Archive for the ‘Palo Alto, Mountain View, Menlo Park’ Category
June 27, 2008
Forget your psychic friend and magic 8 ball. CurbedSF has it that today’s savvy home hunters leave it to programmers to come up with a way to tell them, via scientific survey, whether a neighborhood is a good fit or not. Indeed, Hoodeo is the “neighborhood match maker,” your online connector of human to ‘hood.
So I gave it a spin- God knows I am having a hard time finding a place I can afford in SF; maybe Hoodeo knows something I don’t. Among its questions, the survey asks me if I wanted to stay in this city or if I would go anywhere. Since my job and friends and life are here, I actually do want to stay here, but just for fun, I chose “will go anywhere.” Hoodeo also smartly inquires how much I make and how much I “want to spend” on my next home, as well as how big I want it, cleverly reminding me that those square feet I desire will also have to be cleaned (I picked 1000 square feet, and since I had the option, 2 beds and at least 1.5 baths since I share with a man whom occasionally disgusts me). I decided the fair amount to pay, based on what we make, and that we would like to have money left over to travel and buy beer and such, would be 400 to 450K.
I should be, according to Hoodeo, living in Philidelphia. Wait, but you didn’t ask if I like sub-zero winters! I don’t!
Back to Hoodeo then, this time insisting on staying in the Bay Area. If I am to spend what I want to spend, I will need to think about Pacifica, San Bruno, South San Francisco, or– if I want the city proper– Bayview. Wait, you didn’t ask if I like gunfire in my front yard. I don’t!
Needless to say, Hoodeo has left some poignant questions off the list in determining if a ‘hood will fit you. For instance, nowhere am I asked what I think of On Deadline’s report that
Members of the Presidential Memorial Commission tell the San Francisco Chronicle that they’ve already collected 8,500 signatures on a petition to put the proposal before voters this November. If it passes, the Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant would be renamed [the “George W. Bush Sewage Plant.]
To which I say: I am home.
May 17, 2008
I know—there are more than 6, but it’s a beautiful day. Hard to imagine who’s in the mood to sit and read long blog posts at the computer. Plus, I found an interesting article in the Washington Post that actually reduces homebuyer essential knowledge to 5 categories, to which I would like to add one.
From The Post:
1. Mortgage interest rates can change quickly, pushing a home out of your budget in a matter of days. Check in with lenders before making a bid to get an up-to-date estimate of monthly payments based on current rates.
2. Include in your offer a requirement that the sales price be equal to or less than the appraised value as determined by the mortgage lender. Without such a contingency, a lender can require the buyer to make up the difference between the appraised value and the sales price.
3. Do your research. Compare the price of the home you are interested in with the prices of similar homes on the market or recently sold. In areas where home prices have been falling quickly, some real estate agents recommend narrowing the data to the last three or four months instead of year-old sales, which can be outdated.
4. If you decide to bid significantly below the asking price, be prepared for rejection. A lowball offer could be flatly rejected by an annoyed seller or viewed as the starting volley in negotiations.
5. Don’t assume that because the price of a home has been reduced, there isn’t more room for negotiation. Research prices in the area, and compare the lowered price with recent sales.
As an extension of #2, however, comes my number 6. In the wake of our current mortgage sunami, appraisal is becoming a complicated issue. An SF Gate article warns that “A major legal brawl is breaking out over how homes are appraised, at what cost and by whom. The outcome could directly affect the price you pay for your next piece of real estate and the amount of mortgage money you can obtain.”
Under then tenants of the out-of-court settlement, the result of New York Attorner General Cuomo’s investigation of “the mortgage finance giants’ appraisal practices,” these giants must adopt a particular “home valuation code of conduct.”
The code, which is scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1, would shake up the entire appraisal system:
—Mortgage brokers, who originate roughly 60 percent of all new loans, no longer would be allowed to select or pay appraisers. That could force some mortgage shoppers to pay for multiple appraisals rather than just one.
—In-house appraisers at banks and mortgage firms no longer would be permitted to do appraisals for loans to be funded by their organizations.
—Lenders would not be able to use appraisals generated by management companies - firms that contract with networks of appraisers nationwide - if they have a significant financial stake in the management company.
To some eyes, forcing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to reform appraisal is a great idea: “Inflated appraisals—often involving either pressure by loan officers or fraudulent collusion by appraisers themselves—played a role in at least some of the mess we’re seeing in many housing markets.”
Opponents meanwhile, such as financial and banking trade groups, claim the settlement is “bad policy.” Aside from the potential dismissal of qualified and ethical professional appraisers who work for banks, brokers “should not be prohibited from hiring independent appraisers because the current system—if strengthened by greater use of review appraisals to double-check accuracy—works efficiently for consumers and the mortgage industry as well.”
Plus, under this new agreement, “consumers would be financially tied to the first lender they, or their mortgage or real estate professional, submits their application.”
The upshot of this debate is that 6th thing homebuyers should know: Appraisal is a complicated process, with multiple (and often conflicting interests) at stake. Until we achieve an improved system with “much-tougher penalties for lenders who pressure appraisers, much-tougher penalties for appraisers who give in, and more accurate appraisals for the consumers who pay for them,” proceed with caution.
May 12, 2008
Back in February, a whole bunch of readers vociferously opposed the idea of the federal government’s economic stimulus package bailing out homebuyers facing foreclosure. At the time, I was caught by surprise and wondered if David, Doug, Slappy, Scott, Red and others weren’t being a bit cold. Well, looks like they were way ahead of a national movement.
The Angry Renter blog exists for one purpose: to oppose government bailouts, and man, when they say they’re angry, they mean it. (Check out the video, above, they created to oppose the bailouts.) They claim to have gained 45,000 signatures on the petition they posted on the site.
But how is throwing these people into the street going to help the angry renters on this and related sites such as ”Stop The Subprime Bailout,” “NoBailout.org,” and “NoMortgageBailout.com“? Isn’t it going to mean their neighborhoods will soon be infested with drug dealers and homeless people squatting in abandoned, foreclosed houses? (This is going on in my Contra Costa County ‘hood right now and it is not fun.) And that their entire neighborhoods will suffer? How does punishing these people do renters or non-foreclosed homeowners any good?
April 21, 2008
The real estate information service DataQuick reported last week that March was the slowest month in the Bay Area since they started recording statistics in 1988. Monthly sales numbers have been setting record monthly lows each month since September.
The nine-county Bay Area saw 4,898 sales take place in March, an increase of only 22.8% from February. Compare this to the historical jump from February to March each year at 40% and we are off to a poor start in the spring selling season.
DataQuick President Marshall Prentice is quoted as saying the following:
“Other parts of the state have been hit harder by the downturn in the housing market than the Bay Area. Most of the distress is in areas that absorbed spillover activity during the 2004 and 2005 frenzy. For the most part that’s the Central Valley and inland Southern California. It still appears that a lot of Bay Area activity is just on hold, waiting for the mortgage markets to open back up.”
I agree with him on the comments regarding the Central Valley and Southern California, but I disagree that the Bay Area activity is simply on hold. There may be some buyers and sellers who were waiting for the jumbo-conforming loans to come online, which they now are but at higher rates than regular conforming loans, but I don’t think they are waiting any longer. Supply is growing and demand is softening as more and more are figuring out it is a buyer’s market and prices are heading down quickly in most areas. Supply will continue to increase this summer and there won’t be enough buyers to absorb this growing supply. It isn’t just as simple as supply and demand. but it explains a lot of it! This is just the natural correction process for a ridiculously overvalued market. I don’t the think “activity is on hold” as he puts it - it is falling off a cliff just the way it should be.
January 20, 2008
With the holidays over, free workshops and seminars for the real estate neophyte are back in full swing. Especially in this time of uncertainty on the market, seems you’d want to be as smart as possible about selling or buying… and what’s smarter than taking advantage of free expert advice?
Note this week the seminars are being held all over the Bay Area.
Monday
Home-Buyer Seminar:
Presented by Pier Porrino of Caldecott Properties with Joseph Held and Sue Ballinger of Guarantee Mortgage, 6:30-8 p.m., 5251 Broadway, Oakland, free, reservation required, (510) 437-9953.
First-Time Home-Buyer Seminar:
Sponsored by Whitney Davis of Zephyr Real Estate and Tina Leonardi of Guarantee Mortgage, 6-7:30 p.m., Opera Plaza, 601 Van Ness Ave., Suite P, San Francisco, free, reservation required, (415) 533-3990.
Wednesday
Credit Reports for First-Time Home Buyers:
Presented by Consumer Credit Counseling Service of San Francisco, 5:30-7:30 p.m., 595 Market St., 15th Floor, San Francisco, free, (877) 511-2272.
Thursday
1031 Exchange Seminar:
With Katharine Holland of Coldwell Banker and Larry Weiss of Lau Financial Services, 6-7:30 p.m., 2355 Market St., San Francisco, free, reservation required, (415) 437-4588.
Saturday
Home-Buyer Seminar:
Presented by Steve Cohn of Golden State Home Loans and Robin Neydavoud of Keller Williams Realty, 10-11:30 a.m., 1528 S. El Camino Real, Suite 110, San Mateo, free, reservation required, (650) 349-7257.
First-Time Home-Buyer Workshop Certification:
Presented by Mission Economic Development Agency, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Women’s Building, 3543 18th St., San Francisco, free, reservation required, (415) 282-3334, Ext. 21.
The Basics for First-Time Home Buyers:
Presented by Consumer Credit Counseling Service of San Francisco, 835 Market St., Room N609, San Francisco, free, (877) 511-2272.
—-
source: SFgate.com
December 21, 2007
My guess is that you will be doing one of three things this weekend: (1) on the road, traveling to festivities, (2) staying at home, wrapping and baking, (3) heading out to finish up that last-minute shopping. If you are in the third category and heading to one of the Mid-Peninsula malls, you might want to stop off at an open house to get a taste of an uncrowded atmosphere.
Hillsdale Shopping Center
981 Patricia Ave, San Mateo 3/1 $ 629,000 Sat 1-4
321 N San Mateo Dr #105, San Mateo 2/2.5 $ 725,000 Sun 1:30-4
BridgePoint Shopping Center
310 Trysail Ct, Foster City 5/3 $ 1,220,000 Sun 1:30-4:30
Stanford Shopping Center:
859 Lytton Ave, Palo Alto 4/2.5 $ 1,495,000 Sat/Sun 1:30-4:30
800 High St #105, Palo Alto 2/2 $ 1,098,000 Sat/Sun 1:30-4:30
800 High St #115, Palo Alto 2/2 $ 1,098,000 Sun 1:30-4:30
334 Poe St, Palo Alto 5/4 $ 4,750,000 Sun 1:30-4:30
December 20, 2007
Since we lost our Palo Alto maven, we have been woefully remiss in reporting on one of the most stable markets on the Peninsula. Checking in on this popular burg, we find that no homes have been listed in the last 7 days, only 3 have been listed in the last 14 days, and, remarkably, one of those is under $1mil. The three newbies are:
3217 Greer Road, 3/1, 1004 sf, 5662 sf lot, $920,000
2719 Greer Road, 4/3, 1974 sf, 6098 sf lot, $1,395,000
859 Lytton Avenue, 4/2.5, 2710 sf, 5460 sf lot, $1,495,000
Almost exactly two months ago, we provided a real-time market profile on Palo Alto, courtesy of Altos Research. Comparing the information then to now, this is what we find:
Median Home Price: —Then $1,998,000; Now $2,200,000.
Least Expensive Listing—Then $479,950; Now $499,950
Most Expensive Listing—Then $8,250,000; Now $29,850,000
Average Price Per Square Foot—Then $875/sf; Now $935/sf
Average Days on Market—Then 72; Now 25.85
Total Inventory—Then 48; Now 41
Market Action Index (barometer of supply and demand)—Then 31 (Warm Seller’s Market); Now 33.3 (Warm Seller’s Market)
So, it appears there is still some stability (and dare we say prosperity) in this town, with the market action remaining even, inventory not wavering too much, average DOM going down, and both median home price and square foot price going up. Looks like it’s a happy holiday season for Palo Alto homeowners, while much of the rest of the Peninsula is crying in its eggnog.
December 17, 2007
Back in the day 
when I lived in Redfin’s birthplace, I saw a lot of residences that advertised child care. When some of my co-workers began talking about opening their own in-home day care centers I wondered how extensive (and profitable) the phenomenon was. But since I don’t have kids I didn’t wonder for long and moved on to wonder about other things. Then two years ago I moved back to the Bay Area and I began to notice the infamous in-home day care centers around Oakland, including one around the corner from me (pictured here right). This home at 2219 12th Ave. used to look like a big pink barn before it sold this past June for $425,000. The new owners did what many an excited new homeowner would do: they applied a fresh coat of paint (it is now a more demure yellow than its previous screaming pink), landscaped the front yard and re-vamped an entryway. Oh yeah, and they put in a daycare. At 1691 SF, 3bd/1.5ba I guess it has enough room for little ones to run around in. But after reading a recent Oakland Tribune article about the shortage of quality and affordable daycare in California, I’m back to wondering:
1) What’s more popular: “in-home” daycare or “commercial” child care centers?
2) How much are folks paying for child care?
And more salient to this blog but probably much more difficult to find an answer to:
3) What kind of effect is this soft real estate market having on in-home daycare and homebuying, if any? E.g., can operating an in-home facility help offset the cost of buying a home?
4) And finally, I’ve just gotta wonder: if you didn’t have kids could you afford to buy a house? And conversely, does homeownership preclude some of us from having kids due to the cost? I know it’s not an either/or question for many folks, but I feel that this actually comes up for people in expensive places like the BA.
The OT article noted that average child care costs about $10,000 per year at a licensed facility in California. On the high end, at the Montessori schools in Oakland I looked up (1 in Rockridge and 1 in the Dimond District) tuition is about $20,000 per year per child for full-time care/school. (These rates seem to be national as I have a friend in New Jersey who is spending over $23,000 a year at a Montessori school for her 6-month old).
What about you? Got kids in day care? Was it difficult to find? How do you feel about the quality of care? And what share of your income goes to child care?
Also, do you notice in-home child care around your ‘hood? Are in-home facilities found around the Bay Area or is this an Oakland thing? Let me know, even if you don’t have kids/child care! Thanks!
December 15, 2007
Greenhouse gas, climate change and oil prices, oh my! I don’t know about you but these three things seem to be on my mind a lot these days. The U.S. has finally come to “consensus” with the rest of the world about climate change at the talks in Bali; everything from coral reefs to polar bears to really the whole planet is being threatened by greenhouse gases; and oil prices continue to climb with the peak oil crisis theory gaining more evidence. So I’ve been thinking about how these phenomena intersect in our everyday lives and what my role is. For me, as I guess for many, they all come together in transportation. The Oakland Tribune reports more folks than ever are riding BART, and as someone who rides BART everyday I must agree that it can be tricky to find an empty seat of late.
Back in 1997 when I moved back to the Bay Area after college, I didn’t have a car for two reasons: 1) I couldn’t afford it, and 2) I didn’t really need once since I lived in San Francisco and could get around well without one. Time wore on, I moved around the Bay Area and continued to ride my bike and take public transportation. However, I eventually got a job that required a car and have had several cars until now.
Fast forward 2006. With global warming hot on my mind, my partner and I decided to invest in a hybrid car. It seemed like a good idea at the time: we saved money on gas and felt it was doing something (even just a little bit) to lower carbon emissions. But shortly after buying the new hybrid last year, my partner and I decided to buy a house. So we chose to sell the hybrid to free up cash flow for mortgage payments (lucky for us it was at the point when they were still giving out the carpool lane stickers so we sold the car quickly).
Now that I’m a homeowner in the Bay Area, I feel as though I’m back to where I was ten years ago at the beginning of my career: cash-strapped and (semi) car-less (full disclosure: my partner has a car that we share on the weekends, so while I take the bus and BART to work during the week I’m not completely without my own transportation). But while I take public transportation to save on gas, car payments, and insurance I’m also trying to do my share to lessen my carbon footprint. Even if I could afford to buy my own car, my plan is not to buy one unless it can run on biodiesel or recycled vegetable oil. I’m doing my best to remain true to my commitment to reducing carbon emissions. And while public transport wasn’t a deciding factor on the home we bought, we are close to several bus stops and a BART station which helps me stay true to the cause.
How about you? How do you see gas prices and climate change affecting your living in the Bay Area? And if you’re looking for a home, is access to public transportation a factor for you?
Photo: 20th Century Fox, The Sound Of Music (1965) “A Few of Our Favorite Things”
December 15, 2007
Redfin’s 7 tactics for selling your home are hard to argue with (though of course, you can argue, on the forums), but I still say that a few of the science-backed strategies need some elaboration. One, for instance, is tactic #5:
Market the property online: A December 2007 Redfin study of 121 of its own listings from September 1, 2007 to November 30, 2007 found that a Craigslist posting about a listing generated an average of 6.8 visits to that listing on Redfin’s website. That each visitor navigates from Craigslist to Redfin to see the listing in detail suggests that many may be serious potential buyers.
To this I say yay; but if that online listing is low quality: nay! Don’t skip the pics. Don’t screw up the pics. Don’t lie, prevaricate, or elude in the text. If you do, you risk losing your buyer and/or wasting your own time. This is also part of “being present” for the sale of your house. If you use a realtor, be involved in the online exposure the realtor creates for your home…or you might end up the sort of listings I rail against here and in my forum post.
A few examples:
Mystery Address, SF: First off, what’s the !@#*!?#* address? I want to know what neighborhood a house is in before I even consider looking at it. How many phone calls and/or emails would be saved with the addition of that basic piece of information? And second, if the kitchen is as sunny as promised in the write-up, why no picture of it?
455 Orizaba Ave., SF: A 2/1 single-family for only $499,000 might catch my attention, but the photo display only attracts suspicion. Two half-ass shots of the exterior but three shots of “city views” make this would-be buyer positive something horrendous lurks inside the building. Doubtful this was the goal of seller.
251 Montana St., SF: To be fair, the language of the ad hints that this place is a teardown, so the lack of interior shots just confirms you’re basically buying the lot. However, I take issue with this line: “record show [sic] only 1bd 1 bath, owner claim there’s 2 beds 1 bath,huge yard with pano view.” Um, so there’s no view that you, the realtor, know of? No yard you can confirm? The owner says they exist but you just aren’t sure? And what of the bedrooms? SF law is pretty clear on this issue. A room can be called a bedroom if it has both closet and window. So, do the rooms inside qualify or not? Have you even been inside?
In contrast, here’s an honest listing:
4027-4033 26th St., SF.: “Builders and developer take note. The existing home is very small and is uninhabitable and without much merit.” Okay, got it. And the photos confirm. The fact that the lot you are really buying is “on a nice block” may or may not make $1,649 per square foot seem like a good buy (some people at Socketsite took issue with that figure). At least you know what you’re getting.
