9048 (on left), 9052 (right) and 9056 (no pic) Harland Ave.
9048 Harland Ave
2BR/1BA, 800 sq ft
$725,000
On market: 90 days (no price change)
Last Sale: 1973 (?)
9052 Harland Ave
2BR/1BA, 1005 sq ft
$749,000
On market: 90 days (no price change)
Last Sale (?): 1979 - $210,000
9056 Harland Ave
3BR/1BA, 1230 sq ft.
Listed 2/08 ($789k?)
Re-listed several times
Withdrawn 2/09
Thanks to a couple Anons who alerted us to these properties, including:
There was a for sale sign at 9056 Harland but it's gone the last I saw, and it was last being offered at $789K. It, along with 9048 and 9052, were a trifecta presentation early last year for an outrageous $3 million. No offers, so then these individual listings appeared. And, yes, I think the owner better reconsider the current asking prices.
In doing a little research, these properties do appear to be owned by the same person. PropertyShark shows the last sale(s) happening in 1973, although Redfin shows a last sale on 9052 Harland in 1979.
The two active listings reflect that both properties are being rented on a month-to-month basis.
I won't speculate about the motivations of the seller, but with last purchases in the 1970s, even given upgrades/renovations, you'd have to think these places are cash flowing nicely. There don't seem to be any additional "transactions" for the properties suggesting someone was using them as an ATM during the funny money times, so all things being equal, you'd assume the seller has room to move on the prices.
With 90 days on the market and no price cuts, sounds like the seller needs to get serious. Would it surprise anyone to see these ultimately go into the mid to low 600s (if not lower)? As a "reality check", a purchase price of $650,000 means a (pre-tax) monthly nut, including property taxes, of approx $3500. Anyone think these are renting for even close to that?
1 comment:
I don't have access to Redfin which--last time I tried--won't work with Safari. (And I'm stubborn, so I won't change to Firefox). I use the County Assessor's site as my low-budget substitute. It shows December 30, 1993 recording dates for each of these three properties, so something must have happened with them at that time. Perhaps they changed hands in probate. They were all evaluated at safely less than $200K at that time which seems in line with what I remember seeing when I was looking at West Hollywood West & Greenacre/Poinsettia houses that year. Unremodeled houses in WHW ran between $275K and $300K and similar houses in Greenacre/Poinsettia ran between $230K and $260K. In those days, the much smaller size of the Norma Triangle houses was indeed reflected in their prices.
There's certainly no need to feel bad for this seller who has such a low basis in these houses that he or she'll make a LOT of $$ whenever he wakes up to the reality of the current market and stops asking for yesterday's price. If I were in the market for a Norma Triangle house I would make a low ball offer on one of these places and just keep coming back every month or so with the same (or even a gradually declining) low ball offer until the seller starts to get the picture.
It will be a nice thing for the future of Norma Triangle if these houses are purchased by different people thus eliminating the danger of their replacement with a big condo building.
Post a Comment