
$/Sq. Ft.: $563
Lot Size: 7,159 Sq. Ft.
May 22nd, 2009 at 11:28 am
Also, these homes are in a floor and liquifaction zone, but I guess that doesn’t matter?
May 22nd, 2009 at 11:29 am
I meant, flood zone.
May 22nd, 2009 at 11:38 am
Steve, exactly, but that liquifaction and concrete creeks are part of palo alto’s charm.
May 22nd, 2009 at 11:39 am
Is there any part of Palo Alto which is not in flood zone?
May 22nd, 2009 at 11:54 am
here’s a nice palo alto liquefaction susceptibility map
May 22nd, 2009 at 12:04 pm
and, on flood zones, a helpful explanation from the City of Palo Alto:
The entire city of Palo Alto is in a flood zone of one kind or another. But most of the city is in an “X” zone, which the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) describes as an area either lying outside the so called 100 year flood limit and inside the 500 year flood limit, or as lying within the 100 year flood limit but shallow enough to not represent a special hazard. The remainder of the city lies within Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA), which, roughly speaking, means the area of special hazard from a socalled “100 year flood”. Find out which floodzone your residence is in by using the floodzone lookup.
The Loma Verde properties specifically are Zone AE 10.5. Again, from the City of Palo Alto:
This large zone is roughly bounded on the north by Embarcadero Road and on the south by the Mountain View city limits and includes everything easterly from roughly Middlefield, Ross and Louis Roads to San Francisco Bay. Originally, most of this area was tidal marsh and wetlands, but many years ago levees were built in the Baylands to drain the wetlands and allow the development of eastern Palo Alto. Because the levees lack required freeboard (additional height above the estimated high water level) and were not constructed in accordance with current engineering standards, FEMA does not consider these levees to be adequate protection from a high tide event that has a one percent (100-year) probability of occurring. The Flood Insurance Rate Maps were prepared under the assumption that the levees will overtop or fail and that the area in the AE 10.5 Zone will be flooded by tidal water to an elevation of ten and one-half feet above sea level (which is not the same as a depth of ten and one-half feet). Much of the residential area immediately west of the Bayshore Freeway is at only about six feet above sea level, meaning that the 100-year flood would reach a height of up to five feet above the ground.
more information on floodplain management here
May 22nd, 2009 at 12:16 pm
and a walk down memory lane, a map of the palo alto flood of ’98
May 22nd, 2009 at 12:21 pm
I loved the title “City under water”. Can the same thing be said for South Palo Alto now? Although it has nothing to do with flood.
May 22nd, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Great info, lower-case steve. It is amusing to watch the tennis rally with you and Upper-Case Steve.
zanon, I was going to make that 94303 remark, too. Weakness seldom differs.
Herve, Satanists are behind the crash of home values in Palo Alto. First they get the home down to $666 a foot, then they’ll drive the median sale price down to $666,666.
That’s why Southwest Sunnyvale values are down. The Satanists have abandoned us now that a square foot goes for $333.
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:07 pm
I think some of these numbers must be mistakes because our “expert” has clearly stated that the bottom was reached in early 2009.
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:38 pm
madhaus, thanks!
pralay, did you see the photo in #4? perhaps that should be your new avatar. it casts equity burn and pride of ownership in a whole new light.
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:39 pm
steve and Steve.
1) Get a last name. Or initial. Capitalized or not. Preferably not the same one.
2) Get a Gravatar. Preferably not the same one.
3) Keep bringing useful PA data. The S/N ratio on Palo Alto has gone way up since you’ve started posting.
May 22nd, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Steve, steve. RealAlex, Alex and alex. Geez.
Peeps, we’ve been bashing alot of these houses with absurd asking prices. Have you seen any decent house with a decent price tag (within historical trend and sustainable on a median salary)?
One of these days, I would like to settle in Saratoga, Los Altos, Palo Alto or Los Gatos. But the prices there are still exorbitant.
May 22nd, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Just a few quick comments:
1. All these Loma Verde houses are in the same school district as “Classic Communities”. The school will surely be crowded.
2. I am skeptical 1018 Loma Verde sold for $920K and then was flipped. The 920K could be just some sort of intermediate transaction. If it was that cheap, I would’ve taken notice.
3. The featured property went from $1.3M to $1.18M peak-to-trough. What’s the big deal? One shouldn’t buy and sell real estate on such short term basis anyways.
May 22nd, 2009 at 2:59 pm
RE – the big deal is that we’ve been hearing about things in this order
1) CA is special
2) BA is special
3) RBA is special
4) PA is special
And of course, we’ve seen what happend to 1, 2, 3, and now 4. This is the beginning of something “special” for 4 I believe.
May 22nd, 2009 at 3:04 pm
The beginning of the end?
May 22nd, 2009 at 3:20 pm
94301 is special for a couple more weeks.
May 22nd, 2009 at 3:26 pm
When purchased, the owners of 2430 Cowper were true patriots, risking $240k of their own money in the first loss position. Since then they have re-fi’d their way into a short sale. They must have cashed out over $120k since they moved in to make the current sale price a short sale; impressive.
May 22nd, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Loma Verde is a “residential arterial”. Doesn’t have quite as much traffic as Middlefield or Charleston, but it has a lot more than the surrounding streets. I assume that’s what they meant by the “don’t be fooled” line.
May 22nd, 2009 at 4:12 pm
What’s the big deal?
How about
1) a change from $922/sq ft to $666/sq ft (28% down for those scoring at home)
2) the fact that for the same money the owners could have lived here. buy now or be priced out forever, indeed.
3) that, best of all, this is happening in that affordable price range you have characterized as really heating up. oops. let’s see what $1.18 would have purchased last year.
762 Allen Ct
Palo Alto, CA 94303
LAST SALE: $1,175,000 (05/28/2008)
BEDS: 3
BATHS: 2
SQ.FT.: 1,083
YEAR BUILT: 1954
cozy!
869 Loma Verde Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94303
LAST SALE: $1,250,000 (06/10/2008)
BEDS: 3
BATHS: 2
SQ.FT.: 1,266
YEAR BUILT: 1920
historic!
371 Loma Verde Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94306
LAST SALE: $1,125,000 (06/05/2008)
BEDS: 2
BATHS: 1
SQ.FT.: 1,086
YEAR BUILT: 1951
charming!
maybe all those lucky new owners were burbed.com readers following your investment advice last year.
May 22nd, 2009 at 4:14 pm
unearthly, you must be mistaken. that doesn’t happen in palo alto.
May 22nd, 2009 at 5:26 pm
>>Loma Verde is a “residential arterial”. Doesn’t have quite as much traffic as Middlefield or Charleston, but it has a lot more than the surrounding streets.
Typical game in this forum, using house on a big street to gauge the market.
May 22nd, 2009 at 5:31 pm
maybe all those lucky new owners were burbed.com readers following your investment advice last year.
—-
Of course, because “pro” said “there’s no evidence to substantitate that lower prics are coming to the RBA“.
May 22nd, 2009 at 5:34 pm
“If it was that cheap, I would’ve taken notice.”
LOL – right, re. Because you’re that astute
May 22nd, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Typical game in this forum, using house on a big street to gauge the market.
——
Yes, we should use “velocity of buyable inventory” to gauge the market.
May 22nd, 2009 at 5:57 pm
1. All these Loma Verde houses are in the same school district as “Classic Communities”. The school will surely be crowded.
—–
If Classic Communities bring down the property value of that school district, I am sure RealExcreter brought down the property value of his neighborhood too.
Anybody wants to be his neighbor?
May 22nd, 2009 at 6:12 pm
3. The featured property went from $1.3M to $1.18M peak-to-trough. What’s the big deal? One shouldn’t buy and sell real estate on such short term basis anyways.
——
The owner just thought that “RBA is the best place for your investment money”.
May 22nd, 2009 at 9:01 pm
“Typical game in this forum, using house on a big street to gauge the market.”
I know, what a bunch of amateurs. Houses like that stopped counting last year.
May 22nd, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Loma Verde? A big street? Seriously?
May 22nd, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Yes, Loma Verde is a busy street.
Actually, this is a perfect example of what happens in a declining market. People get more picky and find flaws in every house. Back in the boom days, who care about the street, or lot, or sq footage, just as long as it has the coveted Palo Alto address is enough to sell it. RE’s excuses are a perfect example of a declining market.
May 22nd, 2009 at 9:49 pm
coveted palo alto address???
Back in the bubble days people didn’t even need a palo alto address for desire. All that was needed was a mortgage.
May 22nd, 2009 at 9:55 pm
>>Anybody wants to be his neighbor?
anon is eagerly awaiting his chance.
May 22nd, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Hopefully Stanford can use its linear accelerator to increase the velocity of the buyable inventory, which is getting closer and closer to the size of an electron.
I think I’ll go see this house tomorrow, just to see how veloce the foreigners with cash on the sidelines can be.
May 22nd, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Could someone more clever than I find a way into Juliana Lee’s cached web pages for March’s real estate data for Palo Alto? She only has access to April on her site right now. If you can get March data, we can see what 1018 was listed for when it sold for $920k.
Never mind. I just found it… and her page doesn’t list any sale on Loma Verde in March. Weird.
FWIW, here’s the link to it:
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:T_YRQJoGXGsJ:www.julianalee.com/reinfo/sold-PA.htm+site:julianalee.com+march&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
May 22nd, 2009 at 10:35 pm
we are everyone’s neighbor, excreter.
May 22nd, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Good article on real estate prices. Where they were and where they are heading. Not Bay Area specific but applicable nonetheless.
http://www.europac.net/externalframeset.asp?from=home&id=16291&type=schiff
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:25 am
>>Never mind. I just found it… and her page doesn’t list any sale on Loma Verde in March. Weird.
Of course not, since such a sale never happened.
We often have people here throwing out data they found somewhere without knowledge of the market. This is how we got someone hallucinating that there are sales in 94306 for under $100K.
May 23rd, 2009 at 8:04 am
Of course not, since such a sale never happened.
The sale is a matter of public record:
Document Details
APN 12709045
Event ID 1059509446
Document rec status
Document type Grant Deed/Deed of Trust
Document number raw 20158003
Title co name First American Title
Date keyed 3/14/2009
Legal lot, parcel or section 45 5 1556
3 7
Transaction type Resale
Full/partial flag Full transfer value
Event date 3/6/2009
Sale amount $920,000
1st party Sholtz-Magill Family Trust
2nd party Bachman,Henry S & Rhonda J
But, this is classic RE. Spin, misdirect, weasle, never bother to do any research and do everything possible to avoid the real discussion. He asked, what’s the big deal? I’ll repeat so RE can continue to ignore:
1) price on this part of the street have changed from $922/sq ft to $666/sq ft
2) the sellers of the house featured on this thread could have lived in the Buck Estate for the same money they wasted to avoid being priced our forever
3) by ignoring RE’s can’t miss advice from last year you can buy this 1800 sq ft house for last year’s 1000 sq ft price:
371 Loma Verde Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94306
LAST SALE: $1,125,000 (06/05/2008)
BEDS: 2
BATHS: 1
SQ.FT.: 1,086
YEAR BUILT: 1951
just think how much more you’ll be able to buy if you wait another 6-24 months.
as a final point, I’ll note that none of the above relies on 1018 and its sales price. assuming it sells for $1.2 and change I’m perfectly happy discussing it as a sign of market weakness as its seller will have parted with $70K in closing costs and another $150K or so in remodelling (kitchen, baths, floors, landscaping, maybe more). (capital)Steve’s other comp in the making is interesting too:
1048 LOMA VERDE Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Price: $1,195,000
Sq. Ft.: 2,124
$/Sq. Ft.: $563
May 23rd, 2009 at 8:40 am
Score one for Steve.
Zero for the excrement (as usual)
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:13 am
pralay, great link in #30. I just love RE from 1 year ago:
My general advices are:
1. Don’t kid yourself. There’s no evidence to substantitate that lower prics are coming to the RBA.
2. Don’t do your own data analysis if you’re an amateur.
3. Look for ways to get into the market. Hedge yourself against inflation — Don’t wait until higher rental prices take shape. Be proactive rather than reactive!
I recommend reading the entire thread. btw, great UE report yesterday. it seems that the only reason the level of joblessness ticked down for SF is that more people moved away then got fired. exodus + joblessness = poised for takeoff.
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:04 pm
thanks for #45, steve. More proof RE is a lazy troll without a single fact to back him up. I also verified the public data before fishing around on “high tech gals” page. The transaction looks arms-length to me.
What I was expecting to find was an original list price around $1.1M with a large concession made when money was put on the table by a real buyer.
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:33 pm
nomadic, it’s possible it wasn’t MLS listed. that happens more than you’d think. I was very tempted to buy a property like that last fall.
I could ask my agent to check but its importance is minor. whatever the situation, the buyer had the cash to close fast and access to the construction crew to complete a remodel in 5 weeks or so. and, for those connections they’ll likely pocket $100K or so (before taxes).
May 23rd, 2009 at 1:27 pm
This is going to be the final sign of a recovery: Pralay goes to see his first open house!
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Actually, this is a perfect example of what happens in a declining market. People get more picky and find flaws in every house. Back in the boom days, who care about the street, or lot, or sq footage, just as long as it has the coveted Palo Alto address is enough to sell it. RE’s excuses are a perfect example of a declining market.
—-
You are absolutely right, uppercase Steve. In past RealExcreter showed some properties “with issues” which were sold quickly. By showing those properties he tried to demonstrate that RBA market is pretty healthy. His common theme was that if this piece of shit is selling in $1.4M how you dare to say that RBA market is declining. For example, this one:
Property close to 101:
Property close to 101 is selling. Therefore, no downturn in RBA market.
Now, if Loma Verde is busy street and properties on this street is NOT selling due to this reason, RealExcreter should apply his own logic here and conclude that the RBA market is indeed a declining market. But he didn’t use the same logic this time. Instead he changed his position.
And RealExcreter’s changed position and tune is a good indication that RBA market is indeed declining. Let’s revisit what RealExcreter used to say one year back.
Feb 2008 when Robert said following in post#21
“If living in Palo Alto meant a 900 square foot house on a 3000 sf lot and no parking for thirty years (or even five), then no, I would have hated to get stuck in Palo Alto.”
RealExcreter’s reply (post#28) was:
Small lot size? Not a problem. 900 sqft? Not a problem. Something is better than having nothing. Buy anything – shitty place like San Jose, on 101, on busy steet (like Loma Verde), tiny home. Why? He explained in post#8:
Dude, properties with issues (busy street, train track, powerline, next to 101 or busy srteet, 900 sqft) is not a problem. All that matter are school, environment, city/neighborhood name.
Now the same guy is saying that Loma Verde is a busy steet and that’s a big issue!!!!! Well, it’s “same environment, same schools, and same name”, isn’t it? It’s same Palo Alto!
And this the same RealExcreter with “consistent track record”.
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:48 pm
Nice post Pralay.
RE, time to put down the shovel. You’ve been pwned.
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:54 pm
More proof RE is a lazy troll without a single fact to back him up.
——
Of course! He never brings a single fact to back him up. Instead he pulls something from his ass and tries to sell it as fact. Not long ago when I mentioned about Palo Alto inventory level, he declared:
When I showed him from mlslisting in #75 that majority of PA inventory are not in “stratosphere price range” as he claimed, he did not bother to backup his statement.
Another in same thread. When I mentioned about Cupertino inventory level, pulled something from his ass without doing any basic research:
May 24th, 2009 at 12:06 am
This is going to be the final sign of a recovery: Pralay goes to see his first open house!
——
LOL! I never realized that RealExcreter would establish himself as a proven pathological liar so easily for one more time.
Pralay did not go to open house. Therefore, RealExcreter’s statement is a LIE.
That makes “final sign of a recovery” FALSE too. And don’t forget it is final – you won’t see any recovery sign anymore.
May 24th, 2009 at 12:34 am
yes, Pralay’s #51 is a pretty good post
May 24th, 2009 at 7:56 am
lol excreter: are you constantly laughed at in real life as well?
June 5th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Loma Verde is a main thoroughfare/connector street for that part of Palo Alto. I don’t know why the agent bothered to put the LV disclaimer in the listing, no one besides a buyer from palo alto would know what the heck they are talking about, nor figure it out upon viewing the property.
June 5th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Maybe they were thinking about what the name means in Spanish, a small hill in the middle of a field or meadow, that happens to be green. I guess this place does not fit the definition. I think if there were a house on a loma overlooking south PA it might be kind of cool.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
“no one besides a buyer from palo alto would know what the heck they are talking about”
Come on now. Anybody driving Middlefield on a weekend notices LV, since there are only 4-5 such thoroughfares in PA. You don’t need to live in Palo Alto, you just need a set of eyeballs and a reason to visit Palo Alto at times.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
I live on a “residential arterial” in Evergreen. It’s two lanes with no yellow line, but it serves about 500 homes directly and joins two important east-west throughfares. It’s nowhere near as busy as Middlefield or University in PA, but during the rush hour it gets a steady flow of cars. Because of their high visibility and good foot traffic, such properties are typically best as home businesses or rentals. There are three home businesses (including mine) that I know of on the same short block, and I’m sure there are more. If I wasn’t running a business out of my home, I would definitely pay a little extra to be off that street.
June 8th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
The price for the following listing(s) has changed since the last search was done.
mls#:80918726
new:$1,160,000
original:$1,230,000
status:Active
addr:994 LOMA VERDE AV, Palo Alto, CA 94303
June 8th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
steve – such is the fate of properties featured on burbed. That house could move to a better zip, it still would carry that heavy past with it.