free4now
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2005
- Messages
- 1,228
I've got a bit of a mystery involving the vagaries of tax assessor records for a new condo development. In case anyone wants to help solve the mystery, here are the details.
I'm trying to figure out what my landlord paid for the condo I'm renting now. I went to the San Francisco Tax Collector website, and looked up my unit. It said the value is $245k, which seems very low given that comparable 1br units are selling new for high $600's. When my new construction building was opened in early 2007, 12 of the 80 units were slated "Below Market Rate" units; the city makes them sell at prices affordable on the median income. News releases say the BMR units cost from $170k to $309k. My landlord had told me when I moved that my unit was not a BMR unit, and that she had paid market rate for it. But she was evasive when I asked how much she paid. My guess is that this is indeed a BMR unit, and that she just lied so as not to appear "declasse".
But what's mysterious is that nearly all the units on the tax rolls are listed at below market prices. 53 of the 80 units are visible on the tax site, and ALL of them have prices below $500k. From the start these units were advertised new for $500k to 1 million. On domania.com six out of the seven listed sales are above $525k, with one outlier at $275k that I assume was a relative sale or something anomalous.
I can understand that the recent flips haven't made it on the tax rolls yet, but I'm still puzzled by what is there.
Out of those tax values, 29 of them are below $300k, 14 are between $300k-400k, and 11 are $400k-500k. I did verify that the tax collector supposedly uses the FULL Value of sales.
So the mystery is whether the housing authority somehow quadrupled the number of BMR units from 12 to ~48 without telling anyone, or if these low prices represent some other kind of sweetheart deals.
If anyone wants the street address to do more analysis, just PM me.
I'm trying to figure out what my landlord paid for the condo I'm renting now. I went to the San Francisco Tax Collector website, and looked up my unit. It said the value is $245k, which seems very low given that comparable 1br units are selling new for high $600's. When my new construction building was opened in early 2007, 12 of the 80 units were slated "Below Market Rate" units; the city makes them sell at prices affordable on the median income. News releases say the BMR units cost from $170k to $309k. My landlord had told me when I moved that my unit was not a BMR unit, and that she had paid market rate for it. But she was evasive when I asked how much she paid. My guess is that this is indeed a BMR unit, and that she just lied so as not to appear "declasse".
But what's mysterious is that nearly all the units on the tax rolls are listed at below market prices. 53 of the 80 units are visible on the tax site, and ALL of them have prices below $500k. From the start these units were advertised new for $500k to 1 million. On domania.com six out of the seven listed sales are above $525k, with one outlier at $275k that I assume was a relative sale or something anomalous.
I can understand that the recent flips haven't made it on the tax rolls yet, but I'm still puzzled by what is there.
Out of those tax values, 29 of them are below $300k, 14 are between $300k-400k, and 11 are $400k-500k. I did verify that the tax collector supposedly uses the FULL Value of sales.
So the mystery is whether the housing authority somehow quadrupled the number of BMR units from 12 to ~48 without telling anyone, or if these low prices represent some other kind of sweetheart deals.
If anyone wants the street address to do more analysis, just PM me.
Last edited:
