Palo Alto: Snapshot

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.

Got Daycare?

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!

A Few of My Favorite Things (Sort Of): 2 Kinds of Gas, BART and Being a Homeowner

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”

Bay Area: Selling Online …In a Way that Doesn’t Waste Time

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.

All in Favor Say Aye

Democrats in the California State legislature are hoping the Governator will agree to a special session dedicated to the foreclosure crisis. The bill they are proposing sounds similar to the recently passed anti-predatory lending bill at the federal level. For example, it proposes that homeowners be able to refinance without prepayment penalties and advocates for additional counseling for consumers as well as more stringent measures regulating to whom lenders can market subprime mortgages.

The bill is being touted more as a preventive measure than an actual “bailout” as those who have already gone through foreclosure or are currently going through it would not be affected. Considering that of the top 10 cities with highest foreclosure rates, 5 are in California, the bill could help stave off  lost revenues in our fair state in the billions of dollars. (An estimated $4 billion could be lost in property and associated taxes due to foreclosures). To help consumers, the California Assemby has put together a website called ”Home mortgage crisis: what you need to know“. Included on the website are topics such as “Avoid Foreclosure” “Contact Your Lender” and “Beware of Scams”. (The SF Chronicle also recently published an article on foreclosure scams here.)

Personally I support these types of measures for several reason. One, I know that if I were in financial crisis I would appreciate the option of being able to renegotiate my lending terms. But mainly, beyond my own personal situation, the fact that foreclosures could spell economic havoc statewide is more than enough to persuade me. Who wants to be paying more in state and property taxes for years down the line because we didn’t allow some homeowners to freeze their mortgate rates? It’s not as if their houses will be “given” to them; these folks will still have to pay a mortgage, albeit with a frozen or lower than originally agreed to APR. Finally, not only could individual homeowners and taxpapers across California benefit from a rate freeze, lenders would too since it is likely that they could actually lose more money through the foreclosure process than if they simply froze interest rates.

So dear Redfin readers, what say you? Do you support this type of antidote to our state’s subprime mess?

photo by brokenarts, courtesy of stock.xchng

County Cost Comparison: Part IV

Here we are in the final week of our series on county cost comparisons. We began with homes at or under $500,000, moved to the $750,000, and last week hit the $1,000,000 mark. Today’s price point is $1.5 million, and as I have done in the past 3 weeks, I am using the same two cities from each of the six counties we cover. Choices are all single-family residences and because there are multiple properties at the price points chosen, I made choices based on…what I myself would buy if I had to choose. This could be based on square footage, architectural style, location, or my favorite: a kick-ass kitchen. I realize this is a bit subjective (well, more than a bit), but there is no real objective way to do it that I could think of, and since none of our readers chimed in with an alternative, that is the way it has remained these four weeks.

For comparison purposes, the search parameter for each city was between $1,400,000 and $1,500,000. There was a good range of homes for the most part, although this price point did present problems. Several cities had no homes in the search parameter pricing, so I had to go a bit lower or higher in those instances. Five of the 11 homes were on lots over 10,000 square feet, with 3 being close to or over an acre. Two were on water and several had really gorgeous views. Architectural style ranged from mid-century modern to Tudor to Craftsman to contemporary. No homes in this price range appeared to be short sales (although one comes close).

Mountain View: Not one home is for sale between $1,400,000 and $1,500,000. Closest match is 1881 Walnut Drive for $1,550,000. 4/3, 2043 sf, 8712 sf lot, DOM: 6. Good location, good-sized lot. Priced significantly over the Zillow estimate, but 4th bedroom has full bath and kitchenette, which is a bonus for a nanny or in-law.
Santa Clara: Not one home is for sale between $1,400,000 and $1,600,000. The closest is $1,399,000 at 1543 Franklin Street, then it jumps all the way to $2,295,000. 3/3, 2891 sf, 7405 sf lot, DOM: 7. This is a great Craftsman style home with has some very nice restoration, as well as updating. BONUS: Due to the age and location of the home, it qualified for 60-70% off property taxes (under the Mills Act), which is transferable to a new owner. http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21412 BONUS BONUS: basement with laundry area and a dumbwaiter (you don’t find dumbwaiters in homes any more!) Open this weekend (Sat 1-4, Sun 10-3)

Menlo Park: Only one home qualified in the price range this week. 950 Middle Avenue, 3/3, 1600 sf, 3500 sf lot, $1,495,000 DOM: 99 (listed during construction). This is a one of two new homes due to be completed in 2008. (Second home is a 4/3 priced at $1,549,000.) It is a two-story Cape Cod-style home with large open floor plan. It appears that a larger lot was subdivided to make way for these two homes to be built side-by-side. While not attached, they are very close to each other.
San Mateo: Not one home is for sale between $1,400,000 and $1,600,000. Closest match is 15 10th Avenue at $1,395,000. 4/2.5, 3180 sf, 11099 sf lot, DOM: 184. Located in Hayward Park, this is a charming Tudor-style home with wood moldings, wood-sash windows, and many period details. Purchased in 2006 for $400,000, someone has taken the time to lovingly restore and updated this home. Quarter-acre lot has nice backyard.

San Francisco: The good news is at this price you usually get a garage. Of the 9 available in this price category, more than 50% had this sought-after feature. Two things made me choose 41 Ora Way, priced at $1,400,000: It is mid-mod in architecture, which I love, and the realtor put up 35 pictures, so you can really get a good sense of the home. 4/3, 2500 sf, DOM: 5. You get great views, a great master suite, and that 2-car garage. Nothing not to like about this one, and it probably won’t be around long.

Novato: 1085 Bel Marin Keys, 5/4, 3144 sf, 9920 sf lot, $1,499,000 DOM: 92. Waterfront living in this large home, updated and painted with modern colors inside. Great remodeled kitchen and baths, extra amenities throughout and you get your own boat dock.
San Rafael: 2912 Las Gallinas, 5/4, 3863, 41687 sf lot, $1,499,000 DOM: 166. A contemporary home with a comfy feel to it. Situated on almost one acre, this home has views of both SF Bay and the Marin hills. Open this Sunday 1-4.

Alameda: 730 Palmera Court, 4/3, 2846 sf, 5880 sf lot, originally $1,500,000 and jut reduced to $1,439,000 DOM: 49. When I found this house, the price was within my parameters, but it has since seen a $61,000 price reduction. Another restored and updated Tudor-style home, it sits along a lagoon and has two bonus rooms (solarium and office).
Pleasanton: 21 Castledown Road, 4/2.5, 3474, 20234 sf lot, $1,499,950, DOM: 82. This home has a rather boring exterior, but it is on almost half an acre. Inside are some very nice touches, such as the stairwell and wood ceiling in the master bedroom. Great kitchen and deck with a view. Sold in 2006 for $1,400,000.

Concord: 5119 Myrtle, 3/2.5, 4000 sf, 80150 sf lot, $1,499,000, DOM: 133. This home sits on the biggest lot of the bunch, just shy of 2 acres. Very nice outdoor entertainment space with lawn, pool, and covered patio. This country property also has corrals and a stable.
Orinda: Miner Road, 3/2.5, 3500 sf, 49222 sf lot, $1,500,000, DOM: 98. No street address on this, but it is very near St. Stephens-Honey Hill Road. On a little over an acre, this may be my favorite home of them all today (not surprising since it was Wright-inspired.). Somewhat rustic in nature, it still manages to be high-end. Lots of wood, good remodeling, several fireplaces, and a deck and pool. This may be a probate property, since court confirmation is required. BONUS: Guest house.

Bay Area: Volunteer to Help with the Oil Spill

This week’s oil spill in the San Francisco Bay has gone from bad to worse.  With ribbons of oil and tar stretching ten miles or more, the 58,0000+  gallon spill threatens wildlife, the Farralon Islands, Marin beaches, the crabbing industry, has forced the closing of Angel Island and the suspension of ferry service.  And when reading about this disaster, we can easily become depressed. We can feel pretty helpless, here on dry land, to stop the destruction. But in truth, we can help, and we must. Several volunteer opportunities exist now and will continue to exist; this will not be an easy clean up. Get your hands dirty, and in the process, you just might lift your spirit.

From SFgate 11/08: “The Coast Guard is asking for the public’s help with the oil spill that has fouled San Francisco Bay and local beaches.” Ways to do so:

1. www.owcn.org. People interested in volunteering with the cleanup should visit this site regularly for the most up to date info on the effort.

2. Enviornmental group Baykeeper is collecting a list of interested volunteers here:  www.baykeeper.org.

3. Residents can help authorities track the movement of the spill by calling the private cleanup company, O’Brien’s Group of Southern California at (985) 781-0804.

4. You can report oiled wildlife to this number: (877) 823-6926.

5. Owners of damaged property can submit a claim by calling (888) 850-8486.

And finally, though they are not offering training for volunteers, the California’s Department of Fish and Game is also stepping in to help, and will offer classes today (11/10)  in San Francisco, Sausalito and Richmond, explaining how cleanups are conducted and how to get trained in wildlife recovery.

The classes will be held:

– From 1:30 to 3:30 p.m. at the Marina Bay Yacht Harbor, 1340 Marina Way South, Richmond. (510) 236-1013.

– From 5 to 7 p.m. at the Headlands Institute, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Building 1033, Sausalito. (415) 332-5771.

Photo credit: SFgate/Deanne Fitzmaurice

Palo Alto: Dare I Call Them Low End?

We are missing our Palo Alto maven, Kris Newby, so I thought I would do a feature on single family homes under $1,000,000 in this affluent Mid-Peninsula town, following along with the County Cost Comparison of homes under $1mil that I did earlier this week. But a strange thing happened along the way: There are only 2 homes for sale in this price category in Palo Alto, compared with 50 in Menlo Park, and 20 in Mountain View. Only nearby Atherton and Portola Valley can top that (with no listings under $1,000,000). At $938,000 and $999,000, I have trouble calling them low-end homes.

And what do you get for that price in Palo Alto?

One is an 816 square foot home, built in 1953 with 2 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. Located at 2951 South Court in Midtown, it is your standard rancher that sits on a standard 5000 sf lot. Nothing too terribly special about it, other than it is on a quiet cul-de-sac in the town of Palo Alto. In fact, the listing agent acknowledges that this home is in original condition, and it is probably the smallest home in the area, as well. Price: $938,000

The second home just came on the market Wednesday and you get a lot more bang for your buck. The downside of this home is its location at 305 W. Charleston, where it sits between El Camino and Alma Street. This will get road noise from cars as well as the local trains. But it is a 1933 square foot, three bedroom, two bath house on a 6969 sf lot, with a bonus den. There are no exterior pictures, but it could be an Eichler? Price: $999,000 (Oh and it is open this weekend from 1:30-4:30 both Saturday and Sunday.)

What’s Wrong With This Picture?

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, and these pictures come close. I’ll try to keep my ramblings shorter than that, but having viewed the 9 photos of our Daily Stats leader, I do have plenty to say. The first photo for 1845 Elsie Avenue in Mountain View is of the front of the house. You see two boxes shoved together and painted in an unflattering green two-tone (not to mention the hideous lava rock or stone that adorns the lower portion of the façade). There also appears to be a lack of landscaping with just a lawn and one lone tree. Moving on to photo #2, we see the kitchen, which is described as updated and beautifully maintained. I love the 10-panel wood door with glass and the cabinets are passable, but not high end. Countertops look very ’70s, as does the linoleum. But in all fairness, the price is $699,845 so you can hardly expect cherry cabinetry, granite counters, and tile floors, can you? Photo 3 is so dark, all I can really see is a refrigerator, countertop and through to a light fixture and sliding door. This might be a dining room, but who could tell? The living room is featured in photo 4, with what appears to be a blue carpet. The front window is large and lets a lot of light in, but appears to be the original and not an updated dual pane. Photo 5 is one bedroom, with wallpaper wainscoting and a very dark ceiling. I am hoping it is original wood not burgundy paint, but the photographer did a great disservice in this and other photos by not properly depicting rooms and highlighting the better features. The bathroom in photo 6 has been updated according to the description, but all I see is wallpaper, wallpaper, wallpaper. Not a very neutral wall, but I realize this can be easily remedied. Photo 7 shows a second bedroom, with blue (and I mean blue) carpeting and wallpaper wainscoting with contrasting wallpapered walls. The wood sash windows look nice; however they may be original as well, as opposed to newer dual pane. The last two photos don’t really give us much. One is the exterior entryway to the home where you might notice that the siding is either original wood or something out of a Sears catalog, and the last one showing the house numbers on an archway above a fence (very telling!). Sarcasm aside, the home is priced well for a 3/2 of 1250 sf on a standard lot. The home appears more than livable and really could use cosmetic upgrading, although nothing major appears in the images. There is no photo of the rear yard, so that may need some work. And the property comes in on target with both the Zillow Valuation and Value Range. The home has been in the same family for 50 years, so there is no recent sale to speak of and no short sale or repo to deal with. On the market 51 days, it might be worth an in-person visit to assess the overall condition of the property and the neighborhood. And I said all that in 527 words!

Recent Sweet Digs Posts:
Getting a Foot in the Door
San Jose Skyline Continues to Soar with Axis, in 2008
SF and Daly City: Condos on the Cheap, part 1

Photo courtesy of pete@eastbaywild.com/Flickr

County Cost Comparison: Part III

Preview »Here we are in week 3 of our series on county cost comparisons. We began with homes at or under $500,000, moved to the $750,000 price point last week, and now we have hit a cool mil (with search parameters between $990,000 and $1,000,000). I originally chose two cities randomly in each county (except for SF), and I am using the same cities each week to be consistent, and only single family homes will be analyzed (no condo, townhouse or TIC). And to reiterate: each price point from now on will have more than one property at or near that dollar amount, so I will be choosing one based on…what I myself would buy if I had to choose. This could be based on square footage, architectural style, location, or my favorite: a kick-ass kitchen. I realize this is a bit subjective (well, more than a bit), but there is no real objective way to do it that I could think of. Last week we had several people suggest that my choices were unreasonable or “horrible” because one had only 1 bathroom. While I disagree, should you think of a better way to do this, let me know in the Comment Section and I will reconsider my selfish ways.

Having reached the $1,000,000 category, we finally have a home to compare in Orinda, which strangely had no listings the last two weeks. Today Orinda had 2 between $990k and $1m and they were very different—a smaller 2/2 which is on a 31,0000 sf lot and a bit more remote and one that is slightly larger with 4 bedrooms on an 11000 sf lot. It was a tough call. Here is the full list:

Mountain View: 148 College Street, 4/3, 1873 sf, 15 acre lot $995,000 DOM: 8. I chose this home because I liked the computer-generated modern design, however there are quite a few contradictory things going on. The design looks new but the listing shows it as 50 years old. The map shows a standard lot, but the listing shows the home being on 15 acres (more like .15). It is a detached SFR but the listing shows that the “homes” are well appointed, but the neighboring home for sale at 154 College is nothing like this home, so I am unsure what “homes” they are referring to. Still, good chi and a full basement media room make this house a winner.
Santa Clara: 3303 Duke Court, 5/3, 2116 sf, 10,454 sf lot, $995,000 DOM: 31. Of the 3 homes between $990,000 and $1mil, this one seemed to have the best location, largest lot, and largest home. A traditional style home, it is located on a cul-de-sac and has a large yard with bonus playhouse.

Read the rest of this entry »