patrick.net

No kidding.

Here is the public record on that dump:

AIN: 5321-002-027
2010 Roll Values
Recording Date 12/17/2008
Land $163,964
Improvements $148,659
Personal Property $0
Fixtures $0
Homeowners' Exemption $7,000
Real Estate Exemption $0
Personal Property Exemption $0
Fixture Exemption $0

Building Description(s)
Improvement 1
Square Footage 4,904
Year Built / Effective Year Built 1964 / 1964
Bedrooms / Bathrooms 7 / 3
Units 1

No way in hell thats worth 1.5 million. Considering the 2008 data is the bubble stuff still.

I can't judge the price. But I wouldn't consider that a dump...

How much do you think it should be based on current market conditions?

Without knowing anything about this particular property nor the area, a quick look at the comps shows an average selling price of $551 per sq ft (see attached). At $306 per sq ft what justification are you using for your statement, "No way in hell thats worth 1.5 million."? The 2008 data you're referring to is most likely the city assessor's numbers used for calculating property taxes. The last time this property changed hands was in 1984 and hence the low numbers.

I'm not familiar with that particular street and house, but South Pasadena's bubble has never shown any sign of deflating...it's stuck in 2007.

South Pasadena has Absolutely GREAT PUBLIC SCHOOLS (racially diversified schools--unlike the nearby "Asian ghetto" school districts like Arcadia or San Marino which have great APIs, but who wants their kids to attend such a bizarro school district that doesn't reflect America at large). Anything that comes on the market in South Pasadena under $1.5 million gets snapped up right away.

It also has a wonderful small-town feel & one of the last compounding pharmacies with a Soda Jerk...it's like living in Mayberry, but 10 short minutes away from your corporate job in Downtown L.A. Crime is very low as well, averaging less than 1 homicide per year.

At $306 per sq foot, this current "dump" is a fixer-upper which can be rehabbed with a $300k complete makeover.

It needs a lot of work, it's pretty creepy. Lots of drinking and drugging went on that house. I went to high school with the family who had it built. The father was an eccentric attorney and he was trying to recreate Terra from Gone with the Wind, no joke. I'll say it's overpriced by a few hundred thousand then.

I have come to the conclusion that here in California it is one bubble seller trying to unload to another bubble buyer. The problem being is that bubble is gone. Unless you believe the Realtors.

jvolstad says

I have come to the conclusion that here in California it is one bubble seller trying to unload to another bubble buyer. The problem being is that bubble is gone. Unless you believe the Realtors.

That's a very common thing in California. Don't know why so many sleazy Realtors came to this state, moved out to Agoura Hills and Westlake Village and started flipping everything left and right.

Conejo Valley Agent says

Without knowing anything about this particular property nor the area, a quick look at the comps shows an average selling price of $551 per sq ft (see attached). At $306 per sq ft what justification are you using for your statement, “No way in hell thats worth 1.5 million.”? The 2008 data you’re referring to is most likely the city assessor’s numbers used for calculating property taxes. The last time this property changed hands was in 1984 and hence the low numbers.

You only think this way because you are an ignorant real estate agent parasite who lives in snobby area.

Numbers for south pasadena:

Year 2000: median house value was 383,600 (bubble just started)
Year 2009: median house value was 806,400 (bubble)
Average household income in the area for South Pasadena in 2009 was: 47,367

You are going to tell me that since 2000 to 2009 everyones income went up 10 fold? Keep dreaming.
These numbers simply do not support the prices listed today.

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts (search for South Pasadena, CA)

ChrisLA says

Conejo Valley Agent says

Without knowing anything about this particular property nor the area, a quick look at the comps shows an average selling price of $551 per sq ft (see attached). At $306 per sq ft what justification are you using for your statement, “No way in hell thats worth 1.5 million.”? The 2008 data you’re referring to is most likely the city assessor’s numbers used for calculating property taxes. The last time this property changed hands was in 1984 and hence the low numbers.

You only think this way because you are an ignorant real estate agent parasite who lives in snobby area.
Numbers for south pasadena:
Year 2000: median house value was 383,600 (bubble just started)

Year 2009: median house value was 806,400 (bubble)

Average household income in the area for South Pasadena in 2009 was: 47,367
You are going to tell me that since 2000 to 2009 everyones income went up 10 fold? Keep dreaming.

These numbers simply do not support the prices listed today.
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts (search for South Pasadena, CA)

Word.

Fugly.

SF ace says

“You are going to tell me that since 2000 to 2009 everyones income went up 10 fold? Keep dreaming.”

No, but I can safely say that people moving in are different than in prior decades. There was 4,625 owner occupied housing unit in 1999 and there are now 4,618 such unit in 2009. No new homes built in S. Pasadena but LA county but added 500K people in the mix this decade. South pasadana is one of the city that went from middle class to upper middle class and it’s not going back.

+1

The only ones pissed off by this are the PermaRenters with the low median incomes who can't afford to buy in an area with good schools. The little old lady sellers are happy, and the buyers with school age children are happy to be able to send their kids to 100% 10 rated schools in the South Pasadena School District.

Sending two kids to a good Private School K-12 costs $500k to $800k, so it's understandable that people are more than willing to pay at least a $300k premium on the avarage home vs. nearby cities which have horrible school districts.

A picture is worth a thousand words:

Mr.Fantastic says

Right, middle class families should be forced to pay for an $800,000 albatross to send their kids to great public schools, or else they are dumb poor renters who can’t afford it.

Middle class families can't afford South Pasadena homes, period. Only upper-middle-class and wealthy families can afford this neighborhood ($130k+ household income--a firefighter and a nurse couple make this much in this area). There's very little inventory in South Pasadena, and as soon as anything comes on the market, it gets snapped up by a family who is typically wealthier than their neighbors who bought their homes 15-20+ years ago, but values their family's education.

Middle class families can afford to buy a couple of miles west of South Pasadena, in the areas of L.A. known as Eagle Rock, Highland Park, Cypress Park, etc. Lower income and middle-class families have plenty of sub $500k inventory to choose from, but their kids will attend "4"-rated schools. They can buy a $500k albatross there, and leave the $800k albatross to the Nurse and Firefighter who want to send their kids to a good school.

People that can't pay the $300k premium to buy a couple of miles east in South Pasadena get these schools for their children:

Highland Park and Cypress Park are gang banger territory.

Mr.Fantastic says

The median household income in South Pasadena is only $80,412, and the average owner occupied home is over $800,000. 10x the median household income? You think that’s a wealthy enclave? BS. That’s a neighborhood of pretenders and future foreclosures.

According to you, the “angry perma-renter” can’t afford to shell out nearly $4,000 a month for an overpriced albatross for good schools, so they should go put their kids in bad schools.

Or they can rent here for $1250 a month:
http://www.apartmentguide.com/apartments/California/South-Pasadena/Palm-Garden-Apartments/45855/

… and join the pretender crowd in their over achieving schools.

The renters and people who could afford a home in South Pasadena 15-20 years ago are the ones with the lower household incomes, that drag the median down. The people moving in since 2008, when the Regulation Z truth in lending act went into effect are much wealthier than the median income.

The majority of people buying there today are wealthier than those that have owned there 15+ years or are renting there in the equivalent of a motel like you posted for $1,250/month.

Banks aren't lending out money to people who can't afford a loan & can't fully document their income anymore. Since, as you say, the average owner occupied home there is $800k, then all that were approved made much more than $80k household income, otherwise the DTI wouldn't have allowed them to get a loan on an $800k+ home. $80k household income doesn't qualify for $800k loans, unless they're a move-up buyer with substantial equity from their previous home.

My statement stands that only $130k+ household income families can afford South Pasadena.

Hey Fantastic, Mark is just defending his territory. Every person wants to have his neighborhood to be priced like a pardise :)

Mr.Fantastic says

How do you know what the incomes are of people who have moved into the city since “2008″? How do you know they didn’t buy their $800,000 albatrosses with funny money from 2004-2007? Is this information you’ve gotten from trustworthy metrics, or are you making shit up?

Here you go Genius:

An $800k home (your statement as the average home in S. Pas.) with 20% down= $640k mortgage
$640k 30 year fixed mortgage @ 5% Principal + Interest= $3,436
Monthly Tax on an $800k home @ 1.36% annualized S. Pasadena rate = $911
Monthly Insurance on an $800k home= $200
Monthly PITI = $4,547
Annual PITI = $54,564

If your FICO scores are 760+ & have 20% down for a Fannie/Freddie conventional Jumbo loan of less than $729,000, then the maximum DTI they'll allow is 45%. Assuming that most people also usually have at least 5% of the DTI ratio on their credit card and car payments, that leaves 40% DTI MAX available for the home mortgage.

$135,000 household gross income * .40 = $54,000

There you go genius: only $130k+ household income families can afford an $800k Albatross in South Pasadena, with excellent schools for their children. I call this upper-middle-class and wealthy neighborhood.

Of course, the wealthy families won't be buying the $800k albatross (that's for the Nurse and Firefighter couple), they'll be buying something more like this:
http://www.redfin.com/CA/South-Pasadena/1705-Oak-St-91030/home/7007807

bubblesitter says

Hey Fantastic, Mark is just defending his territory. Every person wants to have his neighborhood to be priced like a pardise

And everyone wants to live in a McMansion in a fabulous school district.

Unfortunately this dump is far from being a mansion. It's more like a giant crap shack.

simchaland says

bubblesitter says

Hey Fantastic, Mark is just defending his territory. Every person wants to have his neighborhood to be priced like a pardise

And everyone wants to live in a McMansion in a fabulous school district.
Unfortunately this dump is far from being a mansion. It’s more like a giant crap shack.

Yeah, but it is Pasadena and has Fantastic schools. Kids just have to go to school and do nothing to succeed. I am hearing this crap from people living in every neighborhood. If all this schools are doing so good why is CA at the bottom of nation? LOL.

bubblesitter says

Hey Fantastic, Mark is just defending his territory. Every person wants to have his neighborhood to be priced like a pardise

Wrong, I live in the neighboring much larger City of Pasadena, not the smaller City of South Pasadena. South Pasadena is just one of the 5 or so cities in the area with good school districts that I'm considering.

In Pasadena, upper-middle-class and wealthy families send their kids to Private Schools (some of the best in the country), only middle-class and lower income families send their kids to public school. That's a big reason why the public schools, even in wealthy Pasadena neighborhoods, have bad API scores.

I want to save the expense of private schools and will be selling my place in Pasadena and buying in a city with a good public school district in the next 1-2 years...my youngest child is only 2 years old, so I still have time to decide on where to buy my permanent home.

bubblesitter says

simchaland says

bubblesitter says

Hey Fantastic, Mark is just defending his territory. Every person wants to have his neighborhood to be priced like a pardise

And everyone wants to live in a McMansion in a fabulous school district.
Unfortunately this dump is far from being a mansion. It’s more like a giant crap shack.

Yeah, but it is Pasadena and has Fantastic schools. Kids just have to go to school and do nothing to succeed. I am hearing this crap from people living in every neighborhood. If all this schools are doing so good why is CA at the bottom of nation? LOL.

Schools suck only if you live in districts that are "undesirable" with "undesirable elements." In California (as it is in Illinois, I can assure you) the wealthier the neighborhood and the less "riff raff" that are allowed into the neighborhood, the better the schools.

Typically this means getting your real estate priced into the stratosphere so that only certain "desirables" can afford to dare to live there. This price fixing is better than having guard towers, electrified fences, and guard dogs. Economic discrimination and economic oppression is the best way to ensure that you can live in an island of "desirables" while keeping the riff raff at bay. The super rich can't discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, or gender anymore because that would be illegal (wink wink... nudge nudge...). But they can price their real estate so high that "certain elements" who are economically oppressed are never allowed to settle in their neighborhoods. Never mind that most of the certain people who are in protected races, ethnicities, religions, and genders are economically oppressed and could never afford the real estate where the "desirables" live. This is how you maintain American Apartheid in the 21st Century.

No matter how crappy the physical state of the real estate, you must fix prices into the stratosphere or your neighbors will hound you and may even sue you until you keep your asking price out of reach of the common "riff raff."

I've seen this at work in Orinda, Lafayette, Marin County, Walnut Creek, Barrington, IL, South Barrington, IL, Inverness, IL, and Barrington Hills, IL.

In some of the "Barringtons" in Illinois they have actual ordinances preventing lots from being under several acres. This ensures that no one but the truly wealthy can afford to buy and build inside their city limits. And they don't allow any zoning but "residential" zoning to preserve the "country atmosphere" of their paradise.

You don't actually think that these "fortresses" erect themselves by chance, do you?

Mr.Fantastic says

That still doesn’t explain how you know the composition of the cities mortgage mix. How do you know that these $800,000 albatrosses weren’t purchased with funny money from bubble years?

I specifically said after 2008, and made it clear that due to Regulation Z, the truth in lending act, nobody with "funny money" has bought here since then. Most everyone who has bought here since 2008 is upper-middle-class or wealthy.

The lack of foreclosures in the area re-inforces that fewer funny money bubble buyers bought here during the height of the 2003-2006 bubble than in other areas of California. Those funny money buyers preferred newly built huge 4,000 square foot McMansions on 6000 sq foot lots like you have in Irvine, not restored 1920's 2,000 square foot craftsman homes like you have in South Pasadena.

Mark_LA says

I specifically said after 2008, and made it clear that due to Regulation Z, the truth in lending act, nobody with “funny money” has bought here. Most everyone who has bought here since 2008 is upper-middle-class or wealthy.

Yes, yes, yes... Regulation Z enforces American Apartheid making absolutely certain that no upstart "undesirables" get a "funny loan" and move in next door. Regulation Z entrenches places where the "desirables" congregate in economically enforced fortresses.

God Bless America! (Or at least, Rich America.)

simchaland says

Mark_LA says

I specifically said after 2008, and made it clear that due to Regulation Z, the truth in lending act, nobody with “funny money” has bought here. Most everyone who has bought here since 2008 is upper-middle-class or wealthy.

Yes, yes, yes… Regulation Z enforces American Apartheid making absolutely certain that no upstart “undesirables” get a “funny loan” and move in next door. Regulation Z entrenches places where the “desirables” congregate in economically enforced fortresses.
God Bless America! (Or at least, Rich America.)

Not really, Mr Fantastic just found the "undesirables" (as you refer to them) a $1,250 apartment that'll allow them to send their kids to a fortress (as you call it), top-rated school. That's cheaper than a month's private school tuition.

Mark_LA says

$135,000 household gross income * .40 = $54,000

And $54000 is like 60~65% of their net after tax income, and it doesn't even include util and maintanance. Wow, are they really spending like that for housing? Sure, they could if that's what they want. But it sounds like they well deserve some suffering. If there's no tax return on mortgage interest... :P

Liz Pendens says

“Forgive me, I must start by pointing out that three years after our horrific financial crisis caused by financial fraud, not a single financial executive has gone to jail, and that’s wrong.”

Who do you want to put in jail and why ?

It's certainly more yup scale here now than it was when my dad bought our place in the '60s. Used to have lots of blue collar home owners around. Once the school district became "highly rated", home prices jumped. All of my friends that have kids here rent apartments.

SF ace says

From my perspective, the school district premium is just a pass thru cost. You pay 300K in premium, and you just sell it for at least a 300K premium in the future, albeit if the school stays top notch as well.

Its a shame that so many for so long (decades) NEVER EVER paid for this fairy tale premium.

Nope! Never heard of it.

Admittedly, South Pasadena is a Fortress, so distressed properties are in short supply. I normally like to check RealtyTrac NOD listings against the recorders website, but LA county doesn't put their records on line, so take what I say with a grain of salt.
According to RT, the home at 418 Arroyo Dr. received a NOD around Feb. 15 (amount due: ~$1.8million). Purchased for $2.225 million in 2004, it was refinanced with Indymac in 2005. There is another deed of trust with Metrocities Mortgage in 2007.

seaside says

Mark_LA says

$135,000 household gross income * .40 = $54,000

And $54000 is like 60~65% of their net after tax income, and it doesn’t even include util and maintanance. Wow, are they really spending like that for housing? Sure, they could if that’s what they want. But it sounds like they well deserve some suffering. If there’s no tax return on mortgage interest…

For some people PITI is the only math. Few of the guys here need to take economics 101. Never mind, I think they took economics 101 but buying into 800K shack with an average income is stupidity is not taught in that kind of class. It it taught through the mouth of a RE agent. Real estate 101. :)

Mr.Fantastic says

seaside says

e ’60s. Used to have lots of blue collar home owners around. Once the school district became “highly rated”, home prices jumped. All of my friends that have kids here rent apartments.

But it’s a rich enclave. Spending half your net income on housing is what rich people like Mark and his friends do.

FYI, that's PasadenaNative's comment, not mine.

Mr.Fantastic says

But it’s a rich enclave. Spending half your net income on housing is what rich people like Mark and his friends do.

I don't think anyone should buy a home with 45% DTI, which is what Fannie and Freddie will allow to those with good credit. I was simply showing you that even at the MAX DTI that Freddie and Fannie allow, only a household income of $130k+ will qualify for a loan on an $800k home.

That was to prove to you that you're dead wrong in stating that $80k household incomes are purchasing homes in South Pasadena. They're priced out of this city, period. So, $130k or higher income means that only upper-middle-class or wealthy families are able to purchase there...that's the absolute bare minimum you need to make to purchase an $800k albatross in South Pasadena.

PasadenaNative says

It’s certainly more yup scale here now than it was when my dad bought our place in the ’60s. Used to have lots of blue collar home owners around. Once the school district became “highly rated”, home prices jumped. All of my friends that have kids here rent apartments.

Not only did South Pasadena become "highly rated"...most of the surrounding nightmare bloated bureaucratic school districts like LAUSD became "horribly rated", so a lot of people that would've bought somewhere else all of a sudden will pay a premium to be able to send their kids to a good public school. It makes financial sense vs. paying for private school, or sending your kids to a bad public school...of course, if you can afford it.

Or, just do like my friends. Rent an apt., send the kids to So. Pas. schools, save even more money that way...

Mr.Fantastic says

Except that 50% of the homes sold in the past 12 months in South Pasadena (as reported by RedFin) were under 800k.

Oops.

Oops...I was quoting YOUR statement that "The median household income in South Pasadena is only $80,412, and the average owner occupied home is over $800,000."

That'll teach me to take a genius's word for granted.

Mr.Fantastic says

The median household income in South Pasadena is only $80,412, and the average owner occupied home is over $800,000. 10x the median household income? You think that’s a wealthy enclave? BS. That’s a neighborhood of pretenders and future foreclosures.

Mark_LA says

Mr.Fantastic says

Except that 50% of the homes sold in the past 12 months in South Pasadena (as reported by RedFin) were under 800k.

Oops.

Oops…I was quoting YOUR statement that “The median household income in South Pasadena is only $80,412, and the average owner occupied home is over $800,000.”

That’ll teach me to take a genius’s word for granted.

Mr.Fantastic says

The median household income in South Pasadena is only $80,412, and the average owner occupied home is over $800,000. 10x the median household income? You think that’s a wealthy enclave? BS. That’s a neighborhood of pretenders and future foreclosures.

But actually, you were only off by $50k...out of ALL 181 Single Family Homes SOLD in South Pasadena in the past 12 months, they averaged $750k @$430 per sq. ft. To get a loan for a $750k home, you still need to make ~$130K+, which makes you upper-middle-class or wealthy:

thomas.wong1986 says

Liz Pendens says

“Forgive me, I must start by pointing out that three years after our horrific financial crisis caused by financial fraud, not a single financial executive has gone to jail, and that’s wrong.”

Who do you want to put in jail and why ?

Heh - Maybe Mark LA should lead the frog march? After all, check out the picture... and his alias IS two of Angelo Mozillo's initials backwards... :-)

sigh- But no one's gonna do that, though.

Do have to say i was surprised they actually pressed charges against Michael Perry...

Mark_LA says

you still need to make ~$130K+, which makes you upper-middle-class or wealthy:

That's interesting.

Mark_LA says

PasadenaNative says

It’s certainly more yup scale here now than it was when my dad bought our place in the ’60s. Used to have lots of blue collar home owners around. Once the school district became “highly rated”, home prices jumped. All of my friends that have kids here rent apartments.

Not only did South Pasadena become “highly rated”…most of the surrounding nightmare bloated bureaucratic school districts like LAUSD became “horribly rated”, so a lot of people that would’ve bought somewhere else all of a sudden will pay a premium to be able to send their kids to a good public school. It makes financial sense vs. paying for private school, or sending your kids to a bad public school…of course, if you can afford it.

That just doesn't make sense to me. And I'll explain my position. This is what I remember from the bubble in another neighborhood.

I remember during the bubble years we were visiting our friends who live out in Old Agoura and there was this strange phenomenon in a nearby area called "Agoura Hills". There was this street called Grey Rock Rd which had houses priced in mega millions, while just 200 feet away were apartments which were still in late 300's and eventually bubbled to I think 600k or something.

It seemed like some sort of real estate hype scam, since they both were going to the same school. But 200 feet makes apparently drew a magical line there. It didn't make sense. It's same people, same air, same neighbors, and same schools. Just some real estate hype that probably will/has run it's course.

Liz Pendens says

Heh - Maybe Mark LA should lead the frog march? After all, his alias IS two of Angelo Mozillo’s initials backwards

Yes Liz.. Angelo is a good start. But you can see there was lots of corruption with Angelo and members of Congress. You would think people like Dodds and Franks who serve on the Committee with oversight on Banking would think twice regarding having a conflict of interest.

Mark_LA says

A picture is worth a thousand words:

Mark,

Which site did you use to pull up the arial view of a city with each school scored?

Thanks,

Rob