June 25, 2009

5 Free TV's with purchase of Los Altos house

11700 Putter Way, Los Altos, CA 94024 | MLS# 80925199
11700 Putter Way Los Altos, CA 94024
Price: $1,375,000

11700
Beds: 3
Baths: 2
Sq. Ft.: 1,500
$/Sq. Ft.: $917
Lot Size: 6,000 Sq. Ft.
Property Type: Detached Single Family
Style: Mediterranean
Stories: 2
View: Neighborhood
Year Built: 2000
Community: Country Club
County: Santa Clara
MLS#: 80925199
Source: MLSListings
Status: Active
On Redfin: 23 days
$$$$ BIG PRICE REDUCTION. OVER $100,000.00 IN SAVINGS SELLER IS READY TO LISTEN TO ALL OFFERS. SELLER MAY CARRY PAPER OR LEASE OPTION. LOW MAINTENANCE BACK YARD, 5 T. V. s INCLUDING ENTERTAINMENT CENTER ALL INCLUDED. READY TO MOVE INTO. GREAT BACK YARD-EASY FLOOR PLAN TO ENTERTAIN. GREAT LOS ALTOS SCHOOLS. CLOSE TO EVERYTHING INCLUDING 280-CUPERTINO-LOS ALTO-PALO ALTO.

Thanks to Burbed reader Herve for this find.

Wowsers! 5 free tv’s? Price reduction of $100,000? What more do you want this seller to give? His first born? Bone marrow?

Come on! This house is practically being given away for free!

And look at the easy access to 280!

11700a

If you’re not thinking of snatching this house up, you should be. It sold for $1.395 in 2005 – so right away there’s instant equity. And face it, shouldn’t every house in Los Altos be $1000+ per square foot?

This house is just begging for you to buy it!

Comments (49) -- Posted by: burbed @ 5:29 am

49 Responses to “5 Free TV's with purchase of Los Altos house”

  1. RinkRat Says:

    Appropriately named, as it’s literally a short putt from the slow lane on 280.

    I guess when you move up to the Real Los Altos, you can live on Iron Street — or maybe even Driver…..

  2. Christina Says:

    Who took those dang photos? They were shaking with glee at the price of the listing, eh!?

  3. steve Says:

    so, props to the seller for trying to get out of a bad situation before it gets worse, but, to Christina’s point, demand more for your agent. you are going to be paying $35K for the listing (and another 35K to the buyer’s ageent, assuming a good result) — is the expectation for some in-focus photography and judicious use of the shift key that unreasonable? hey Herb, take a lesson from (lowercase) steve and lay off the caps lock.

    btw, 5 TVs? that’s one over 300 sq ft. could be an RBA record.

  4. nomadic Says:

    Wow. $917/sf? For a tiny 6k sf lot? Yeah, good luck with that.

  5. sfbubblebuyer Says:

    Nomadic,

    Take a look at the overhead map, too. It’s one of three tiny lots squished into a large lot area. So buyers get to drive by .25 – .4 acre lots on the way to look at… postage stamp.

    I’m sure it was a large lot that got subdivided into three somewhere along the line.

  6. anon Says:

    Haha.

    Looks like this dumbass bagholder really is throwing away TVs.

  7. nomadic Says:

    sfbb, I noticed that too. Also the fact that there is no yard – it’s almost all paved.

  8. zanon Says:

    hey — saves on water!

  9. UnrealAlex Says:

    5 TVs that’s worth $100k, that’s why Fry’s does so well in the BA.

  10. aa Says:

    this hizzouse is tizight. i pay 250k, oh, comes with TVs then 251k. big ups.

  11. madhaus Says:

    Throwing away TVs? Not at all, anon! The FB is giving you an opportunity to throw them away yourself!. Every month you watch your equity erode, you can hurl another TV onto your neighbor’s yard while he’s watering his own lawn! And if you pick a neighbor with a large lot (unlike this one), there little chance of missing.

    sfbubblebuyer, how the heck did that lot subdivision make it past the zoning board? Do you think each member got a TV?

  12. sfbubblebuyer Says:

    Okay, here’s the best listing I’ve seen so far : http://www.redfin.com/CA/Palo-Alto/102-Middlefield-Rd-94301/home/1196607

    FSBO, and we found somebody who’s wishing price is so high not even a Realtor(tm) is willing to take it on. I have no idea why given the size of the commission!

  13. nomadic Says:

    Nice find. Did you notice the listing history? Not only is it VERY long, they “corrected” the price to reduce it $1,000 but apparently didn’t notice the extra decimal place. D’oh!

    Jun 19, 2009 Price Changed $168,887,888
    Jun 05, 2009 Price Changed $168,888,888
    Jun 05, 2009 Relisted
    Jun 05, 2009 Delisted
    May 22, 2009 Price Changed $1,668,888
    May 08, 2009 Price Changed $1,688,888
    Apr 24, 2009 Price Changed $1,728,888
    Apr 10, 2009 Price Changed $1,798,788
    Mar 27, 2009 Price Changed $1,798,888
    Mar 13, 2009 Price Changed $1,788,888
    Feb 27, 2009 Price Changed $1,738,888
    Feb 13, 2009 Price Changed $1,737,888
    Jan 30, 2009 Price Changed $1,737,988
    Jan 16, 2009 Price Changed $1,699,998
    Jan 02, 2009 Price Changed $1,699,888
    Dec 19, 2008 Price Changed $1,777,888
    Dec 05, 2008 Price Changed $1,777,777
    Nov 21, 2008 Price Changed $1,777,888
    Nov 07, 2008 Price Changed $1,777,788
    Oct 24, 2008 Price Changed $1,777,888
    Oct 10, 2008 Price Changed $1,777,889
    Sep 26, 2008 Price Changed $1,777,888
    Sep 25, 2008 Relisted
    Sep 18, 2008 Delisted
    Sep 12, 2008 Price Changed $1,778,888
    Aug 29, 2008 Price Changed $1,768,888
    Jul 29, 2008 Listed $1,758,888

  14. Pralay Says:

    didn’t notice the extra decimal place.
    —-

    Math is hard.

  15. Pralay Says:

    So, when someone mentions “stratosphere price range”, I guess THIS is what it means: $168 million.

  16. Pralay Says:

    Redfin does not show 2005 transaction for 102 Middlefield. According to propertyshark.

    Event date 5/17/2005
    1st party Ackley,Stephen M & Maryan M
    2nd party Krebs,Eric
    Owner address 102 Middlefield Rd
    Palo Alto, CA
    94301
    Lender # 1 Wells Fargo Bk Na
    Loan amount # 1 $850,000
    Rate type # 1 Fixed

    I guess this is one of those RBA properties where owner does not have to sell, but wants to sell. So he is keeping it listed about a year with all kind of wishing prices.

    And 8 is not bringing good luck here. May be next price change to $888,888,888 will help.

  17. anon Says:

    Nomadick, talk about a stubbon seller. lol.

    I can see the wheels turning in this half wit’s head: “Well, my house didn’t sell at this price. GEE I’LL REDUCE MY ASKING PRICE BY 100 BUCKS. That should incite a bidding war.”

    Because its all about having a “pretty” price.

  18. Pralay Says:

    Because its all about having a “pretty” price.
    —-

    No downturn here! ;)

  19. nomadic Says:

    Pralay says: Math is hard

    Yes, so I’ve heard!

    anon, I can only guess the price changes were a misguided attempt to make the listing “fresh” for any bots that send updates to buyers and/or realtards.

    Zillow has the $168M price too. Anyone care to post a “question” over there to highlight the error? hehehe

  20. anon Says:

    Uhm, *cough*, I don’t think that’s a typo.

    Everyone wants to live in San Jose.

  21. CB Says:

    Who’s to say 102 Middlefield isn’t a conspiracy to elevate PA’s average listing price?

    The listing is frustrating because the seller mastered two of the three skills a realtor is recommended to have, but not the trifecta.

    1. Photography

    2. Describing the home with words and punctuation (though it is noted this seller uses no words which is even better).

    The third skill is the ability to accurately type a large number verbally communicated to you by the seller. Since the lister is the seller, he may have just gotten all confused, kind of like when the boss tries to sort the office mail.

  22. Pralay Says:

    Looks like this dumbass bagholder really is throwing away TVs.

    Homeowner? I thought only renters do that kind of stuffs.

  23. Brian Says:

    Goodness, is the sky falling?

    http://www.redfin.com/CA/Sunnyvale/1373-Torrance-Ave-94089/home/582029

    $200,000 for a 3/2 in Sunnyvale? That’s realistic pricing, did they forget this is the bay area?

    This has to be intentionally priced low to start a bidding war.

  24. DreamT Says:

    bay area? it’s practically in the baylands :P

  25. nomadic Says:

    That be da ‘hood, Brian. The EPA-equivalent of Sunnyvale. (East Palo Alto, not Environmental Protection Agency)

    (Lordy, it peaked in 2005 at $670k!)

  26. Pralay Says:

    (Lordy, it peaked in 2005 at $670k!)

    Yes, seller timed it pretty well.

    And the buyer thought the value of this trash is actually $670K. Probably he was hoping that it would double by 2015.

  27. Pralay Says:

    For that Sunnyvale trash, May 2007 sale was bank taking back. Then someone bought it for $505K in Nov 2007. Probably the buyer was thinking: “It is already down $170K. Got to be great deal!” A poster child of knife-catchers.

  28. nomadic Says:

    Pralay – is it a foreclosure sale now too? It isn’t marked as a short sale on the listing.

  29. Pralay Says:

    Not foreclosed yet. But pretty soon it will be.

  30. Pralay Says:

    Looks like Torrance Ave was the ground-zero of trash-bubble.

    1356 Torrance: 2006 sale $670K. Now listed $375K.
    1367 Torrance: 2006 sale $663K. 2009 sale $386K.

  31. anon Says:

    ah hahahaha

    trash-bubble

    no no – really – my dilapidated turd is worth nearly 3/4 of a million dollars. Really, it is !

    What idiots these people are.

  32. sfbubblebuyer Says:

    Trash-bubble is a perfect name for it. The properties in East Menlo and East Palo Alto are hilarious to peruse. Virtually the same house will list anywhere from 190k to 580k, depending on how much crack is being smoked.

  33. Brian Says:

    May not be a desirable area, but isn’t 200k for a 3/2 on a 5500 sq ft lot a good deal?

    There’s nothing on the market even comparable to that. Not even in EPA, or east SJ. And in Sunnyvale you get to send your kids to better schools than those in EPA or east SJ.

    The two other comparables in the neighborhood are $130,000 more.

  34. sonarrat Says:

    Even for that neighborhood, $200K is nothing. That’s more like what I expect to see a year from now when people realize we’re still f***ed.

  35. R Says:

    “There’s nothing on the market even comparable to that. Not even in EPA, or east SJ.”

    Yet.

    I agree that based on current prices, it is a good deal. However, by next year, 200k for a house like that will be the norm not the exception.

  36. nomadic Says:

    Looks like Japan is going back down the tubes of deflation:

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2009/06/japan-which-showed-the-world-how-awful-a-sustained-bout-of-deflation-can-be-may-be-heading-back-into-that-vortex–the-coun.html

  37. madhaus Says:

    Hey, where is everyone today? Don’t tell me all the fun is still in Value Alto!

  38. A. Lewis Says:

    #26 – there’s some love for this thread. Good postings, people.

    I want to jump on the bandwagon for that Sunnyvale house on Torrance Ave. Look at those price drops.

    That’s the kind of thing I want to point out to Carl in Menlo Park – that’s the kind of risk you put yourself into going homebuying.

    How long does it take to recover from the depreciation from $670k to $200k? How many years till you’re not underwater on your loan, let alone doing better than renting?

    Now before I go further, can someone tell me how bad this neighborhood really is? I mean, how bad could it be if people would pay $670k to live there in 2005?

  39. A. Lewis Says:

    oops, I meant #37…fingers wandered.

  40. Pralay Says:

    Ok, let’s not talk about trash-bubble anymore. Let’s go to better part of Sunnyvale where some sellers are STRICTLY following “home price doubles in every 10 years” formula.
    1383 Devona Ter: Owner bought it in 1999 for $785K. In 2009 it go to be $1.5M!!! Therefore, seller’s original listed price is $1498K. DOM 170+.

    864 The Dalles: Owner bought it in 1992 for $320K. In 2012 it should be $1.28M. Although seller listed it three years ahead, but he decided to list it in $1298K. Considering the fact that DOM is 107, it is going to stay in market till 2012 anyway. That’s called long term plan (and setting the price accordingly).

    529 Cherrywood: Owner bought it for $545K in 1997. Home price doubles in every 10 years. Therefore, initial listed price $1.1M. DOM 101.

    1336 Hollenbeck: The owner bought it in 2005 for $820K. Should have been $1M in 2009. But it is on and off from market since March 2008 (not 2009) – with long price change history. So it is little bit less. He is just giving discount to buyer.

  41. Pralay Says:

    I mean, how bad could it be if people would pay $670k to live there in 2005?
    —-

    Because the buyer got brainwashed by mantra “having something is better than having nothing at all”. Therefore, he was willing to pay anything to “have something”. It’s better than renting in Palo Alto.

  42. A. Lewis Says:

    Just using Redfin stats for 94089, it just looks like an ‘OK’ neighborhood. Crime doesn’t seem very high – the worst is Motor Vehicle theft, which is equal to the National Average. Schools are blah, with two elementary schools rated ‘5’ by Great Schools (there’s plenty of ‘2’ schools in bad parts of Oakland and Richmond, so it could be worse).

    The income distribution seems pretty good, educational attainment is not bad.

    Doesn’t sound like East Palo Alto to me…but I don’t know the area.

    If it is just ‘OK’ (not really bad), then this tells you how collapsible the market is, and how much risk one takes buying.

  43. DreamT Says:

    A. no it’s just the flight to quality. The worse neighborhoods reasonably close to jobs bubbled disproportionally compared to the good ones. What happens to the last-choice neighborhoods gives little clue as to what will happen to the ones that remain destination neighborhoods.

  44. madhaus Says:

    I wanted to make some comments on Pralay’s list of “better Sunnyvale” homes. Many of them are in my neighborhood, so I’ve been seeing those For Sale signs For A While. Btw I am on the mobile and can’t check your links now.

    Devona: Is that 1997 the original purchase from the developer? Devona is a private street; the four 2-story homes were built to replace an old rancher that sat on a huge lot. I remember them being built. The old one was sold for $845K at some point after ’93.

    Whoops! Did I mention you’ll enjoy the susurrations of nearby (very nearby) CA route 85?

    Hollenbeck: a busy 2-lane thoroughfare with a big shopping center at Homestead and commercial sites at all corners. Just the place for young kids who love to play in traffic!

    The Dalles; a secondary route through the neighborhood. At least this address is near a park. And an incredibly busy daycare.

    The good news is none of these homes are near train tracks or power lines.

  45. madhaus Says:

    Whoops! I left out the best part!

    1336 Hollenbeck is on the EVEN side of this busy street! That means you get the worst elementary school in CUSD! Yup, it’s Nimitz! But wait, there’s more!

    You also get the worst high school in FUHSD! The dread Fremont High, the scourge of Birdland! Now how much would you pay?

    But there’s even more! The house is a block from Fremont Avenue, a busy six-lane arterial! But if you act now, meet your new neighbors! Two churches, both with attached schools! A couple of professional ofice buildings! And best of all, a funeral home! Your kids will have a blast putting the FUN back in FUNeral!

    I can’t understand why the angry renters on this board aren’t throwing their flat screen TVs at this place!

  46. nomadic Says:

    mh – Devona has the second owners in it now. Original buyers paid $577.5k in 1996. Current ones paid $785k in 1999 (13.2% annual increase for the original owners).

  47. A. Lewis Says:

    #43 – I get the gist of what you’re saying – but you miss my point. I’m trying to establish if this is a ‘last choice’ neighborhood, or a ‘2nd choice’ or ‘3rd choice’, or what. How far down the pecking order is it?

    It’s not very interesting if the bottom rung collapses – we all expect that. How high up the ladder was this rung?

  48. DreamT Says:

    A. – Not “the” last choice neighborhood, when compared to some areas south and east of San Jose, or some areas in the east bay (Hayward?). But still pretty low. To put it plainly, you wouldn’t see me ever purchasing there; but there are many areas of San Jose I’d be OK buying into. So as far as I’m concerned, it isn’t anywhere on the “ladder” of areas I’d consider.

  49. nomadic Says:

    I’d say 94089 is maybe on par with Milpitas. Maybe not quite that “good.”


Leave a Reply

Please be nice. No name calling, no personal attacks, no racist stuff, no baiting, etc. Let's be nice to each other in the true Bay Area spirit! (Comments may be edited/removed without notice.)