6 ms·

Here is the home: http://www.trulia.com/homes/California/San_Francisco/sold/7118191-355-Bocana-St-San-Francisco-CA-94110 http://www.trulia.com/homes/California/

Here is the home: http://www.trulia.com/homes/California/San_Francisco/sold/7118191-355-Bocana-St-San-Francisco-CA-94110 http://www.trulia.com/homes/California/San_Francisco/sold/71... Taxes are 11,043 with a value of 904,085. $2145 looks like an EXTREMELY low rent for a house of this size in San Francisco. (half of the rent is just property taxes.) The landlord was likely losing money keeping it rented at $2145 even if he owned it free and clear.

jld 12y ago
There are multiple units in the house.
- colanderman 12y ago
  Correction: were. (The fact that the landlord trashed the other unit is key to his shenanigans.)
thearn4 12y ago
> 1 full bath, 1,900 sqft Single-Family Home > a value of $904,085 I understand the nature of supply and demand and the appeal of living in an area full of like minded people, but as someone in a flyover state, this absolutely blows my mind.
- freehunter 12y ago
  Shoot, in the Midwest I have an apartment with about that much square footage, two full baths, and I think I'm getting ripped off at $1400/mo. Did I mention I moved in less than a year ago, and was the first resident in the building, so it's brand new? I understand San Francisco is the home of technology, but get your stuff sorted out, seriously. Is it worth being in a city that absolutely hates you? A city that would do anything to make your lives miserable? I wonder what would happen if Apple and Google packed up and moved to, I dunno, Milwaukee?
  - thearn4 12y ago
    It's a good question. It's clearly worth it for some. For me, I own a 1800 sq. ft. home on 4 acres outside of Cleveland valued at $170k, in an area with excellent schools. The career prospects in NY and SF are far better, but I'd have a really hard time giving this up.
  - knorby 12y ago
    I lived in Chicago before moving to SF a few years ago, and I can't imagine ever going back. There is an argument about jobs, people, and companies that's complex, but people pay so much for so little space because it really is that valuable. The weather is near perfect year round, the food/beer/wine is astounding, the landscape is glorious, and so on. Midwest winters, particularly as climate change is making them worse, would be enough to keep me here, but my quality of life has gone up in about every other way possible. People pay the premium because it really is that good. If a big tech company decided to move to Milwaukee, every other tech company would just soak up all the people lost.
    - freehunter 12y ago
      Is the weather, food/beer/wine, and landscape really that much better than Santa Cruz? Is it that much better than Raleigh? Or Austin? Or any other city that isn't San Francisco? Besides the benefits you might get from SF, let's be realistic: the city doesn't want you. It doesn't want any of you. The only benefit you're getting is the people who moved there just like you, and the city doesn't want them, either. If they wanted you, they would let you build houses, or let you run buses without getting rocks thrown at you. They would welcome you and do what it takes to make your stay pleasant. I don't live in SF, but I frequent HN so I hear all the stories. If half of what I hear here is true, you're a bunch of people living in a city where you have massively overstayed your welcome. And it seems like no one has realized it yet. Please, tell me I'm wrong. Take a look at your rent, at your city policies, your Senator, and at the people around you (not the tech workers, but the other residents of SF), take a look at them and tell me I'm wrong. I don't want to be right, but that's the only impression I can get from stories like this.
      - 12y ago
- curun1r 12y ago
  That's in a somewhat out-of-the-way part of SF. More central/desirable neighborhoods are considerably more. Examples: http://www.trulia.com/property/3191871255-1097-Howard-St-302-San-Francisco-CA-94103 http://www.trulia.com/property/3191871255-1097-Howard-St-302... http://www.trulia.com/property/3006745092-2801-Jackson-St-301-San-Francisco-CA-94115 http://www.trulia.com/property/3006745092-2801-Jackson-St-30... http://www.trulia.com/property/3191823695-425-1st-St-5005-San-Francisco-CA-94105 http://www.trulia.com/property/3191823695-425-1st-St-5005-Sa... http://www.trulia.com/property/3190475980-2145-Powell-St-2151-San-Francisco-CA-94133 http://www.trulia.com/property/3190475980-2145-Powell-St-215...
charlesdm 12y ago
A million dollars sure doesn't get you a lot these days.
- mbillie1 12y ago
  http://www.upout.com/blog/san-francisco-3/5-castles-that-are-cheaper-than-an-apartment-in-san-francisco http://www.upout.com/blog/san-francisco-3/5-castles-that-are...
  - kchoudhu 12y ago
    That Italian villa/castle thing looks delicious. I wonder what's wrong with it?
cmdrfred 12y ago
I live in a pretty expensive area and $2145 is high for a one bathroom, and if there are multiple units isn't that essentially a boarding house?
- GabrielF00 12y ago
  From the link (click see more on her post), this was a 2-unit house where the owners removed the second bathroom and claimed that they had converted the second unit into storage space, thus allowing them to say that the building was a single unit and exempt from rent control.
dgfv1 12y ago
It was a multi unit building. Also holy shit that place looks like a dump.
BashiBazouk 12y ago
Zillow has it going up in tax last year from $1,500 a year but it hasn't been sold since 1976. Either the sale is slow to show up or someone just inherited the house without a trust. In which case getting the renters out and selling is not surprising.
- cowsandmilk 12y ago
  I'm not an expert on California law, but the property changed hands on 12/30/2014 Grantor: SHUKRY & VERA LAMA RVC LVG TR Grantee: LAMA NADIA V
  - spiralpolitik 12y ago
    Simply way around Prop 13. The property is owned by a company not a person. To sell the property you sell the company. As far as property tax was concerned the property hasn't changed hands. Profit. Prop 13 was never about making sure Grandma didn't get taxed out of her home, it was about making sure corporations didn't pay property tax.
kchoudhu 12y ago
Wow, what a dump. And I thought I was getting ripped off in NY...
mmarx 12y ago
> The landlord was likely losing money keeping it rented at $2145 even if he owned it free and clear. This conveniently omits the fact that there used to be two units in that house, so the actual rent would certainly have been closer to double that amount.
- TheHypnotist 12y ago
  Judging by the series of downvoted comments in this thread, are you surprised? Apparently circumventing rent control is OK amongst the HN crowd.
  - necrodawg 12y ago
    Cause libertarians.
    - TheHypnotist 12y ago
      Until their rent quadruples. I'd like to be there an here them say "Welp, free market dictates my rent going up 400% and that's okay!"
- jsprogrammer 12y ago
  It also conveniently omitted any calculation about how the owner is 'losing money', despite there being a ~$14,000 positive difference between what the tenant is paying per year and the taxes due.
  - blake_himself 12y ago
    Losing, compared to what he could have been making.
  - WalterSear 12y ago
    Nelson: Hey, look how much Skinner makes. 25,000 dollars a year! Bart: Lets see, he's 40 years old, times 25 grand.. woah! He's a millionaire!
mynameishere 12y ago
Looks like something worth exactly as much as a day's rental of bulldozers, excavators, and dump trucks. I'm not sure if San Franciscans are aware of how horribly they are being abused. Go somewhere else.
eyeareque 12y ago
The property taxes are based on the price the owner bought the house for. Not the current value.

jld 12y ago

There are multiple units in the house.

colanderman 12y ago
Correction: were. (The fact that the landlord trashed the other unit is key to his shenanigans.)

thearn4 12y ago

> 1 full bath, 1,900 sqft Single-Family Home > a value of $904,085 I understand the nature of supply and demand and the appeal of living in an area full of like minded people, but as someone in a flyover state, this absolutely blows my mind.

freehunter 12y ago
Shoot, in the Midwest I have an apartment with about that much square footage, two full baths, and I think I'm getting ripped off at $1400/mo. Did I mention I moved in less than a year ago, and was the first resident in the building, so it's brand new? I understand San Francisco is the home of technology, but get your stuff sorted out, seriously. Is it worth being in a city that absolutely hates you? A city that would do anything to make your lives miserable? I wonder what would happen if Apple and Google packed up and moved to, I dunno, Milwaukee?
- thearn4 12y ago
  It's a good question. It's clearly worth it for some. For me, I own a 1800 sq. ft. home on 4 acres outside of Cleveland valued at $170k, in an area with excellent schools. The career prospects in NY and SF are far better, but I'd have a really hard time giving this up.
- knorby 12y ago
  I lived in Chicago before moving to SF a few years ago, and I can't imagine ever going back. There is an argument about jobs, people, and companies that's complex, but people pay so much for so little space because it really is that valuable. The weather is near perfect year round, the food/beer/wine is astounding, the landscape is glorious, and so on. Midwest winters, particularly as climate change is making them worse, would be enough to keep me here, but my quality of life has gone up in about every other way possible. People pay the premium because it really is that good. If a big tech company decided to move to Milwaukee, every other tech company would just soak up all the people lost.
  - freehunter 12y ago
    Is the weather, food/beer/wine, and landscape really that much better than Santa Cruz? Is it that much better than Raleigh? Or Austin? Or any other city that isn't San Francisco? Besides the benefits you might get from SF, let's be realistic: the city doesn't want you. It doesn't want any of you. The only benefit you're getting is the people who moved there just like you, and the city doesn't want them, either. If they wanted you, they would let you build houses, or let you run buses without getting rocks thrown at you. They would welcome you and do what it takes to make your stay pleasant. I don't live in SF, but I frequent HN so I hear all the stories. If half of what I hear here is true, you're a bunch of people living in a city where you have massively overstayed your welcome. And it seems like no one has realized it yet. Please, tell me I'm wrong. Take a look at your rent, at your city policies, your Senator, and at the people around you (not the tech workers, but the other residents of SF), take a look at them and tell me I'm wrong. I don't want to be right, but that's the only impression I can get from stories like this.
    - 12y ago
curun1r 12y ago
That's in a somewhat out-of-the-way part of SF. More central/desirable neighborhoods are considerably more. Examples: http://www.trulia.com/property/3191871255-1097-Howard-St-302-San-Francisco-CA-94103 http://www.trulia.com/property/3191871255-1097-Howard-St-302... http://www.trulia.com/property/3006745092-2801-Jackson-St-301-San-Francisco-CA-94115 http://www.trulia.com/property/3006745092-2801-Jackson-St-30... http://www.trulia.com/property/3191823695-425-1st-St-5005-San-Francisco-CA-94105 http://www.trulia.com/property/3191823695-425-1st-St-5005-Sa... http://www.trulia.com/property/3190475980-2145-Powell-St-2151-San-Francisco-CA-94133 http://www.trulia.com/property/3190475980-2145-Powell-St-215...

charlesdm 12y ago

A million dollars sure doesn't get you a lot these days.

mbillie1 12y ago
http://www.upout.com/blog/san-francisco-3/5-castles-that-are-cheaper-than-an-apartment-in-san-francisco http://www.upout.com/blog/san-francisco-3/5-castles-that-are...
- kchoudhu 12y ago
  That Italian villa/castle thing looks delicious. I wonder what's wrong with it?

cmdrfred 12y ago

I live in a pretty expensive area and $2145 is high for a one bathroom, and if there are multiple units isn't that essentially a boarding house?

GabrielF00 12y ago
From the link (click see more on her post), this was a 2-unit house where the owners removed the second bathroom and claimed that they had converted the second unit into storage space, thus allowing them to say that the building was a single unit and exempt from rent control.

dgfv1 12y ago

It was a multi unit building. Also holy shit that place looks like a dump.

BashiBazouk 12y ago

Zillow has it going up in tax last year from $1,500 a year but it hasn't been sold since 1976. Either the sale is slow to show up or someone just inherited the house without a trust. In which case getting the renters out and selling is not surprising.

cowsandmilk 12y ago
I'm not an expert on California law, but the property changed hands on 12/30/2014 Grantor: SHUKRY & VERA LAMA RVC LVG TR Grantee: LAMA NADIA V
- spiralpolitik 12y ago
  Simply way around Prop 13. The property is owned by a company not a person. To sell the property you sell the company. As far as property tax was concerned the property hasn't changed hands. Profit. Prop 13 was never about making sure Grandma didn't get taxed out of her home, it was about making sure corporations didn't pay property tax.

kchoudhu 12y ago

Wow, what a dump. And I thought I was getting ripped off in NY...

mmarx 12y ago

> The landlord was likely losing money keeping it rented at $2145 even if he owned it free and clear. This conveniently omits the fact that there used to be two units in that house, so the actual rent would certainly have been closer to double that amount.

TheHypnotist 12y ago
Judging by the series of downvoted comments in this thread, are you surprised? Apparently circumventing rent control is OK amongst the HN crowd.
- necrodawg 12y ago
  Cause libertarians.
  - TheHypnotist 12y ago
    Until their rent quadruples. I'd like to be there an here them say "Welp, free market dictates my rent going up 400% and that's okay!"
jsprogrammer 12y ago
It also conveniently omitted any calculation about how the owner is 'losing money', despite there being a ~$14,000 positive difference between what the tenant is paying per year and the taxes due.
- blake_himself 12y ago
  Losing, compared to what he could have been making.
- WalterSear 12y ago
  Nelson: Hey, look how much Skinner makes. 25,000 dollars a year! Bart: Lets see, he's 40 years old, times 25 grand.. woah! He's a millionaire!

mynameishere 12y ago

Looks like something worth exactly as much as a day's rental of bulldozers, excavators, and dump trucks. I'm not sure if San Franciscans are aware of how horribly they are being abused. Go somewhere else.

eyeareque 12y ago

The property taxes are based on the price the owner bought the house for. Not the current value.