Nothing special, just two days on market and almost gone (1914 Filbert #C)
February 19, 2008 – 6:48 pm | by thefrontstepsYou must be kidding! Two days on the market and already in contract? 1914 Filbert #C asking $1,395,000.
Yours truly tried to sell the middle unit of this building about three years ago, and at that time there were age restrictions on the property (if memory serves correctly). Not sure if they’ve been lifted, but regardless, damn! That was fast.
-1914 Filbert #C [sfnewsletter listing detail]
Tags: theFrontSteps
17 Responses to “Nothing special, just two days on market and almost gone (1914 Filbert #C)”
By ResortatSquawCreek on Feb 19, 2008 | Reply
Hi Alex – What’s an “age restriction”? i.e. If you’re under 30 years old, you’re not allowed to buy it?
What do you think it goes for ultimately?
RSC
By thefrontsteps on Feb 19, 2008 | Reply
I’m going off memory here, but I believe you had to be 60…or something like that. But that was then. It could be different now, and if I were to pick up the phone and call the listing agent, I’d have the answer. But it’s time to make some din din for the kiddos!
By ResortatSquawCreek on Feb 19, 2008 | Reply
Interesting! So, as a seller, we can age discriminate? That’s pretty peculiar, b/c I know for at least employment purposes, you’re not allowed to discriminate on age, let alone gender, race, or religion.
By thefrontsteps on Feb 19, 2008 | Reply
No you cannot discriminate. This was a special deal and set up as such from the beginning. I’ll check on it tomorrow (time permitting).
By ResortatSquawCreek on Feb 19, 2008 | Reply
Thanks. Will be interested in understanding the loopholes condo associations have to block out certain individuals and such.
By Nicole on Feb 19, 2008 | Reply
Housing that meets the legal definition of senior housing or housing for older persons is exempt from the age discrimination portion of the Fair Housing Act. It would be interesting to see how this structure qualified…
By Approaching Elderly on Feb 19, 2008 | Reply
Besides existing, discrimination is also relative…….RSC, there can be discrimination everywhere depending on the time and how YOU view…
http://www.ncoa.org/
http://www.hud.gov/groups/seniors.cfm
http://www.aoa.gov/
By Nicole on Feb 19, 2008 | Reply
No need to get into a civil rights debate on the frontsteps. Yes, people’s definition of discrimination differs based upon their perspective and both of you have merits to your viewpoint.
Anyway, why I found this building interesting is that I did not believe the city began to really incentivize developers to build older persons housing until the last few decades and I incorrectly assumed that this building (based on look, size and location) was built far earlier. Records say 2000 though, so, its not that big of a mystery anymore. Be interested to see exactly what the agent says. cheers.
By james on Feb 19, 2008 | Reply
i find it quite interesting that a town such as ours has allowed even seniors to discriminate in their housing projects
By ResortatSquawCreek on Feb 20, 2008 | Reply
I’m assuming since this building has a age rule, it has an elevator? Since, that would just not make sense if the pent house unit require only elderly, and one had to walk up 3 flights of stairs
By Anonymous on Feb 20, 2008 | Reply
The age restriction applies to the bottom 2 units only, not the top unit
By Anonymous on Feb 20, 2008 | Reply
“The age restriction applies to the bottom 2 units only, not the top unit”
So the young-ins can party all night on top of the old farts?
Nice. I’m sure that won’t cause any tension at the HOA meetings.
(If old and reading this, sorry for calling you a fart.)
By Sophie on Feb 20, 2008 | Reply
re discrimination.
BS: it does exist. if it didnt why would agents push buyers to write a BS letter to try to get the deal?
and all the stuff about a couple married vs a couple not married (names on the deposit check for example)
as long as there are offer dates and multiple offers, THERE WILL BE DISCRIMINATION. simply because those offers are secret and because the only non discrimatory scale being the offer price is NOT the only criteria used by sellers to pick the wiining bid.
if we are to enforce a true no discrimination market, then offers are anonymous as in no names, no detail about the buyers’s status (single, couple, contractor, developer etc and of course no SSN, no bank information etc), and somehow it should even be anonymous as for the representing agent.
unfortunatly, I believe true anonyma would hurt the market more than anything, because sellers would get cold feet, and couldnt use their gut feeling that the deal will indeed close.
By Sophie on Feb 20, 2008 | Reply
re “secret’ I meant the offers are not public, and prospective buyers cannot read the other offers to have proof of discrimination or of non-discrimination.
By sanfrantim on Feb 20, 2008 | Reply
good unit. good neighborhood. good price. no surprise here.
By Oliver on Feb 20, 2008 | Reply
there is a big difference between *discrimination* and common sense selection. when I sold my house I had multiple bids on it and did not sell it to the highest bidder. why, because the highest bidder offered 5% down and had shaky finances at best. I sold to somebody who put 15% down and better finances. to me that is not discrimination but common sense.
other buyers should not see what other offers are given either since their can be a lot of confidential information in there. unless it is a public auction.
By Sophie on Feb 20, 2008 | Reply
Oliver, I totally agree. But now, what if the offer with only 5% down was from a 70old gay black?
And that guy sued you for discrimination?
that’s a lot of whatif, but my point is that there is the BS about verbotten discrimination, and there is the reality. It’s a business, and parties try to find the best possible other party (sellers chosing the buyer, agents chosing their clients and clients chosing both agents and properties).
Banks discriminate when they lend mortgages. And they absolutly discriminate regarding age. (oh yeah.. they do it “legally” by using the credit history. less than 5years credit history = you’re too young to apply for a mortgage for example). So if the seller uses the same criteria to accept an offer on the basis of more likelihood of closing the deal – then it’s not discrimination IMO. it’s common sense selection.