Toady: Yes, but I thought you had a job. A respectable, time-consuming one at that. And a family too I believe. When do you have the time? Are you data-crunching into the wee hours of the night?!

Tracey, for data like this, I must give credit where it's due. Kim at Berkeley Housing Crash (http://berkeleycrash.blogspot.... does a great job of tracking unsellable real estate in Berkeley.

Beyond that, creative use of Google. One can find all data on the Internet.

i'm not sure if its worth anything, but I saw 1185 Glen on realtytrac marked as having been served a Notice Of Default/Pre-Foreclosure. My guess is that if they don't sell the property, they're probably going to lose more than just 2 years of mortgage payments/rent to the bank.

Billy: Thank you for that clarification. Would any real estate agents out there like to chip in? Is that the way you interpret MLS rules?

Toady: Just how extensive IS your database?!

I wouldn't hold your breath. Happens all the time:

1637 Oregon
1531 Oregon
2352 Hilgard
2340 Hilgard
2728 Wallace
2436 Stuart
1605 Carleton
2135 Roosevelt
1300 Alcatraz
1167 Oxford
1319 Allston
1518 Woolsey
1226 Russell
901 Hearst

Have all been relisted. I'm sure there are others, but you get the idea.

The MLS rules dictate that you can not pull a property off the market one day, then re-list it the next as "new". I noticed it this morning when I looked and saw this property as new on the market, and I knew it had been listed for months.

The owner may have changed brokers and that triggered it as new on the MLS, but the new broker is supposed to go in and put in the actual DOM and change it to "back on the market" from "new listing".

If it does not change in the next day or two, this is a dishonest (and yes, unethical) move by the broker.

Yet again my readers supply the incisive icing on the cake. (Wait, icing can't be incisive... well you know what I mean.)

Djt: Thank you for the incredibly useful information on 1185 Glen and for joining the conversation.

Toady: Very interesting about 1216 Allston. Your insight certainly explains its interminable tenure on the MLS. And thank you for the update on 1603 Russell. If only everything, and everyone, in life could be as up to speed as you!

the russell street house had some awesome colors in it! Didn't like the thought of tearing out the concrete yard, and the 'hood isn't that great, but paint is cheap and the interior would be fine after paint. Not so sure about the siding falling off the exterior though.

Something odd about that Allston bungalow. The agent won't show it unless he can have a conversation with your mortgage broker, along with a bunch of other weird preconditions. Something else about how the tenants want to buy it, but don't have the money, so they're "uncooperative." All in all, seems like the owners don't actually want to sell it. But still it sits on the MLS, and has even been reduced a couple of times. Just very strange.

I believe 1603 Russell is actually in contract. And it went on the market about five weeks ago. I wish you could have seen the photos. It was hideous. About 8 different shades of electric blue.

I love the blog (obviously), but Redfin's listings aren't the most accurate.

1185 Glen is in a major slide zone. But I think the builder did a good job on the foundation (I stopped and talked to him many times)...so it might last a while. I bid against the person who bought the land with a teardown in late 2000...but I think he paid $420k for it. The teardown was, seriously, a wood shack that barely qualified for a storage shed, yet had an elderly man living in it. I bid 240k - whoops! The house was sold after the builder lived in it for two years to take the 500k tax free profit; the next buyer certainly overpaid for it and is now offering it for what they paid. At least they got to pay the bank instead of a landlord!!!

Tracey: Yep. Glen is in one of the areas i'm following, and that is how I figured out that Glen left and returned to the market in a short period of time.

Red: I understand what you mean, but DoM, especially those over 6 months to a year, in a relatively hot market such as the Rose Gardens/Gourmet Ghetto *could* be a good pre-indicator of several issues, such as:

1) underlying problems that could be deterring potential purchase.
2) overpriced.
etc.

these properties could also be great candidates for underbid (since competition is non-existent).

I just think that perspective buyers should understand exactly how long a property was on the market, its always a good thing to know.

Yeah, I hate it when the crust gets all dry and you have to microwave it to ... Wait, we're talking about houses? Does a house really get stale? Are we buying into the NEW! Exciting! bull that drives advertising, or are we buying a house?
Is a "stale" house unacceptable because no one else wanted it so therefore you don't? Perhaps carefully evaluating each place regardless of how long it has been for sale makes sense.
Unless you want to pay too much bidding a home up because somebody else is bidding against you? Seems thats how the whole bubble got inflated.

Yes David, you can use Redfin to save details or homes you're interested in. But that presupposes you're taking your time before buying and can track properties over a long period. A lot of people don't have that luxury.

I like to think that if you ask a direct question to your agent, viz "When was the last time this house was listed?" they have an obligation to find out and answer you honestly.

Mrbogue: I agree with you. It's why potential buyers have to do as much research as possible before even looking at a home.

Sometimes though, the information is just not out there. How did you know, for instance, that Glen had been on the MLS recently? Did you see a reference? Or was it because you follow the market closely? As well as searching online, I would recommend quizzing one's agent mercilessly about a home's history.

Heh. I've seen so many listings that were on the market last year, heck, I've seen some where they RAISED the price from last year. If you see something interesting, put it in a spreadsheet. Then you're not "confused" when the ethically challenged agent or owner re-lists it as a new listing.

Frustrating was not a good word to use. Confusing is more appropriate. To elaborate.. If I were someone just coming into the market right now I really wouldn't appreciate the fact that I might be purchasing a house that was sitting on the market for over a year at about the same price. I understand that this is a good way to garner interest for the property, but it just "feels" unethical.

I think 1185 glen has been on the market for over the year. they took it off the market and back on again recently. its alittle frustrating that they're using these tactics this to conceal the actual days on market.