San Francisco home selling for $488,000 but you can't move in until 2053
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ก.ย. 2024
- The 1,100-square-foot home in San Francisco's quaint, upscale Russian Hill neighborhood has three bedrooms and two baths. The price tag and unusual requests are definitely raising eyebrows among neighbors and prospective buyers. abc7ne.ws/3Ryfg7Z
#realestate #sanfrancisco #housing #house #abc7news
There was an old woman in France who sold her house to a younger buyer who could have it after she died. She outlived him, and he never took possession.
The French lady was in her 90’s, he was in his 40’s, so can’t blame him for being optimistic. Who knew she would keep going into 120’s while he died first in his 70’s, which is normal life expectancy for men. I think his surviving wife still need to take over to financially support the very old lady when he past. Life can be so unpredictable.
In such a scenario if I where the seller I would be concerned the buyer might try to take me out early.
@@jaker3151That guy was banking in her having so ke from teenage hood and being 90 when he made the deal to pay her to live inside the property (which she owned) as along as he could take possession (basically inherit) of the property upon her death. He died of natural causes in his 70s and she when unto being celebrated for being the oldest human alive. 😂😂😂 He thought he was playing her, but Karma had other plans!
It’s called "vente en viager", it’s a practice in France
Wasn’t she the oldest person to ever live
Plot twist the tenant is the seller
Good one!
Exactly what I was thinking. How can you secure housing for 30 years for dirt cheap and also get a nice chunk of change for your retirement and reduce your personal liability… game the housing laws.
This comment deserved so many more likes.
That’s exactly what I think lol
Not a plot twist. The writing is written on the wall. Probably childless elderly so why not cash out and have a place to stay until they pass? Actually it's a win win. Most likely it will be bid to 800k - 1m you heard from the here first
People are getting creative with their scams these days. Why would anyone want to pay for upkeep/repairs/property taxes on a house they can't utilize for 30 years?
Because math is not their strong suit.
As a long term investment like a 30-year bond. They could probably sell it for 3x value in 15 years.
@@GizmoMaltese Highly doubt someone will want to buy a property in 15 years when $417 a month won't even cover monthly utilities cost and the tenant has a lease that'll last another 15 years. Also, the bond has a negative return in the context of accrued interest.
@@GurpreetSingh-et8ix Property value appreciation gives you a positive interest return. Do we know if the rent includes utilities? I doubt it. Also, tenant could be elderly and is unlikely to survive the full 30 years. All these factors must be considered. Might be worth it for someone who wants to park their cash.
@@GizmoMaltese launder money you mean
$400 won't even cover a fraction of property taxes and property maintenance.
That's the point
"Take it or leave"
That's why it's so below market rate (but probably still not low enough to compensate for the terms).
$417/month is insulting, I agree, but can’t the owner raise the rent once they purchase the home?
@@TheBigJawn 1:06 in the video, the tenant pays the same amount of rent until they move out. it's in the agreement
This administration is putting many families in difficult situations. A lot of people are financially struggling to live, put a roof over their head and put food on the table. Things are getting worse these days, if you don't find means of multiplying your money you might wake up a day to realise you didn't plan well for yourself and family…
I’ve been diligently working, saving and contributing towards early retirement and financial freedom, but since covid outbreak, the economy so far has caused my portfolio to underperform, do I keep contributing to my 401k or look at alternative sectors to meet my goals?
@@charlotterayeee Understanding your financial needs and making effective decisions is very essential. If I could advise you, you should seek the help of a financial advisor. For the record, working with one has been the best for my finances...
@@AllisonSherman657 How can one find a verifiable financial planner? I would not mind looking up the professional that helped you. I will be retiring in two years and I might need some management on my much larger portfolio. Don't want to take any chances.
@@charlotterayeee *Mr Gary Mason Brooks* is the licensed advisor I use. Just research the name. You’d find necessary details to work with a correspondence to set up an appointment.
Wow I can't believe you guys are discussing about *Gary mason brooks* , I once met him at a conference in California 2019, I can testify that he’s very good in trading..
It’s pretty clever. The current owner, once sold, becomes the renter and set his own rent price lol
You’re right. Its pretty clever.
@@byefelicia8632 Zillow listing: _"...Former male owner, over 100 years old died by natural cause in home..."_
It's pretty clever or the buyer is really stupid.
And gets $488k
pretty clever? dude are you stupid? this is some shit a stoner would come up with to help their parents pay the mortgage 😂
The sucker buyer needs to be willing to wait until they die before they can take possession. The cost of maintaining the house will exceed the rent of $417. It's a legal scam.
100%
And believe it or not, there will be a sucker that will buy it ! They're there lined up to see it already !!! 😎
It's not a scam. It's just a bad deal.
The buyer might expedite the renter's end of lease.
@@Bread996A bad deal that requires a sucker = scam.
Too risky, there’s other costs associated with owning property that a meager $417 won’t cover. Not to mention, a lot can happen in 30 years.
Absolutely
If you account for inflation its basically a 3.5M dollar home with 30 years of wear and tear that you have to pay for. Because that 488k would be about $4M properly invested in 2053 while it would be about 1M inflation adjusted so you are paying 3M in loss of possible investment gains and 488k for your principal then you need to add in all the rehab costs for 30 years of wear and tear on top of that. I wouldnt do it
With crimes, homelessness, drug users and taxes, California cities are turning into the next Detroit. Houses and neighborhoods become abandoned. The housing markets is going downward not upward.
$417/mo won't even cover the property taxes
@@SafeEffective-ls2pl And insurance which keeps rising every year!
I wish my rent was $415
I used to pay rent for $400ish a month, many moons ago.
I will settle for even double that!
I pay that but with roomies lol I don’t mind
I pay 700 I love at home with my family. It's bank greed. It's no longer black people getting redlined. Btw it's also the people who invest in the area I have nothing against Asians. But I know a few who buy areas of land. Houses flip them. Sell them to their friends lol😂 🤧 more like Patsys. Rinse repeat. Make the area nicer. Then you have places where all the people are renters. And because of all the culuding before. That first person who owned the house is one city counsel.😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 It's not just Asians btw. Thought you will notice if you go to an Asian store. Like the ones in the malls. No not like mall malls but more than just a super market and fast food joint. They are own by the same people they all cousins funn😂😂😂😢😢😢😢 it's kind of a pyramid scheme no one talks about
One of my friends lives in an apartment like that. It was even simpler when he was still married. The single bedroom apartments in the city are already crossing $1,000 a month, its such a better deal.
30 years? I have already gone from this planet
😂😂 what a weird case in America .
Stay out of Cali yes I’m in Cali to this happens in stupid ass cali
Same
Good
Skill issues.
Sad how $488k back in the 90s was considered expensive.
Not to mention it was a much better place to live in those days.
Yup, remember the kid in the movie Blank Check bought that mansion for $250K 🤣
It's still considered expensive to me ha
So u have it now? Doofus
@@MariaMaria-sr8zgto a majority
Call it a scam. Don't even bother or do business with that real estate company
*No man is too rich til you leave the earth you leave with nothing*
well at least the rich achieved something in life before that person dies. his kids will probably inherit the fortunes and pass on to the next generation. cycle of life.
true.but.i.wont.die.poor
We live in this earth, we gotta play our part...He's living life while he is still alive...
If you are not in the financial market space right now, you are making a huge mistake. I understand that it could be due to ignorance, but if you want to make your money work for you...prevent inflation
@@KinnanThornburyInteresting, This is superb! Information, as a noob it gets quite difficult to handle all of this and staying informed is a major cause, how do you go about this are you a pro Investor?
As a real estate agent in California, nothing about this makes any sense for a buyer. Regardless of all the different scenarios I’m reading in the comments, this is all around ridiculous. The “tenants” which are clearly the homeowners, would be the only winners in this situation with rent lower than a car payment.
Imagine having a luxury cali home for less than a cheap luxury wristwatch payment.
You can be a half-witted, smooth-brained, , knuckle dragging, mouth breathing moron from land of gimps and this deal still wouldn’t make sense 😂
Why are you paying 1.6k a month for a vehicle?
@nuevomexico505
Oh, my GAWD... 417 a month in rent? I thought that was weekly payments...
I had the wrong numbers.
Well it depends on the language in the contract and the reason you purchase the home. $500k for a home that could very well be worth 10 to 20* more in the future could be a very good investment for your children. But again depends on the language in the contract
Why would I want to pay a mortgage on a property for 30 years when I can’t live in it, have to pay rent somewhere else, and have to pay property taxes? It’s insane.
It'll be worth 3-10 million in 30 years. That is why. It's a long term investment.
@@msorge74 0 chance that the money you put into repairs, taxes, insurance, etc that this property revenue will outpace just putting that money into the market for 30 years. They'll pay 1 million in property tax alone before they even step foot in the place.
@@gringoboy701who said whoever buying wants to set foot in there?
The prospective buyer would be someone super wealthy who is not looking to actually live in the house
@@msorge74bro who’s buying that house for 10 mil in 30 years? Be real dawg..
The deal breaker is really the low rental. That wont even cover the usual annual repairs. Project home owners insurance, repairs rewiring etc over 30 years. This is no deal! It is subsidising another persons lifestyle at your expense.
Well said! I didn’t even think about that! Thirty years is a very long time for this so called investment
Nevermind the repairs costs, property tax will be really high. At $500,000, this will be at least $6,000 a year in property taxes.
@edwoo1005 the property tax assessment is a lot higher
Taxes will be way more
@@yolyprog2561yet you have a 401k
what makes this deal so outrageous is the $417 current rent. Not only is that more appropriate to a property selling for about 50k - 80k, if that amount stays fixed for thirty years it won't be enough to pay the property taxes or pay for basic upkeep.
Anybody buying this property today will be feeding a negative cashflow for the next thirty years (or until the current tenant passes away, which may or may not happen anytime soon, we don't know anything about the person) in the faint hopes of cashing in big decades from now.
No, it's not the outrageous thing is you can't own it and use it until 2053. There's ways of getting that tenant out. But you can't move in is basically waiting until the seller dies and then you get it at no more use to him.
@@shipwreck8847 you don't know anything about real estate. Inflation in over 30 years will screw you over. Once you own that home in 30 years you will pay a supplementary tax and it will not be pretty along with the property tax. Oh wait SF is known for earthquakes so if there's one major earthquake your investment is gone.
@@wittypoker stfu you idiot. i own several homes. i own more than you. just stfu. you're basically giving them a free loan. that's the thing.
Ill take it but i refuse to pay until 2103
😂😂
I think I get it. It’s actually quite clever and savvy. I’m interested to see if more people come up with this plan, to keep the banks from profiting. It’s essentially a reverse mortgage to a person rather than a bank.
I wrote the same thing but you phrased it much better. Bingo and spot on.
Yes, genious. Probably nobody wants to buy the property, which is the owner wanted.
Seems lile a Rent to own scam, you pay rent for 30 years and then its yours IF you even make it 30 years! By then who would have replaced the roof and kept up with the maintenance??...I would not go for it!
@@jose09841 even if the property was inhabitable, the land alone will be worth double in 30 years from now.
@@bbmak0the average price of a house is 2 million
They’re probably older and don’t want to move
Houses don’t stay on the market long in SF
The fact that anyone showed up for this shit shows you how hard the fall will be.
And it's a-comin.
Crash bro!!!
if you want to avoid a market crash just increase your potassium intake. Simple.
@@jesusdiaz9176a banana a day keeps the crash away.
Look around you, 80% of society took the Cl0tShots for a free D0nut, there's plenty of morons to go around these days. Unvaxxed Chad checking in.
😂 Yeah because it can't be that area of California is desirable right ?
The rent doesn’t even cover real estate taxes. Pay $500k and then lose $ for another 30 years. The only buyer is the Mob 😂.
I mean the new owner could take a mortgage out on the house for triple what they paid for this house, use that money to buy up more property and rentals. They also get 144k in "rent" over the years. So its not a complete loss.
Tenant mysterious goes missing LOL
Exactly what I was thinking. Happens all time 🤷🏻♂️
I looked up the tax history and taxes went from 1,700 in 2022 to 17,000 in 2023 no wonder it’s for sale the rent at $417 a month needs to be at 1,417 just to pay the taxes lol wow 🤯 ok now I understand rent control and tenants protection and all but this is highway robbery and unfair to the owners!
Who has not experienced rent increases in one way shape or from in the us to make it ok for this individual to continue paying 1920’s rent price in 2023 come on!
biden tax hike!
ah yes isnt it nice when democrats have finally ruined everything
How did the tax jump thousands in just 1 year? Usually taxes go up about $1K a year. Unless lots of work was done to the home, which I highly doubt, it does t make sense. This whole thing is weird lol horrible buy
It's a unique juxtaposition. Usually the tenants are the ones being exploited. Now it's the other way around. That is, if anyone makes the purchase. I don't think anyone will unless they can evict the tenant.
@@Sweetheartbabez maybe prop 13? since property taxes in cali are pegged to a 2% increase each year (i think) to the original value of the home, if it was sold, the property would have been reevaluated resulting in such a high increase.
The rent being charged will not come anywhere close to what the buyer has to pay in property taxes and mortgage.
It's like a cash out option of a reverse mortgage.
What are you talking about.
Hate to see what San Francisco will look like in 30 years
💩
And what are the odds an earthquake doesn't bring it down in the next three decades?
$417 for rent 30 years god damn what i gotta do for a deal like that..
The rent wouldn’t even cover taxes
$417 dollars for rent is wild specially because you’re not accounting the inflation 30 years from now
To all the buyers willing to do this:
I have some ocean front property in Arizona. From the front porch, you can see the sea. It is so pretty. $488,000.
Bonus- you can take possession in 30 days. Before that time, I'm taking a trip to Costa Rica. 😮
I've got some bridges in NY for them as well!
I hear Arizona has such beautiful beaches - sand further than the eye can see
@@megsley😂😂
Trip to Nigeria.
yes, the home is going through family issues, the original owner made sure that part of his family has a place to live in after they pass away, the other part of the family wants to sell it because they don't want to pay the property taxes and just get their share. whoever purchases this house will have to look at it as a 30 year investment property- it is an interesting but sad story. personally I wouldn't touch this home with a ten foot pole, but I am sure someone will buy it.
By law, the new owner can evict the tenant if it’ll be the owner’s primary residence. Doesn’t matter what the current tenants lease is but dealing with the SF eviction court is going probably be a long and annoying process.
Not on this one, Ellis Act doesn't apply, trust me if you could Ellis Act, this would have been sold over a 1million, Basically, the way the contract is written tenants own the place until 2053 and then ownership rights revert back to the title holder.
@@futurethinking there Might be ways around it. I have heard of similar things in the past. But, after Lengthily Court battles back and forth. The Buyer won in them, since it was just not possible to have Legal Lease Span over a certain amount of years.
Let's see who's dumb enough to purchase this property.. 😂
If my son was born today, I would buy it. But the time he is 30 he would own the house free and clear. $488k is a steal at that location.
@@jml9550yep.
Investment companies. They have billions. This is a drop in the bucket.
Who’s dumb enough to buy a house in San Francisco?
I'm sure after the Americans are ethnically and culturally replaced it will be productive again.
very smart to avoid property tax.
A website said the property's tax is $17K. Let's assume it's $5K for maintenance, which I think is fair. Lets assume $2K in home owners insurance and $2K for contingencies. So, expected cost for the property is about $27K per year. Purchase price is about $500K, but actual value without that tenant restriction is $1.4 million. Average annual appreciation for the house is probably about 8%. So the house appreciates $100K per year and annual cost is $27K (if you pay cash). It could make sense if you have enough cash on hand, and are really patient.
Some corporations buy so many houses, and an individual decides to play a different game. I hope this story keeps getting updated because I genuinely want to know who buys this and why.
What a terrible investment! $400 rent for 30 years is not even near the amount of property taxes the new owner will have to pay over the course that 30 years. Not only that, San Francisco has historically had earthquakes and fires, so the home may not even be standing after 30 years
Buyer could drop dead in 2 years 🙄
Your point? Oh wait. You're one of those emoji clowns. Intellect is not your thing.
I was just thinking the exact same thing....lol
Tenant could drop dead in 2 years 🎉
There is something called a trust and will.
Why can not the owner opt for owner move-in evictions?
A half million dollars for an eleven hundred square foot house doesn't seem like such a bargain even if you could move right in. What does a cardboard box sell for in San Francisco?
It’s actually a great idea for the seller, who clearly represents the interest of the tenant. If they don’t need capital, and can lock in 30yrs of shelter with ZERO inflation over THIRTY years - this is actually brilliant.
Oh that one tenant? You honestly think this is legit 😆 the owner truly cares about the tenant? A tenant? Who's this tenant honestly? The owner?
@@aimesdavid2800 "Former male owner, over 100 years old died by natural cause in home" according to the listing. The tennant is probably a son or daughter.
@Bread996 that's total cool. I'd definitely not buy it. It's still stupid for whomever buys it.
it's a scam, bro.
@Bread996 or his sugar baby who's like 80 🤣🤣
Who is responsible for taxes, upkeep, insurance, etc?
Some people are thinking that this is a scam. I think this is the family home of the person living in it now. The parents probably bought that house many decades ago for between 25k and 40k and were grandfathered into the 1970s property tax protection. That protection doesn't exist anymore and when the owners who had the house when the tax protection law went into effect die, the taxes go up to the assessed value. This means that inheritors have to sell because they can't afford the outrageous property tax on a house that is currently assessed in the millions... and can't afford to rent elsewhere in SF either. I'll bet whoever is living in that house doesn't want to leave and tried to come up with a way to stay in it. Under 500k is incredibly cheap for that house. However, paying property taxes plus waiting 30 years to be able to sell doesn't seem like that good a deal as the US economy is going to crash and burn long before 2054. I find the idea interesting, though. My parents bought a huge 1923 house three blocks from the beach in Southern California in 1967 for 38k. My mother has been able to continue living in that house (90 years old now) because of the 1970s property tax law that she's grandfathered into). When she passes on, my brother, sister and I can't keep the house because we'd have to pay property taxes on a house that is now assessed at 7 million. I'd rather have the house than the money. Bad deal.
The move in date is 30 years from now because that's how long it will take to remove the squatters.
Who would buy a house occupied by a tenant paying such a low rent, especially when you wouldn't be able to move in until 2053, if you are still alive? It makes no sense!
It's like buying into a timeshare & never using it.
Even if the house is being sold at 1/3 the price, for something you can't do anything with, but still have to keep up the maintenance for a yearly lost of probably around 15K a year (from taxes, maintenance, insurance, etc. minus the 5K a year in rent), its not worth it. Unless you think the house is going to be worth over 7.5 million dollars after 30 years, and you have the patience of a saint to wait 30 years before you can get anything on your investment, and nothing happens to the house in those 30 years, there's no way it makes sense.
This is a super long game plan type purchase, that is taking a huge risk, that doesn't match the return.
This is basically a subsidy to the tenant (probably the owner). You take on all the risk, and reap no rewards for 30 years.
Wouldn't the county tax it at its assessed value once the sale is made, which is probably several million dollars.
This is basically a 30 year call option on a house. I kinda like it
Poor tenant is gonna go missing as soon as the new owner takes over. Sad sad 😔 I’d move. It’s not worth your life.
Years ago, there was a very interesting story like this in France. A man in his 40s bought a home from a woman in her 90s. He got it a little cheaper, but there was only one condition: he had to wait until she died. No problem, right, she should kick the bucket at any moment. She lived past 120 and he died before her! This, along with me preferring to just invest my money, is why I’d never go for a deal like this. Who the heck knows what’s life going to be like 30 years from now. 30 years from now, $488K in a fund matching the S&P 500 would be $8.5 million! I’d never do this.
If you account for inflation its basically a 3.5M dollar home with 30 years of wear and tear that you have to pay for. Because that 488k would be about $4M properly invested in 2053 while it would be about 1M inflation adjusted so you are paying 3M in loss of possible investment gains and 488k for your principal then you need to add in all the rehab costs for 30 years of wear and tear on top of that.
That is one way to create a rent control situation. Wow.
That’s beyond ridiculous who in their right mind would want to buy a place they can’t move into for 30 flipping years 🤬🤦🏼♀️
Honestly ridiculous. No one in their right mind would agree to this.
Not worth the hassle!
This is NOT joke, it's scam. Who want to buy a house only can move in 30 years later??!!
That rent won't even cover the real estate tax😂😂
$417 dollars a month is rent for a home like that is outrageous! How can they afford to fix anything should some thing go wrong!
I would buy it and by the time of turn over, it would be worth millions, and time for me to retire.
But i'd also make a will that in case i'd die, i'd give it to my kids and do whatever they wanna do with it.
At least by then, it would be worth millions like it is today.
Take that same amount of money. Hire an investment advisor. I can guarantee you'll get much more in return for your investment in 30 years. Take some of that money and buy a nice home of your choice for your retirement.
Or it could be worth nothing. 30 years is a long time and many things could happen during that time…especially in California where everything is getting worse faster than the rest of the US…except for maybe NYC. The house could also be lost to an earthquake, a fire, or something else too. Unless you have the money to throw away….it wouldn’t really be worth it…a lot could happen in 30 years. Of course the tenant could always pass away before the 30 years….or the person buying it could pass away….you can never plan for the future because everything changes before you get there.
the seller is basically an option trader
Reverse mortgage privatized. Its not a "sloppy arrangement" its a wise arrangement to keep the wolfs away....😂😂 For an investor who looks at long term gain rather then instant gradiafication this is a gold mine that can be handled down to his her legacy. Pretty sure a corporation wont think twice about this one. I honor the person living their being able to feel secure.🙏🏾
Smart seller. Probably retired old man or a lady. You get to be free from property tax obligations, no mortgage, lump sum retirement money, low rent, same neighborhood, 30 yr guarantees. If Im in 60s or 70s, thats pretty good deal
$400 rent in SF in 2024 is the real shocker! 😂
Truly the way homes should be sold. Rent rate freezes are the best
waiting 30 years for a slanted house without a backyard is stup!d work… but hey, if you wanna invest into a home for your newborn, why not…
$417!? That's either a blatant lie, or that person got the deal of a lifetime
Somewhat like a reverse mortgage where the buyer is expected to act as the lender of a lump sum and then take the property when the "tenant" dies. But 30 years is a long time, how many tenants, how old are they, what is their health like? And the monthly rent is a pittance that would not cover buyers mortgage, property taxes, barely even property maintenance. And so much could go wrong in 30 years - a fire, a tenant who destroys everything. A very young billionaire might take a flutter and hope for a windfall in 30 years. Or a corporation. Can't see most people getting anything out of it. I'm way too old, I'd be dead before the tenant.
We get it. You can't afford the rent, much less the property.
Couldn't the new owner just use an Ellis Act eviction(out of business) and pay out the renter? They just can't rent it out for a period of 5 years for owner move-in eviction.
2 tenants in their 80s and 60s.
@@Look_What_You_Did lol pointing out that this is a blatant scam means the person commenting is broke and can’t afford it? Stfu 😂
The only way I can see this working is if parking costs more than the mortgage, and that's a 2 car garage that house has; and the new owner can have use of both parking spaces. Or if the new owner can get a permit from the city to add an addition and make it a two family somehow to either live there or rent out at market rate to offset the cost. If not, it's a terrible arrangement. If the landlord pays the water bill in CA, that alone can come to $400/month. Add the taxes, mortgage upkeep of the place, home owners insurance, whether or not this house needs a new roof, etc; and this new owner will be paying this tenant to live there. *NO!* 👎🏾😞
I just saw that there's an HOA as well??? Absolutely NOT!
What happens if the tenants die? Buyer hits jackpot? Sounds like a horror movie in the making. Criminally minded buyer purchases it and tries to drive out the tenant (use your imagination)....if I was the tenant I would be constantly looking over my shoulder.
Stop giving out my plan
Exactly… Not even worth it for the tenant…. He’d be living in fear every single day, bullseye on his back, next 30 years…
Or the buyer! The buyer ain't safe either! I would be afraid and looking over my shoulder
@@MeEncantaKiley lol I'd speed up the process! Id expedite the expiration rate. Nothing ever belongs to anybody at one point we all crumble into dust anyways just giving them some help.
@@rrrealqueen Yeah in fact that should just apply anywhere.
I rather park that money in a s and p 500 fund for 30 years, way less risk and no work
How in the hell does he get a deal like that, someone fucked up.
Exactly
Family member
@@SafeEffective-ls2pl Why can not the owner opt for owner move-in evictions?
@@567307 because tenant hasn't rented the property, it legally has purchased the right of ownership for 30 years for 480$ a month. You really can't evict them in anyway and you can't break that contract.
Initial deposit : $488k; Years of growth: 30; Estimated rate of return: 9.5%; Total Balance after 30 yrs = $8,342,292.56
Or
Initial deposit : $488k; Years of growth: 30; Monthly Contribution: $2k (on going rent $2500 - cheap rent $500); Estimated rate of return: 9.5%; Total Balance after 30 yrs = $12,408,362.91
Nobody that stupid. Just invest if they have 30 years.
Insane.
Isn't this barred by the Rule Against Perpetuities?
Could actually pencil out for the right buyer… you get $400/mo cash flow guaranteed and an asset worth maybe $1.5m now, and maybe $4-5m in 30 years. It would ultimately have to be for the benefit of the buyer’s estate (children, relatives, etc) given the timeline.
BUT… if the current tenant dies, or otherwise disinhabits the residence, there may be a maturation clause that would permit early possession.
If you have the doe to drop and not blink an eye, it’s investable.
Absolutely correct
Couldn't the new owner just use an Ellis Act eviction(out of business) and pay out the renter? They just can't rent it out for a period of 5 years for owner move-in eviction.
There's 2 current tenants in their 80s and 60s.
@@567307 you can't Ellis Act this one, tenant essentially owns it for 30 years.
The tenant (s) (probably the current owner) will be occupying the property for the next 30 years. They will only be paying $417 in rent monthly. The buyer will not be able to live in the house for the next 30 years. The buyer will have to pay the property taxes and utilities for the house out of their pocket. The buyer will be responsible for repairs and upkeep of the property. Meanwhile, the tenant gets to live in the house practically for free.
$488k will be a lot lot more in 30 years than the present market value of the house.
Basically the renter is paying the property taxes (just a general guess, I don't know the actual amount) so the buyer gets zero out of it for 30 years. A lot can happen in 30 years.
I suspect the property tax is significantly higher than 5k per year. I paid 30% more than that for my house in the 10th largest city of an east coast state, just this year. Nevermind what it will be in 30 years.
@@THEhorihito Yeah you are probably right. It occurred to me that there was a good possibility that it could be higher than that but I just made a guess.
@@212days According to the SF Assessor's office, the property tax was $1,692.75 last year.
Land Value $55,466.00
Structure Value $87,686.00
Tax Rate 1.182484%
@@RaymondHng Yeah that sounds right.
Land value $55K and house value $87K... when the house was last sold 40 or 50 years ago or something. GOOD LUCK on the next person who buys the house (if anyone does) paying $1700 a year in taxes.
@@212days the new tax for $488,000 will be about $5,770.xx and only if county allows
I live in Europe and such deals are not that uncommon. If you live in your house and need cash, and don't plan to leave it to anyone, then you can sell the house while specifying in the contract that you have a right to use it for the rest of your life. It's basically an easement. The price is typically much lower on such properties. The previous homeowners are happy because they get to keep living in their house for free, while also having plenty of cash to spend however they want. The buyer gets a great deal. If they have young children then it could be a house for them when they grow up.
Then it just depends on when the previous homeowner passes. It might be 6 months, it might be 20 years.
417 won’t hold for that long. 3% yearly for rent control is the default for increases.
Someone overseas will buy it
Squatters: well hello.
Huh? Somebody currently lives there. That’s the whole reason the buyer can’t move in for so long. Squatters don’t typically invade occupied homes…
Not worth the investment unless your company is buying the house
The state needs to strip SF of their zoning powers. If there are 100 people willing to pay half a million for an 1,100 sq ft house, then there should be construction crews building tens of thousands of more homes in that neighborhood. The only reason there isn't is because of racist laws from the 1950s that ban building more homes. And SF thinks of themselves as a progressive city. It's egregiously ironic.
Thanks for the reminder! Yep, since zoning first took root in the early twentieth century, it has invariably been used to enforce and perpetuate a uniquely American form of apartheid, shrouded in a fog of planning jargon and obtuse codes…While you will find no mention of race or class in your contemporary local zoning ordinances, the open pursuit of American apartheid forms the basis of many zoning codes still in effect today. Yes, the courts clamped down on de jure racial zoning in 1917, but court approval of economic zoning in 1926 would pave the way for de facto racial segregation…cities were quick to bring in renowned zoning framers who could provide legal cover for the same old exclusionary zoning codes.
what is the average property tax a year in that location....?
San Francisco will be pretty much be uninhabitable by then, so smart move. Take the value now before it all tanks.
You losers have been saying this for what eight years? Despite everything still appreciating and record low unemployment and crime.
I can't even crap on the SF sidewalks in proper security....at my 71 years. It's troubling. I don't like it.
That sounds like a sweet deal bc there’s always a loop hole where the buyer could still win immediately
if you’re 1 yr old and bought that that house today its not too bad if you move in to your own house at 31 yrs old. think about it.
Who the heck is gonna buy something and wait for it, No way
Rich people
That's interesting, so you'd be buying purely a speculative investment that you'd be hoping to eventually sell to another person for more, enough so that it's worth it to pay the expenses on the house in the meantime. There's probably a number where that makes sense, dunno if it's 400k though.
This kind of deal, I wish people just do not put any bid of money, but offer $10 maximum for this property. It is just stupid to give anyone the green light to sign anything guaranteeing them for a sure stay for "pennies" the current owner should get punished for this kind of decision making.
I know it's San Francisco but that house is not worth 500 grand. Damn shame what kind market they have there. I wouldn't even bat a eye at that house. What a shame.
Another thing to consider is with all of the insurance carriers pulling out of California and/or dropping policies for various reasons such as homes that are too close to one another, good luck getting insurance on that.
THE CURRENT TENANT PAYS 480 DOLLARS A MONTH. WILD. AMAZING.
This house is worth 1.5 million NOW. This is an upscale neighborhood in San Francisco, so I wouldn’t be surprised if this house would be worth 10+ millions in 30 years. Whoever bought this (because it has been sold as of 3 weeks ago) is probably a rich person who had spare $500k and wanted to make an investment. Real estate is always an good investment if you buy in good areas (you can’t get more expensive than upscale SF honestly lol). Kudos to the buyer 👍🏻
The issue with the current lending system is that couples can combine their incomes to qualify for larger loans, allowing them to buy houses more easily. However, this creates a disadvantage for single individuals, who often struggle to afford homes since they rely on a single income, unlike couples who can use two salaries to purchase any house they want, regardless of the price.
How much do the taxes add up to over 30 years?
Home was last sold in 1968, this is a family member or someone close to the deceased owner that had the original owner write up a tenant lease before they passed, more then likely had an attorney that deals with tenant leases write it up to make sure it can't be broken.
Shocked someone actually bought it
That’s absolutely insane.