$800 a month in rent, or $800k to own!
1279 E JULIAN St, San Jose, CA 95116 | MLS# 80922869
1279 E JULIAN St San Jose, CA 95116
Price: $875,000
Beds: 2
Baths: 1
Sq. Ft.: 828
$/Sq. Ft.: $1,057
Lot Size: 0.49 Acres
Property Type: Detached Single Family
Style: Cottage/Bungalow
Stories: 1
Year Built: 1920
Community: Central San Jose
County: Santa Clara
MLS#: 80922869
Source: MLSListings
Status: Active
On Redfin: 35 days
The value is in the land. Lot is 20,909 SF! Endless possibilities to expand – great for having a home and all that space for your hobbies. Bring your ideas and tools to make this into your special place. Currently rented @ $800/mo.
Thanks to Burbed reader sonarrat for this find. (What’s up with the usage of the word rat in names on this site?)
Let’s look at some additional photos first:
This really begs the question – what are the current tenants paying $800 a month for?
You know what? It’s an indication of how tight the rental market is right now. If people are willing to pay $800 a month for this, is it any wonder why this property is so expensive? Think about it – at .49 acres, 21,353 square feet, you can fit a huge number of people. And like astronauts, they could sleep standing up strapped in.
People will pay anything…. ANYTHING… to live here in the Bay Area. And that’s what makes this cash flow positive for you.
Great deal. Snatch it up right now. And give sonarrat a cut!
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:41 am
If you’d like to thank the listing agent for the good laugh you had today, her contact info is here:
http://www.hms4rent.com/?page=cmpy_people
What a joke.
June 23rd, 2009 at 7:15 am
I know the value is in the land, but can we enjoy for a moment the fact that it is selling for $1,057 per sq ft? This could very well be the greatest thing since sliced bread.
June 23rd, 2009 at 8:46 am
Looks like the lot is about 50′ x 400′ deep.
I’m guessing it’s rented for storage space now. You could park a bunch of RVs out back if you can keep the local homeless from moving into them. Or meth labs!
June 23rd, 2009 at 8:47 am
Hey, it’s near Eggo Way. Is that where breakfast comes from?
June 23rd, 2009 at 9:02 am
LOL
And obvious F&*ked Borrower.
Houses in Palo Alto are not even going for $1k per square foot anymore.
June 23rd, 2009 at 9:09 am
Current owner has had it at least since 1999 (looks like the last transaction was just her name change). Price at that time appears to be $143k on PropertyShark. No record of any refis since then. Owner lives in Los Banos.
June 23rd, 2009 at 9:44 am
$800/mo or $800k to own? Why, by buying you’ll come out ahead in only 83 years! What a bargain!
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:26 am
*yawn*
I sit here reading this post – bleary eyed from a late night of drinking – nursing my morning 40 oz, I misread the sentence: “great for having a home and all that space for your hobbies.”
I read it to say: “great for having a home and all that space for your nobles.”
I think my read is more appropriate.
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:44 am
why on EARTH would you publicize that it’s currently rented at 1/10 what the monthly payment would be? That 875 has to be a typo. It’s a delusional price at 675. I’m going to the next open house to point and laugh. Oh, they probably won’t have an open house.
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:56 am
Joe, the first line from your linked page is priceless:
Like any company, H.M.S. owes it’s success to the quality of it’s employees.
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:00 am
Her Majesty’s Ship owes it is success to the quality of it is employees!
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:06 am
Ouch – S.F. ties Boston for #5 in the top WORST cities to work in IT:
Worst U.S. Cities to Work in IT
They cite:
insanely high real estate prices, suicide-inducing traffic and too many cocky and annoying IT people fighting over precious jobs. San Francisco claims the No. 1 spot for worst cities for identify theft, or “iJacking.” For professional sports, the Bay Area has the longest current streak without a major sports championship. And Boston is too full of itself (what with the recent titles by the Red Sox, Patriots and Celtics).
I don’t think the sports thing is very meaningful, but real estate prices is a big deal, and traffic can truly suck.
Maybe the RBA isn’t included in this ‘S.F.’ label – Santa Clara country doesn’t have bad traffic, right?
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:11 am
Of course not, A!
No traffic here!
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:16 am
After having examined the location on a map, I not only dispute that the land is worth $800k, but I am driven to wonder whether land can have negative value!
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:22 am
And did anybody post these great pieces from calculated risk on the relation between unemployment and home prices?
CR Housing analysis
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:42 am
In case you can’t be bothered to read it, the gist is that you should expect housing prices to continue to fall for at least a few years AFTER unemployment peaks. Which it has yet to do.
And I also maintain that segments of the housing market that have not undergone a big enough correction will just take that much longer before they ever appreciate again.
You can’t have it both ways – otherwise, the premium between RBA and Non-RBA housing would be ever-increasing, eventually going to infinity. Not going to happen….eventually there’s not enough rich people left, even if they are stupid enough to believe they should pay $5,000 sqft for a place to live…(but honey, the schools are great!)
June 23rd, 2009 at 12:08 pm
You may recall I am keeping running tabs on the Case-Shiller prices for S-F, and thanks to another burbed reader I found the Prestige index here, which effectively gives a 4th, highest tier to the data, which might be something like the RBA, or perhaps the best of the MRBA (homes priced over $1M).
Well, they finally updated the prestige index with a 1Q09 data point, and it’s a doozy! Prices on homes over $1M took a huge drop from 4Q08, and have now dropped to 1Q05 levels. Ouch!
June 23rd, 2009 at 12:44 pm
That’s near:
The stadium!
gay bars!
The real ghetto!
Leathermasters!
Diridon Station!
A really old funky OSH!
June 23rd, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Price to rent ratio:
1093.75
But, as we all know, its important not to look at the numbers but rather “go with your gut.”
June 23rd, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Ouch indeed! $1M is still holding strong though, I think.
Where will the prestige index fall to? 2000? That keeps the internet boom, but reverses all the bubble history. That also means that $3M homes (which were *really nice*) are just $2M. What will happen to $2M homes (which are still very nice)? And our beloved $1M crap shacks?
June 23rd, 2009 at 12:58 pm
I think they just accidentally added a zero to the price. At 80k, it might be worth buying. If you want to add in the ‘bay area premium’ of 1.5, you’d get about 140k max.
June 23rd, 2009 at 12:58 pm
btw. Los Banos translates to “the bathrooms”. If you’ve ever been there you will appreciate the truth in advertising.
June 23rd, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Oh I see what the deal is – there are three houses on the lot. But if the one pictured is the nice one, uh… well, any one of them would sell separately for about $175K in that neighborhood. Do the math.
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Looks like the lot is about 50′ x 400′ deep.
——-
That’s why it says “endless possibilities”. You can start your first railroad project here.
June 24th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
>You know what? It’s an indication of how tight the rental market is right now. If people are willing to pay $800 a month for this, is it any wonder why this property is so expensive?
Of course not. In fact, demand is so high that I understand that local governments are having to step in!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/24/BAUH18CIJG.DTL
October 20th, 2010 at 5:11 am
[...] summer, burbed reader sonarrat sent in this listing for a house in “Central San Jose.” Some of you were a little disparaging of the wishing [...]