patrick.net

Look at that view? WTF is your problem? Looks pretty much like one room, so we can add "ceiling fans throughout..." and "natural light throughout..." and the flooring is beautiful! Furthermore, it looks like it's in the middle of the city, so "close to amenities" comes to mind. Two people can probably squeeze onto the porch, so it's a "spacious front porch." It's "partially landscaped - ready for your loving touch!"

Write a check now!

..........................................................
Then I looked at the actual listing and have to add, "amazing built-ins!"

As the immortal Bette Davis would say: "What a dump!"
Some SUCKER paid a ton of dough for this garbage.

Some where right now, Tanika Williams is talking about how she lost her family home her Moms bought for 15K back in 1999.

OK show me that little gem in Watts now. I'm going to corner the Hood market.

The GOP says

Some where right now, Tanika Williams is talking about how she lost her family home her Moms bought for 15K back in 1999.

OK show me that little gem in Watts now. I'm going to corner the Hood market.

William E Baughb

This property will definitely be snapped up by this astronaut that went into orbit back in 2006, and is just coming down to earth right now.

The fact that we still have these sellers thinking that they can sell their property as bubble-prices, says that we are still a long, long way from the bottom.

No doubt about it that this property can use some updating. But seeing it's condition, nothing is broken. Can you believe a RENTER was actually living in that?!?! I mean, they have it so good. How can they live in such a thing? They get free updates, do not pay property taxes, etc.

The price is okay for a duplex. Someone can buy it, change the carpets, paint it, and rent it out.

Alameda is not necessarily the nicest place either. Has some good neighborhoods, but I bet this house is not in one of them. Note the bars on the windows.

Alameda is not necessarily the nicest place either. Has some good neighborhoods, but I bet this house is not in one of them. Note the bars on the windows.

You're right. This is not a good part of Alameda. But there are more renters in this neighborhood than owners. Which probably ties with the crime rate. But my father sold a triplex in this neighborhood for 900K. I don't see this property having any problems selling unless that extra house is not permitted.

Well, G.O., hopefully the current occupant will remain there another four years. It's only for sale if another party moves in.

Well, here! You can own this beauty in 'West Hills' in San Fernando Valley for 300K.

http://www.redfin.com/CA/West-Hills/23220-Vanowen-St-91307/home/3192101

No facts to back this up, but I have noticed listings like this in past real estate cycles just before a big drop in prices..

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Tony Manero says

Easily flippable for 10x in a couple of years. Never been a better time to buy.

Tony, so subdued today... Glad to hear the anger has subsided if only for a few moments. Peace, my friend. :)

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Alameda/742-Pacific-Ave-94501/home/889485

Jun 23, 2011 Sold (Public Records) $620,674

What?!?!

Remind me why this house was worth 400K in 2005 or even $600K today.....

Property History for 742 PACIFIC Ave
Date Event Price Appreciation Source
Jan 07, 2012 Listed (New) $406,600 -- EBRD #40556682
Jun 23, 2011 Sold (Public Records) $620,674 -- Public Records
Apr 01, 2005 Sold (Public Records) $460,000 19.6%/yr Public Records
Dec 21, 1988 Sold (Public Records) $25,000 -- Public Records

I thought you were buying the land, not the house. Just look at appraisals. Land value is probably 350k and the house is probably 50. Just because it's too ugly to live in doesn't mean it should be free

thomas.wong1986 says

Dec 21, 1988 Sold (Public Records) $25,000 -- Public Records

(in my best "Mmm Hmmm")
That's what I thought.

snyderkv says

I thought you were buying the land, not the house. Just look at appraisals. Land value is probably 350k and the house is probably 50. Just because it's too ugly to live in doesn't mean it should be free

I'm no real estate genius. Are the separate values of the land and the structure important when buying a property?

BTW, here are the values from the listing:

A refi with Countrywide on 03/05/2007. Just to be clear, the June 2011 'sale' for $620,674 was a foreclosure. Well played!

I'm no real estate genius. Are the separate values of the land and the structure important when buying a property?
Depends on if you are buying as rental property as you get to depreciate the structure at 1/27.5 the value of the building each year (using straight line method). I've never gotten a straight answer from any of the RE investors on this board on how they value the buildings versus the land on their properties. Most RE books I've seen say you should get an appraisal to specifically address the building/land split so that you can defend yourself against the Man in case you're audited (a 'traditional' appraisal values the entire property: land and improvements together). The values assigned by the county assessor become important if you haven't done an appraisal (and aren't doing the WAG method). The IRS says: If you are not certain of the fair market values of the land and the buildings, you can divide the cost between them based on their assessed values for real estate tax purposes.
Many investors like to emphasize passive losses, which are larger the more depreciation you take. Bear in mind, there are passive loss limitations based on your income. Also, when you sell the property, depreciation expense is recaptured (at a max 25% rate).

For the taxable value, shouldn't it for the most part, reflect the last time the home was sold?

I've seen so many homes where the homes last sold price, and actual taxes assessed don't match up at 1 to 1.25% ( depending on the rate, and excluding MR and other bonds of course).

Alameda is not necessarily the nicest place either. Has some good neighborhoods, but I bet this house is not in one of them. Note the bars on the windows.

I don't know much about Alameda, but the area look quite nice to me. I am puzzled how to access the other house, only one of the two houses has street access.

Here's another great deal in Sherman Oaks... (Available to us..)

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Sherman-Oaks/5258-Lennox-Ave-91401/home/4730221

Gad. Talk about your narrow lots. At first I was going to suggest that this might be a good deal for a tear down, but then looking at the area on Google Maps, who would want to live there. An investment property? Want kind of rent could you get for these two properties?

David9 says

Here's another great deal in Sherman Oaks... (Available to us..)

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Sherman-Oaks/5258-Lennox-Ave-91401/home/4730221

This LA craphole sold for $400K? Was the buyer on drugs or something?

"This LA craphole sold for $400K? Was the buyer on drugs or something?"

I could be wrong, but I think that is what the bank paid for it at foreclosure.

The loco buyer paid more.

jvolstad says

An investment property? Want kind of rent could you get for these two properties?

$1850.00 a month good buddy . Plus pet deposit.

Malkovich says

Only $400K for this beauty!

It's definitely not a beauty. The home is worth as much as what the neigbor will sell for discounted. If the neigbors are comping at 500-600K for that size lot, it is reasonable to get 400K.

Money can fix cosmetic as you turn the cheapest house to the most expensive house in the neigborhood, nothing can fix location.

SFace says

If the neigbors are comping at 500-600K for that size lot, it is reasonable to get 400K.

No sir.