Own a piece of history in Half Moon Bay!
$4,900,000
Beds: 3 Baths: 2.5 Sq. Ft.: - Lot Size: 24.66 Acres Property Type: Detached Single Family Style: Cape Cod Stories: 2 View: Ocean Year Built: 1940 Community: Canada Cove County: San Mateo 24.65 acres of expansive flat land with breathtaking ocean frontage. Property extends from Highway 1 to the beach affording unobstructed views of the Pacific Ocean; located 15 minutes from the Peninsula and a short walk to the Historic Town of Half Moon Bay, the Ritz Carlton and two championship golf courses. Existing structures include a residence, barn, in-law apart. ,artist studio, garage.
Thanks to Burbed reader John for this find!
Here’s what John had to say:
Noticed from the price history of the following property that it was sold in foreclosure recently for $425,000 and appears to have been put right back on the market for $4,900,000. Anyway, thought some of your readers might be interested in it as it has been listed as high as 35 million in the past few years. It was originally owned by the DuPont family and had a airstrip for air races to entertain their guests – you can still see what’s left of the airstrip on northern edge of property.
Wow, that’s a lot of history. Just think, if you buy this right now, you’re picking up $30M in instant equity! And… your own airstrip for those times when you need to get away!
Alternatively, you could rent out parts of it – that’d be pretty cool too.
Either way, this deal is hard to beat. Now… if only stated income loans were still available!
May 17th, 2011 at 6:49 am
Isn’t Half Moon Bay (the town? city?) about to declare bankruptcy!? To hell with this piece of property! Buy the whole TOWN!!!
May 17th, 2011 at 8:58 am
Yep, and I can imagine the special assessment each
bagholder, er property owner could get stuck with to pay the legal judgments against the town.May 17th, 2011 at 9:05 am
Listing: “a short walk to the Historic Town of Half Moon Bay”
Walk Score: 0 (walkscore.com)
Since the value is in the land, and all, I’m sure the so-called overbidding will bring the price right up to where it needs to be. And if the seller’s needs are like the Donald’s needs, I’m thinking the $35M should be overbid.
Alternatively, for all of those who like to use listing as the property’s value, this place has gone from $35M to $5M in under a year. Unlike yesterday’s 75% of the last selling price, this place is 85% off the original wishing price. Who let’s a MALTY MILLION dollar property go to foreclosure for less than not a lot of money.
The funny thing is, I think the question today is the same: Is this really worth 4.9M even if it’s 85% off the 2010 listing price? But seriously, if you really wanted to make some Real cash, wouldn’t it be wise to pay more than $35M; you know, double a larger number instead of a smaller number.
May 17th, 2011 at 9:38 am
My question is how the eff did the bank get this off the courthouse steps for $425,000? I thought there were investment vultures at those places snapping up properties. Surely this place should sell for more than 20k an acre.
May 17th, 2011 at 9:42 am
#4, not only is the town bankrupt, so were the courthouse steps vultures. All your tax base are belong to us!!!
May 17th, 2011 at 9:53 am
I’d have cleaned out the sofa cushions to buy this place for $425k… depending on what I found out about the town bankruptcy thing and whether residents would get stuck with a big bill.
May 17th, 2011 at 9:55 am
Where is our cheerleader? A big, fat IPO is looming and no comments???
May 17th, 2011 at 9:56 am
“Surely this place should sell for more than 20k an acre.”
Absolutely! The overbidding should bring it up to nearly $2M per acre.
“My question is how the eff did the bank get this off the courthouse steps for $425,000?”
Probably mortgage #4.
May 17th, 2011 at 10:01 am
#7 Our cheerleader out drooling over yesterday’s deal.
May 17th, 2011 at 1:16 pm
Good for:
Keeping an airplane, but with the economy who can do that anymore? Those who still can, won’t bother with a postage stamp like this.
Watching the ocean. Watching it and its salt air ROT everything you own.
Shivering – invest in Nestle’s Cocoa.
Surfing… wait, I don’t think there’s a surfing break of any type here.
Walking to Half Moon Bay – that is a real yawner of a small town.
The only reason the Du Ponts bought the thing at one time is because on their income, it was like the stoopit Tiffany keychain my older sis bought me once, which I did indeed sell with a gleeful smile to a little kid at a garage sale for 25c.
May 17th, 2011 at 4:01 pm
I’m guessing that the NIMBYs in Half Moon Bay probably won’t let you build anything else on this property and probably won’t let you subdivide it either. What a great deal!
May 17th, 2011 at 5:54 pm
Don’t worry #11, with their budget woes, it’s not like Half Moon Bay can afford luxuries such as zoning or code enforcement! Build that oil rig with confidence!
May 17th, 2011 at 8:21 pm
I’ve always liked the mixed-use development between Highway 1 and the Ritz Carlton: golf course mixed with houses.
May 17th, 2011 at 9:14 pm
The reason Half Moon Bay had such severe money problems is they lost a lawsuit after a property was declared impossible to develop because it was wetland. That turned out to be because some public works caused the water to collect there in the first place. Could this be that untouchable wetland lot, or one like it?
May 17th, 2011 at 9:33 pm
The size of the parcel is about right, Mole Man, but this one is on the opposite side of PCH:
The dilemma arose from a long-running dispute over a 24-acre parcel just east of Highway 1 that is flanked by housing developments, spotted with trees and choked by 6-foot-tall weeds.
The property, known as Beachwood, is owned in trust by Palo Alto developer Charles “Chop” Keenan, whose trustee bought it in 1993 for $1 million in a foreclosure sale and planned to build an 83-unit residential subdivision.
The city had given tentative approval to a previous owner for the development but opposed the new plan, saying protected wetlands had appeared on the property. Keenan’s trustee sued.
Walker ruled that the city had created the wetlands – and damaged the property – by botching a storm drain project and by allowing dirt to be removed for a nearby housing development. Its wetlands status meant the plot could not be developed under state coastal regulations.
The city has argued that the wetlands occurred naturally.
Looks like HMB bought the disputed land in 2009 for $18M:
http://www.hmbreview.com/news/article_efd1abd6-dc48-531f-b450-3f3debe17987.html
May 17th, 2011 at 10:23 pm
“(To view the location, go to Google and enter “Grandview Boulevard, Half Moon Bay, CA.” Then click “Satellite” and you’ll see that Beachwood is the empty parcel between two housing clusters along Grandview Boulevard and Terrace Avenue.)”
“just east of Highway 1 and north of state Highway 92.”
May 18th, 2011 at 1:01 am
“My question is how the eff did the bank get this off the courthouse steps for $425,000?”
The price history suggests the bank foreclosed on it and sold it for $425,000. Why they sold it so cheap I have no idea. Maybe they thought by pricing it so low it would attact bidders but only one guy bid and got it.
May 20th, 2011 at 7:06 am
Buy property.
Restore landing strip.
Fly in your drug shipments.
Profit!
June 5th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
$425,000 are you kidding me !! That banker should be fired ! When a crappy little rancher stills sells down this way for over 500K…. Where was I ? Yes HMB is having issues caused by prior City Council nut jobs… always been an a problem down this way, but no worries HMB will bounce back. We always do. If anyone else comes across a deal like his I’m in.
September 5th, 2011 at 11:47 am
Idyllic Half Moon Bay caught in war between Norteños and Sureños.
September 8th, 2011 at 7:15 pm
Well looks like the lucky buyer finally managed to flip it – $3.375 million profit in 7 months.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/Half-Moon-Bay/17400-Cabrillo-Hwy-S-94019/home/1324470
September 8th, 2011 at 9:11 pm
Remember that foreclosure was probably not the first mortgage, as mentioned in message #8.
September 9th, 2011 at 1:56 pm
Good point SEA, I missed that note. So if it was not the first mortgage, does that mean the person who bought it at $425,000 would still owe any amounts on previous mortgages – which could have been more than the 3.8 million they just sold it for?
September 9th, 2011 at 9:31 pm
I’m not an attorney, but yes, the second person in line forecloses and takes control of the property, subject to the first mortgage. Yes, the first mortgage could have been more than the $3.8M, but that should have been verified by the lender at the time of the loan.