We got in a little bit of trouble last week by SF real estate agents as they didn’t like the fact that we openly and freely shared sales data each week. Additionally, sharing such data is against the San Francisco Associations of Realtors rules. We’d like to apologize to anybody that we offended and moving forward, we’ll be sure not to share “too much” data. We were told that Seductively Sold, one of our most popular posts each week, contained “prohibited” information for the general public. We have been sharing such data over the last 20 weeks because it’s exactly what people wanted to see, it’s exactly how potential buyers and sellers educate themselves and helping to share is exactly what we want(ed) to do. Unfortunately, sharing as much information as we used to is against the rules and instead, you, the reader (or the market tracker) must create a “relationship” with me if you want to see all of the sold data. I’m assuming that “protecting” such highly sensitive data (we’re not talking nuclear launch codes here people), helps keep jobs and power in place. If the general public has easy access to sold data, then they may actually ask Realtors the tough questions when it comes time to interviewing before hiring one.
What it boils down to now, is that we can show you any and all data, but we have to email each other and I have to make sure you’re not already working with an agent. If you would like to see the sold information from last week (or any week for that matter), just ask. In the meantime, below you will find all of the sold condo’s and lofts from last week, but without the ever so precious sold price.
Thanks for all the kind words and support that we’ve received from our Seductively Sold posts, we hope that you have enjoyed the data while it lasted.
| Address | District | Asking $ | Selling $ | D.O.M. |
| 72 Cook St | Jordan Park | $712,000 | contact us | 63 |
| 51 14th Ave | Lake | $875,000 | contact us | 32 |
| 950 Duncan St #101E | Diamond Heights | $618,000 | contact us | 22 |
| 171 Duncan St | Noe Valley | $619,000 | contact us | 150 |
| 237 Dorland St | Eureka Valley | $895,000 | contact us | 21 |
| 73 Elgin Park | Mission Dolores | $729,000 | contact us | 72 |
| Address | District | Asking $ | Selling $ | D.O.M. |
| 715 Page | Hayes Valley | $895,000 | contact us | 8 |
| 1805 Pine St #6 | Lower Pacific Heights | $399,000 | contact us | 29 |
| 1830 Ellis St #D | Western Addition | $575,000 | contact us | 40 |
| 2001 McAllister St #A-113 | North Panhandle | $559,000 | contact us | 20 |
| 3615 Buchanan St #306 | Marina | $979,000 | contact us | 8 |
| 1158 Sutter St #3 | Downtown | $629,000 | contact us | 70 |
| 1158 Sutter St # 11 | Downtown | $789,000 | contact us | 38 |
| 10 Miller Pl #901 | Nob Hill | $899,000 | contact us | 9 |
| 1483 Sutter St #312 | Civic Center | $899,000 | contact us | 130 |
| 101 Lombard St #209W | North Waterfront | $1,100,000 | contact us | 58 |
| 3239 Mission St #7 | Bernal Heights | $529,000 | contact us | 47 |
| 1337 Natoma St #2 | Inner Mission | $520,000 | contact us | 13 |
| 175 Bluxome St #304 | Mission Bay | $728,800 | contact us | 39 |
| 250 King St #644 | Mission Bay | $759,000 | contact us | 50 |
| 325 Berry St #716 | Mission Bay | $899,900 | contact us | 42 |
| 330 Mission Bay Blvd #311 | Mission Bay | $1,100,000 | contact us | 1 |
| 260 Clara St #5 | South of Market | $629,000 | contact us | 25 |
| 300 3rd St #305 | South of Market | $775,000 | contact us | 18 |
| 300 Beale St #306 | South Beach | $1,325,000 | contact us | 14 |
Seductively Sold [SF Schtuff]
17 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 21, 2008 at 10:19 am
UnRuly25
This is ridiculous. It is merely an existing power structure based on keeping private potentially important information that should be available to the public. I say, good work SF Schtuff, and keep it up, while staying out of trouble =)
July 21, 2008 at 10:34 am
Garrett
unRuly25–thank you! we agree, it’s ridiculous
July 21, 2008 at 11:22 am
jtsf
I had a question. Is the data that you previously posted was similar to the “Homes Sold” data that is included in the Chronicle’s Sunday Real Estate section? If the posted data is the same as the Chronicles, how does the Chronicle get around posting the sold price?
July 21, 2008 at 11:48 am
Garrett
jtsf–
great question!! honestly, i don’t have a definitive answer, but i do have a guess. the latest sold data as displayed by the chronicle seems to be closings from about a month prior. Here is the latest: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/20/REHS_sfrancisco.txt
i’m assuming this data comes from the county recorder’s office and is official public record. the data that i was displaying was just 1 week prior and had not yet been placed in the public record (though i only assume the lag is due to lack of city funds–if a property is recorded today, shouldn’t it be made public on that same day?). that’s only a guess however as i’m just not sure how they can get away with it. i took the time to plug in a few addresses from the chronicle into the MLS and i’m actually finding there is a small discrepancy in some instances. for example, the chronicle doesn’t always include a unit number, also, sometimes the data is not the same–where the chronicle may list a place as having 2 bedrooms, the MLS lists the place as having 3. now i’m curious and i’m going to dig a little deeper into this. thanks for pointing this out! i’ll be callin’ my friends at SFAR shortly to try to get a solid answer for you.
July 21, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Farrah
I agree with everyone who said that this is stoopid. Isn’t this information published in the Chronicle every week anyway? (and I see that someone else has already pointed this out) If the people who complained are so persnickety, I bet they aren’t the most likeable and easy people to work with, guess they have to resort to extreme measures to get people to work with them.
July 21, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Coach A
Garrett rules! The fact is the typical realtor is far more interested in lining their pockets with money than providing service. Garrett and I could start a blog with all the unethical things we’ve seen in the past 10 combined years. Cracks me up that telling people what a house sold for is illegal — but the following are not:
1. Listing property in Craigslist as rental property - then when people come to see the “rental” - the agent tries to get the “renter” to buy the property. (this happened to a client of ours this past week.)
2. It’s illegal to list sold property without a relationship - but we have a Realtor in Bernal Ht’s going door to door soliciting business. (I wonder if they include a set of steak knives with their pitch) - Note - they also illegally drop postcards in mailboxes without postage - that’s a federal offense
So you can lie to me and knock on my door - but I can’t post sold data — makes a ton of sense — good stuff.
July 22, 2008 at 1:10 pm
JimmyB
Great job. Can’t you just access this information from the S.F. County Assessor-Recorder?
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
City Hall, Room 190
San Francisco, CA 94102
Or are you releasing this prior to record here?
July 22, 2008 at 2:55 pm
roger rainey
wuss
July 23, 2008 at 7:34 am
Weekly News Round-Up | Redfin San Francisco Sweet Digs
[...] San Francisco Schtuff got caught a bit off guard by the powerful real estate establishment. Their well-received posts on Sold Properties contained too much information, according to the powers that be, and they are having to modify what is presented in future. While they have the sales data, you cannot have the sales data from them unless you jump through hoops. I suggest you show your support and do some jumping….. [...]
July 23, 2008 at 9:34 am
what?
i think you guys should post it anyway. what are they going to do? put you in jail, shut down your site. no way that will happen. and is it really “illegal”, as in on the books against the law. San Francisco Associations of Realtors rules are not laws, what they say does not matter, and they can stick it. if they do mess with you, bring a suit for infringement of a real law, basic freedom of speech. come on, post it anyway.
July 24, 2008 at 8:49 am
Joe
I’d bet if properties were consistently selling for over asking you would have never heard a peep out of them.
Illegal? Censorship in order to artificially prop up the industry *should* be illegal. Bottom line is that there are way too many realtors out there and if 50% of them conceded and got “real jobs” then the mostly honest, hard working ones left would not need to act so scummy to make their living.
I guess Garrett can’t really continue to post this data because people know who he is and they will pull his access to the information. However, I agree with “what?” above. Someone should post all the data anonymously to a blog. What are they going to do, call the cops???
July 24, 2008 at 7:57 pm
anna
This is really lame news.
July 24, 2008 at 8:06 pm
SF: New Condos on the Market | Redfin San Francisco Sweet Digs
[...] to be more intelligent about condo sales, prices, and value in the city? Better hurry: San Francisco Schtuff can no longer print the breakdowns of sales that include DOM, asking and final sale price (LAME!). Not sure how long they can offer the yearly [...]
July 24, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Jed Lane
Why make it sound as if you are only doing what the “people want” when you are breaking a rule that you said you’d uphold.
Since you are a member of the Association of Realtors and to be a member you take an oath to abide by the rules of the association what makse you feel so righteous that you alone can give information that the group has decided not to release.
If you think the rules should change, then work within the organization to change them and we can all post the information that you feel so strongly needs to be shared. Whoops there goes your advantage!
But really the information, at this pint in time belongs to the people that gather it and it is intended for their own use. That is not to say that in the future things won’t change. Again if you feel strongly that the association should make this information available then work towards that. Don’t bend the rulse for your advantage and then cry when the rules are enforced against you.
July 24, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Garrett
jed–
i’m not doing what the “people want,” quite the contrary. instead, i’m upholding my “oath” to abide by the rules of the association. i don’t feel righteous at all, instead, i was just taking the information provided to me, displaying it in a proprietary fashion to any and all that visited SF Schtuff. i never tried to obtain an advantage over anybody in the industry. that remark is so silly, what did i have to gain by showing such data? clients? not so much. interested buyers and sellers that wanted to remain anonymous? it seems that way. by displaying such information, people didn’t need to give me contact info, they could just enjoy. shit, if somebody else wants to do it, i’m all for it. as i mentioned, i’m open to free and open data, i never said that it had to be provided by me alone, i was just trying to help push that movement along.
the Schtuffers and I have been working hard to create content over the last several months and people seem to enjoy our posts, including Seductively Sold. i was bummed out (as were SEVERAL readers) when we got complaints. my inbox has been flooded since monday with people thanking me for the info, wanting more and telling me to keep it up. many have now signed up for weekly updates and i’m allowed to share with them according to the SFAR rules. people were more than happy to provide me with their contact info to ensure they continue receiving uninterrupted data. in other words, the change has led to praises, requests and email addresses. who ever complained because they were afraid of me having an advantage must feel pretty silly now.
i’m not sure why you’re telling me what i need to do since you don’t know me or what it is i do or am doing, but believe me, i’d love to work with agents, the association and technology firms to display such real time data.
i was not looking for an advantage (i think i have an idea as to who complained now–i’m sorry, did you feel like i was stealing an advantage from you?), i was merely looking to provide information in a format that people liked. i didn’t bend the rules, i made a mistake, offered my apologies and changed it just as soon as
yousomebody complained to the board.July 25, 2008 at 6:54 am
Coach A
Garrett,
Don’t waste your time answering question from cookie cutter agents that are trying to keep their income by withholding information. You are honest and ethical — end of story.
In this particular case, you were trying to provide valuable information for free - something that should be legal. That said, our association and the elder members of it have yet to realize that the world and the industry is changing. The information is out there and people can access it. If not from you and your blog - which by the way makes no attempt to turn info hunters into clients - then they will go to zillow / trulia / etc.
It’s been ass backward for years — as an association, we hoard the info and keep it under lock stock and barrell while brokerages like Redfin and Zip share it based on an email established relationship. Don’t justify your actions — you are wasting your breath. Jed would prefer to keep people in the dark until they sign an agreement with him and then he’ll share info. You are willing to share info in an attempt to provide a service and that is commendable. The irony of it all — for the first time you’ve asked people to provide some basic info to get valuable information and people will do that. Congrats to you and to those info seekers who are willing to share basic info.
Jed– just keep fighting change and the people who are trying to drag this industry out of the stone ages.
July 30, 2008 at 6:42 pm
SF: And the Selling Price is… Password Protected? | Redfin San Francisco Sweet Digs
[...] to be able to get info on this stuff from, aptly, San Francisco Schtuff. No more. Because, technically, the columns revealed “prohibited” data, the Seductively Sold pos…. Schtuff creator and Realtor, Garrett Goldman, hypothesized the movivation to shut down this column [...]