The newest stage of our Tour de San Francisco (real estate), Diamond Heights (District 4b), has been posted. We invite you to check it out, especially all you fans of Mid-Century Modern.
From the San Francisco Association of Realtors Advantage Online:
“SB 464 Amended
SB 464 (the anti-Ellis Act bill) still is awaiting a vote on the Senate floor. The speculation is that the bill’s author, Sheila Kuehl of Santa Monica, still does not have the votes needed for passage. But to improve her chances she has amended the bill once again by limiting its application to persons who have owned residential rental property for three years.
Six weeks ago, Kuehl amended SB 464 by inserting the following language in the bill: ‘[The bill] shall apply only to owners who acquired ownership of property pursuant to a purchase agreement or contract for exchange entered into on or after March 27, 2007.’
So, to review, SB 464 would amend the Ellis Act (the State law that allows residential rental property owners to go out of the rental business) by limiting its application to the owner of any residential real property who has owned the property for three years. In addition, SB 464 would apply only to owners who acquired ownership of property pursuant to a purchase agreement or contract for exchange entered into on or after March 27, 2007. It also would allow a public entity to require that if any tenant is at least 62 years of age or disabled, and has lived in his or her accommodations for at least one year prior to the date of delivery to the public entity of the notice of intent to withdraw pursuant to the Act, the date of withdrawal of the accommodations to be extended to one year after the date of delivery of the notice
Currently, virtually all of the Republicans and several key Democrats are opposed to SB 464. If these key Democrats reverse their positions on the bill, Kuehl could secure the votes she needs to pass SB 464. This is the last week that bills can be voted upon in their house of origin so, whether she has the votes needed for passage or not, it is likely that Kuehl will bring the bill to a vote before week’s end.”
–Previous Follow up post [sfn BLOG]
–Ellis Act a la SB 464 [sfn BLOG]
–Ellis Act getting tougher or easier [sfn BLOG]
–Leland Yee [website]
–San Francisco Tenant’s Union [website]
–the legal part of evictions [Sirkin Paul Associates]
–the low down [Senate Judiciary Committe]
–Rent vs. Buy, the old debate…in an interactive graph [sfn BLOG]
We know of a property on Vallejo that just came up for sale, but is not in MLS that would appeal to many a contractor. Asking price is $6MM. We have been asked not to post the location at this time, but you are free to contact us if you are a serious buyer, and we’ll gladly give you the details, or get you in to see the property.
We’re sure word will leak to some other blogs, but we won’t be leaking it, and out of respect for our colleagues, we won’t be posting it.
“Sleepiguy”, it is not the property we mentioned in our Property Pipeline on May 14th, but we wouldn’t be surprised if that leaked out soon too. It’s killing us not to be able to announce that one either.
We apologize for not being able to post on these, but think this is a fair solution to those we know read this site for information about purchasing properties of that caliber, and those sources that give us information asking for confidentiality.
We almost can’t keep up with some of the brisk sales we’re seeing. 3130 Pacific is “pending”, after 7 days in MLS. Remember 3100 Pacific (next door), the $15,000,000 home that never made it to MLS, received two offers and is sold.
A quick explanation of “pending”. In MLS, and real estate in general, there are four steps to tracking the sale with MLS data. First a property is “active”, meaning on the market and very much for sale. Then, if/when an offer is accepted and there are contingencies (loan, inspections, appraisal, etc.) the property will be listed as “active contingent”. Once contingencies have been removed a property will be listed as “pending”, and this usually means it’s as good as sold, but not quite there. Then, of course, it is “sold” (no explanation needed).
With a property like this that basically goes from “active” to “pending” (skipping “active contingent”), it could mean any number of things, but generally there were no contingencies, meaning the buyers are comfortable with the home just the way it is, and nothing else is really negotiable. It is also a pretty good bet that the sale will be a cash sale. Not always, but basically obtaining financing is not a problem.
So, it’s a good day for everyone involved with the two newest homes on Pacific that have sold in practically the blink of an eye.
BLŪ, San Francisco’s newest new is planning on opening their sales office in September (so we’re told), and they’re claiming “fresh concepts, crisp lines, attention to detail, clarity of purpose…in an intimate high-rise community.” The development will be one hundred eight condominium units total, and there will be six residences per floor. On the top will be six two-story penthouses with private roof decks, and glass walled solariums.
Judging from the 3D renderings, we’re definitely seeing crisp lines, and clarity, but of course, we have yet to see inside.
We’ve also been told that they recently sent a balloon up in the sky at the construction site to snap pictures that will enable the artists to create 360 degree view images for you to see. You’ll have to check back for those though, but if they’re anything like the 3D renderings zūm llc did, we’ll be impressed.
Ask nicely and you shall receive. We did the Single Family Stats and Numbers last week, and a kind email request came for the same thing for condos. Thank you for reading, commenting on, and contacting the sfnewsletter BLOG. Here are the graphs representing Median Price for CONDOS in San Francisco by zip code:
Inner Richmond/Presidio Heights
Mission Bay/Potrero Hill/SOMA
Sunset (added to post on 6/10/07 per request by reader)
Not too long ago, we were “Bettin’ Fools, now we’re looking more like Fools Bettin’. We predicted 2340 Larkin #2 would be sold by now…and we were wrong. We were also wrong about 1110 Fulton, but thank God we weren’t wrong too long…Fulton is, at least, on track to close escrow soon.