September 2, 2009

Jason Bourne would buy this San Carlos house

173 EXBOURNE Ave, San Carlos, CA 94070 | MLS# 80937210
173 EXBOURNE Ave San Carlos, CA 94070
Price: $799,000

173
Beds: 3
Baths: 2
Sq. Ft.: 1,240
$/Sq. Ft.: $644
Lot Size: 5,750 Sq. Ft.
Property Type: Detached Single Family
Style: Ranch
Stories: 1
View: Canyon, City Lights
Year Built: 1961
Community: Cordes
County: San Mateo
MLS#: 80937210
Source: MLSListings
Status: Active
On Redfin: 14 days
Located atop a knoll in a wonderful neighborhood with spectacular panoramic bay views, this single-level floor plan embraces the ambiance indoors and outdoors. With 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, including one master suite, this home features spacious light filled rooms, hardwood flooring and picturesque patio setting. Private backyard includes a patio area and year-round grounds.

WWJBD – What would Jason Bourne Do? Well, he’d probably buy this house on Exbourne Ave.

I love the blast proofing that the owners have done to this house. IED’s? Forget about it! Car bombs? No problem! Truck bombs? Tickles! Riots as peasants, jealous of your pride of ownership and massive equity try to invade? No problem. Boiling oil compatible. And its even on a knoll for your sniping needs!

Even ninjas would have trouble with this house!

By the way did you note that this house – and yes, this house only – includes year-round grounds? That’s something no other house in the area can claim! Awesome!

Comments (30) -- Posted by: burbed @ 5:15 am

30 Responses to “Jason Bourne would buy this San Carlos house”

  1. sfbubblebuyer Says:

    Does that mean that the grounds are not migratory? Because nothing ticks me off more than to come out in the morning to discover that my yard has gone south for the winter.

  2. nomadic Says:

    I find it suspicious that the listing boasts of “panoramic views” but there isn’t a single picture to show it.

  3. sfbubblebuyer Says:

    Nomadic,

    They don’t want you to see the corpses of all the peasants and ninjas and whatnot.

    Seriously, though, it is pretty weird because you should have a nice neighborhood view from there. Not a bay view, but it’s in a relatively nice location.

  4. Pralay Says:

    I realized lots of sellers are hiring professional photographers to take pictures lately, even for $800K properties.

  5. Pralay Says:

    I find it suspicious that the listing boasts of “panoramic views” but there isn’t a single picture to show it.
    —-

    I think what they really meant is that wide frontview. That’s because this property with odd-shaped lot is sitting on the curve of the street.

  6. nomadic Says:

    sfbb – do you suppose they used bodies to backfill those retaining walls? ;-)

    It’s pretty amazing how impressive (read big) the house looks in the first shot – but it’s only 1240sf. Guess it’s all the wasted space under the living area that puffs it up.

  7. BuyersAreIdiots Says:

    $644 a square foot.

    Bwaaa ha ha ha ha!!!

    I wonder what the previous sale history on this place is.

  8. Joe Says:

    Sales History:

    Aug 03, 2009 Listed $799,000 — MLSListings
    Sep 29, 1994 Sold $160,000 — Public Records

    Price quintupled in 15 years. Sweet!

  9. sfbubblebuyer Says:

    They need that space under the house for all the corpses of the failed ninjas!

    The reason it looks so big is you can see the house behind it over the roof even in that steep angle shot. It LOOKS like a 2 story big house, but it’s 2 houses with similar shades of paint cramed together on a hillside.

  10. Herve Estater Says:

    > The reason it looks so big is you can see the house behind it over the roof

    Good call. For once Photoshop would have been a godsend :-)

  11. BuyersAreIdiots Says:

    Aug 03, 2009 Listed $799,000 — MLSListings
    Sep 29, 1994 Sold $160,000 — Public Records

    Price quintupled in 15 years. Sweet!

    Nice! Clearly no bubble here!

    And then they have the nerve to call me ‘grumpy’. Sure, I bet salaries quintupled in that 15 year time frame as well!

  12. DreamT Says:

    here’s another one who was born ten years too late

  13. steve Says:

    BAI, why not be content and rent? Waiting for that house to come back to 3 or 400K is a sure path to misery.

    There are many ways to explain large increases in value without playing the life’s unfair card. Likely, this buyer

    1) bought at a relative low
    2) picked an underappreciated city
    3) grabbed a fixer-upper

    and, of course, was lucky in that San Carlos has become much, much nicer with better schools and the general area has benefited from massive wealth creation.

    I’m happy they’ll make some nice money on this deal, whatever it sells for, and I wish the same for anyone who holds 10 plus years.

  14. Herve Estater Says:

    > here’s another one who was born ten years too late

    I just clicked the link and got the following message:

    We are currently experiencing an increase in traffic.
    Please check back!

    Congratulations burbed! :-)

  15. BuyersAreIdiots Says:

    There are many ways to explain large increases in value without playing the life’s unfair card. Likely, this buyer

    1) bought at a relative low
    2) picked an underappreciated city
    3) grabbed a fixer-upper

    Or,

    4) Purchased prior to the largest housing bubble in this country’s history and is now holding on stubbornly to bubble prices despite what reality dictates the price should be.

    Of course, that is just Mr. Grumpy’s opinion. :-)

  16. nomadic Says:

    $644/sf for this seems a bit rich. I bookmarked it so we can check back later to see if it sells and for how much…

  17. SiO2 Says:

    Steve says:
    “BAI, why not be content and rent?”

    which prompted this thought -
    Bubble blogs have many posters talking about the benefits of renting (flexibility, freedom). Yet these posters also complain about the high cost of buying. It seems to me that for those who like to rent, the current situation is good. Renting is pretty cheap on a month-to-month basis. So if what I liked was cheaper than what I didn’t like, I would be pretty happy.

    side note; a friend of mine just bought a house in non-RBA San Jose, with the intention of renting it out. it can’t possibly be cash flow positive. (unless she had a huge down payment and is ignoring the oppty cost of using that money for the purchase.) And another friend is considering a similar deal. Even now there is a belief that housing market in the long term will be better than stocks. While I’m very happy that I bought a house to live in, I don’t see that buying a property here to rent out is a good idea.

  18. bob Says:

    People who think housing will outperform stocks are financial simpletons because that has never been the case. Likewise, your friends who bought homes to rent cashflow negative are also financially senseless.

    Personally, I’ve been really fortunate with my renting situation. The landlord bought the place a long time ago and what we pay more than pays the mortgage and gives him some income. As such he has not raised the rent. We’ve been here 6 years. I pay less to rent a 4 bedroom house than most others I know who rent 2 bedroom condos. Honestly if I knew the landlord would just let us stay here forever, I’d consider it because its cheap.

  19. Ralph D Bredahl Says:

    At $644 per sq ft even Sason Bourne might find it a little rich for his blood.

  20. nomadic Says:

    People who think housing will outperform stocks are financial simpletons because that has never been the case.

    Careful of those absolute statements, bob. They make you sound like a simpleton because it’s flat out wrong.

  21. Stepford Says:

    “$644/sf for this seems a bit rich. I bookmarked it so we can check back later to see if it sells and for how much…”

    Speaking of bookmarking, the “Fine Spanish Revival” house in San Carlos that Burbed featured in August ended up selling for 1,015,000. Originally asking 949K w/ 1650 sq ft. That puts it at about $615 sq ft. $644 does seem a little high for this house. It just depends on if you find the flats or the hills more desirable.

  22. bob Says:

    Nomadic,
    If you look back over the better part of a century, stocks have outperformed real estate by quite a margin.

    The avg return on stocks- assuming you do like you’re supposed to and leave your money alone, is around 10% per year avg, including the worst and best markets.

    Lookie here: http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2007-01-24-stocks-avg-return_x.htm

    Now, if you look at how housing has performed over the long run, Here’s some data:

    1890′s 0.53%
    1900′s 1.40%
    1910′s 3.30%
    1920′s -0.70%
    1930′s -0.45%
    1940′s 8.16%
    1950′s 2.67%
    1960′s 2.57%
    1970′s 8.12%
    1980′s 5.86%
    1990′s 2.84%
    2000+ 9.27%

    before WWII and after:
    1890 to 1939 0.75%
    1940 to 2007 5.45%

    If you average all those numbers together, you get around 4%. I’d say in the BA its likely more like 6%, which we have discussed here before.

    Source: http://www.freeby50.com/2008/05/more-on-historical-home-appreciation.html

    My suspicion is that a lot of people don’t look at long-term patterns but rather short term performance- aka- the most recent bubble which was quite large but as of latest figures has already given up much of its post-2003 gains meaning that the avg is being beaten back down. I suspect prices are not going to be moving much if any anytime soon.

  23. nomadic Says:

    That’s fine, bob, but you originally said “…because that has never been the case” and that was clearly not correct.

    It also leaves out the many very rich people in the world who made their fortunes in real estate. There are plenty of exceptions to your statement that are drastically different from your watered-down report of “averages” over “long term horizons.”

  24. bob Says:

    Well Nomadic, I suppose I should have been more specific. The reality is that both “investments” whether it be houses or stocks are meant to be long-term. Given that standard stocks will outperform real estate. Of course in the case of both stocks and real estate if you time it ” just right” you can make it big ( aka- the dot-com or the late housing bubble) But most people are greedy and make bad decisions, selling late or buying late, which is why in both cases the economy went down the shitter because too many people thought they were the next millionaire next door.

    if you look at the world’s richest people, hardly any of them made it in real estate. On top of that they tended to not be “instant billionaires” either.

    So basically the old-fashioned mantra of buy and hold is still a solid piece of advice.

    Anyway, time to go for my daily bike ride. Gonna’ be a hot one!

  25. burbed Says:

    I find it interesting that people who buy to rent out rarely consider the opportunity cost of the down payment.

    But can you blame them? The stock market hasn’t been exactly kind…

  26. DreamT Says:

    They are less likely to consider it if their down payment is from their previous primary residence’s accrued and/or paid-off equity (hence only unlockable once they’d move out), or if they’d use 90%, 95% or 100% financing as was often the case this past decade. But as things stand today, I’m sure that opportunity cost won’t go ignored any longer.

  27. SiO2 Says:

    Bob, I agree that it’s unwise to buy an SFH to be a landlord, at least around here.

    I’ll bet that many SFH rentals were originally owner occupied, then the owner traded up and kept it as a rental. If it was over a long enough time period, it cashflows in the sense that rent exceeds mortgage plus Prop13 proptax. However, the LL is overlooking the money that’s locked up in the house. Kind of like my friend over looking the oppty cost of the down payment.

  28. rick Says:

    “why not be content and rent?”

    Isn’t that what bubble bloggers have mostly been doing – renting? As to be contempt, I don’t see why people have trouble with others complaining about high housing prices – they make good money and also deserve a home. This is like everybody voting to increase property tax to 10% and tell homeowners “hey you can always rent” (and you think taxing 99% will never happen).

  29. DreamT Says:

    contempt and content are generally incompatible – see bob or BAI for an example

  30. zanon Says:

    Buying in RE is leveraged. It really gooses the return. A straight comparison like Bob’s does not take that into account.


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.)