May 15, 2008
Oakland and Piedmont: New Listings, Price Reductions, Foreclosures
Inventory in Oakland and Piedmont is spilling out all over the place: new listings, price reductions and foreclosures abound. Below are some of my picks in a few choice Oakland neighborhoods: Montclair, Rockridge and Crocker Highlands; plus one listing from the city of Piedmont.
NEW
9043 Broadway Terrace 4bd/3.5ba $1,895,000 Not only is this a new listing on Redfin, this is a brand-spanking new construction, built 2008, in the Montclair Village area of Oakland. And being brand-spanking new I guess means big-spanking bucks given the asking price here. At $551 per s/f it’s leaning towards the high end of the spectrum in Montclair with a high of $660 per s/f and lows in the $200-$300’s per s/f. As usual with the Hills, the views look cool (especially the red-hot sunset) but where are pix of the interior of the house?
REDUCED
5133 Coronado Ave. 3bd/2ba 1483 SF Now $875,000 reduced from $905,000; Craftsman Bungalow in Rockridge; previously sold for $880,000 October 2006. Immaculate pix of the interior and a quaint watercolor-esque illustration (picture featured above) of the outside of the home give it a picture-perfect look.
95 Oakmont Ave. 4bd/3ba Now $1,495,000 reduced 100k from $1,595,000. Wildwood area of Piedmont. It’s a mediterranean home, and the medi-style homes are coming strong onto the market as we careen into summer. (Don’t you see them just everywhere when you search listings these days?) The home’s been on the market 41 days. With no sales history listed it’s hard to tell if it’s priced right.
BANK-OWNED
4132 Balfour 4bd/3ba Spacious-looking new construction stucco currently listed for $900,000 and at 2705 SF that’s $333 per s/f. A bank-owned foreclosure in Crocker Highlands, the bank bought it in April 2008 for $880,000 and it was originally sold for $1,150,000 in 2005 shortly after it was built in 2004. This is also a NEW listing, being on Redfin for about 1 day as of this writing.
6072 Valley View 3bd/2.5ba 1564 SF Now listed at $599,000 this Montclair home has been reduced from $649,000. A bank-listed foreclosure, it sold in March 2008 for $566,623, down from a high sales price of $700,000 in September 2006. As common with Montclair homes, it appears to be nestled in the trees and judging from the Virtual Earth map looks to be on a very long lot. A home in Montclair for under 600k? Sounds good to me.
anon said:
Err, why would a price tag of $875K on a home that last sold for $880K mean a short sale? Conceivable if they bought it with absolutely nothing done, but pretty unlikely. Even if they only put 5% down, they owe a lot less than $875K. (Still, they’re certainly not making anything, which isn’t so hot for them.)
May 15, 2008 9:41 PM
Colin said:
Short sales aren’t bank owned property either.
If they sell at this price, they’ll lose a ton of money when you consider the cost of buying and selling, plus the differential between the holding costs and renting an equivalent property. All for less than two years “pride of ownership”.
May 15, 2008 11:53 PM
anon said:
Just to clarify, a short sale means you’re selling for *less than you owe the bank* even though you may be up-to-date on payments. For that reason, the bank gets to approve it, because they won’t be getting all their money back through the sale. This is very different from being bank-owned–at that point, you’ve missed payments and the bank has foreclosed on your property and owns it in full. Short sales are usually listed as such because they are more complex/riskier for potential buyers putting in offers. But I wouldn’t presume a property in a high-end area to necessarily be a short sale or a distress sale just because it’s selling at a loss, since many of those families have high incomes and equity in other places. They may just be losing money on their investment, and that’s it.
May 16, 2008 8:55 AM
Alison said:
Hello Anon: you’re right on about it not being a short sale; I misread the date I put down (2006, not 2008) but even if the date was 2008 should not have assumed short-sale given that we don’t know how much folks put down for the down payment. And thanks for clarifying on short-sale vs. bank-owned. Thanks.
Hi Colin: it does seem likely they will lose a lot of money and unfortunately only after having the property for less than 2 years… Thanks for your comment!
May 16, 2008 10:27 AM