A post wherin I look at price reductions that seem to be pointless.
The original price here was $7,250,000. Now it’s $6,950,000. Indeed, one could argue a $300K price break is nothing to sneeze at. But really, the person who can afford the new price could also afford the old price, especially since this home includes an HOA of $5886 per month. So, $300,000? Big ****ing deal. The monthly payments are still going to top the GNP of certain third world countries.
Here’s another reduction I don’t think makes any difference. 2421 Clement St. This is a 10 unit building, “fully rented,” originally priced at $1,435,888. More than 50 days later, it’s reduced to $1,398,000.
In this case, it’s not so much the amount of the reduction. I just wonder who would ever want to buy a 10-unit building in SF when every other day a law here makes being a landlord a bigger headache than it already was. In fact, this Examiner article highlights the dubious joys of landlords who are currently suing the city to block such laws. Good luck.
So I wonder, in the world of real estate, if price reductions aren’t sometimes just not that much of an incentive after all.
Photo of 1001 California, #3 via listing agent Betty Brachman, Brachman Group.