Palo Alto duplex home is 2 units $1950 each or maybe $1500
Real estate is a great investment that can pay you to live in your house. That is, it pays you to live in your house if you rent some of it out. Here’s an investment opportunity too good to miss from Burbed reader Petsmart Groomer.
3799 PARK Blvd
Palo Alto, CA 94306
$1,149,000
BEDS: 3
BATHS: 3
SQ. FT.: 2,236
$/SQ. FT.: $514
LOT SIZE: 6,930 Sq. Ft.
PROPERTY TYPE: Detached Single Family
STORIES: 2
YEAR BUILT: 1979
COMMUNITY: Ventura
COUNTY: Santa Clara
MLS#: 81207935
SOURCE: MLSListings
STATUS: Active
ON REDFIN: 30 daysDuplex home set up as a two separate units of 1,100sq feet each rents for $1,950. 1 level is a 2 bedrooms/2 baths and the other unit is a 1 bedroom/1 bath rents for $1,500 on a month to month. 1 car garage is rented for $100 a month. Home can be shown by appt only every TuesdayRight fence to be fixed before close of escrow.
The market is hot, hot, HOT here at Ground Zero of the Google-Facebook Nexus. I don’t understand why this one hasn’t been snatched up yet.
Any ideas why some dot.com entrepreneur hasn’t moved into one unit, rented out the other, did some internets magic in this amazing Garage, and raked in the Profit?
Is it because the listing copy has even Redfin too befuddled to compute a rent ratio?
If we just add up all the dollar amounts mentioned above, we get $1149000 / ($1950 + $1500 + $100) * 12 = 26.97. That ratio would say “RENT!” anywhere but in Palo Alto. Here, just getting the privilege to bid on a neglected rental property in a dynamic neighborhood right on the cusp of High Speed Rail is such an honor, the agent won’t show you the inside. Even though today is Tuesday.
April 3rd, 2012 at 8:19 am
How many families can fit in the garage?
Beyond that, your math is a bit off:
“$1149000 / ($1950 + $1500 + $100) * 12 = 26.97″
Correction:
$1149000 / ($1950 + $1500 + $100) / 12 = 26.97
April 3rd, 2012 at 8:28 am
The math wasn’t off, SEA. The equation was.
April 3rd, 2012 at 8:38 am
It’s just an order of operations issue:
$1149000 / (($1950+ $1500+ $100) * 12)
April 3rd, 2012 at 8:39 am
You forgot to mention the soothing clickity-clack of the trains bursting through the door of your nightmares every night.
April 3rd, 2012 at 9:32 am
Order of operations issue?
Indeed:
$1149000 / 12 / ($1950 + $1500 + $100)
April 3rd, 2012 at 9:45 am
“TuesdayRight fence to be fixed before close of escrow.”
I might head over there today (Tuesday) to check out that TuesdayRight fence (Tuesday is the right day to experience a TuesdayRight fence). If it’s not fixed I want at least $100 credit back on my winning overbid of $1.35 million.
*-*-*
On a serious note, if you’re selling a property for over a million bucks and you settle for a listing agent who provides this sort of scatter-shot semi-literate copy, then you get what you deserve.
How does that interview go? “Hi — what can you do to make sure that my house sells for the maximum amount possible?” “I will let it sell itself because it’s in the Real Bay Area. If you have a few old photos of the front of the house let me have them. What’s the rent on that garage? Stop asking so many questions. You must be new to real estate. Hey look at that fence…”
April 3rd, 2012 at 10:27 am
You forgot to mention the soothing clickity-clack of the trains bursting through the door of your nightmares every night.
I mentioned the High Speed Rail (HSR), coming someday, somehow, to this place’s back yard… but just for you I added the location fail and railroad tracks tags.
MLS usually has all kinds of helpful items in an investment property listing, such as the various expenses, the GRM, and whether the landlord or tenant is responsible for various utilities. That detail is strangely absent for this place, which really makes me wonder what’s up with the listing agent. The MLS was submitted as if this were a conventional home for sale for a solo owner.
The copy suggesting that there’s possibly three units instead of two (by misusing “each”?) is just the tip of this investment iceberg.
April 3rd, 2012 at 12:57 pm
The property’s address isn’t in PropertyShark (which feeds from county records). Maybe the whole thing was built without permits.
April 3rd, 2012 at 2:21 pm
Maybe the whole thing was built without permits.
—-
RBA is full of smart people. And smart people do not need permit, because whatever they want to build are going to smart things anyway.
Bottomline: Permit not required in Palo Alto.
April 3rd, 2012 at 6:27 pm
Who cares about permits when the value is in the land?
May 2nd, 2012 at 9:14 pm
Price reduced to $1,065,000.