California property sells online for record $96 million

August 4, 2015
source: Auction.com

source: Auction.com

A California office complex has become the most expensive piece of United States real estate ever sold in an online auction, according to Auction.com, the company that facilitated the transaction. [NBC News]

The 309,734 square-foot Manhattan Beach complex sold for $96.1 million. The property was built in 1985, and it consists of two six-story office towers.

The property was not distressed at the time of the sale. Rick Sharga, executive vice president of Auction.com, said people are now buying traditional, nondistressed, high-quality real estate online.

“I think the fact that we had a buyer pay $96 million to buy a commercial property online shows that real estate really is starting to move onto the Internet,” Sharga said.

Auction.com has not disclosed the buyer. The seller was CWCapital.

Billionaire Mark Cuban previously purchased a Gulfstream jet online for $40 million, a deal that is confirmed by Guinness World Records. A 405-foot “Gigayacht” was listed on eBay for $168 million, but eBay has not confirmed it sold for that price.


Loading...

5 Comments

  1. obispan says:

    You don’t get it. Single family residences and businesses owned by regular people get reassessed at sale, REIT’s don’t. The idea is make REIT’s play by the same rules and to provide overall relief from reassessment at sale, which inhibits the real estate market and peoples freedom to buy that house that better suits you and some other people buying your house because it suits them. Now you just sit rather than both parties doubling their tax bill, forever. REIT’s deliberately built a loophole into Prop 13. Some Republicans have already taken the position that they are open to reform that does not result in a total property tax revenue increase. Close the loophole and LOWER the property taxes of rest of us who have had our properties reassessed at sale. My parents house is worth 3x mine but I pay 4x the tax and if I were to sell my house and buy something else at the same price my taxes would triple and I would be paying 12x my parents’ tax. Oh yeah, my parents’ aren’t the poor old folks from the REIT-funded Prop 13 ads either. Maybe if the REIT’s pay the way we do there could be additional property tax relief for new, and or, poor homeowners. OK, that’s too much socialism for you. So lets just make everyone pay the same and split the savings with no special programs. Have to fight the Dem’s on that.

    (0) 0 Total Votes - 0 up - 0 down
  2. Jorge Estrada says:

    96.1 million purchase price = 1 million in property taxes, prop 13 does generate reveniew. As property changes hands, everyone pays more taxes but still some complain about those who are happy with their dated choices and want them to pay higher taxes too. The fareness lies in the fact that we all know what tax bill we purchased and can plan our economic future. Prop 13 is fare and change comes with a cost.

    (9) 13 Total Votes - 11 up - 2 down
    • obispan says:

      Do you know that the property tax is going up? Prop 13 was not about Howard Jarvis keeping grandma in her home. Prop 13 was about REIT’s creating and funding Howard Jarvis and Prop 13. If Prop 13 was about keeping grandma in her home that’s what it would have said. Many of the states we point to for lower or no income and sales taxes tax real estate at a much higher rate than California where taxes are increasingly shifted to income, sales and sin. The big boys don’t get reassessed the same way, IF AT ALL, at sale as Joe-homeowner, who pays taxes based on what he paid. Because they’re not selling property, they’re selling a financial entity that owns property. Prop 13 reform is coming. If anything, relief from sale price valuation could be given to owner-occupied residential and business properties and not punish the buyer due to Wall Street greed. Many conservative businesspersons have identified this as a problem and have supported Prop 13 reform from the day it was passed. Read up (I very much doubt you will). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_%281978%29 And it’s “fair” not “fare”.

      (-3) 7 Total Votes - 2 up - 5 down
      • Jorge Estrada says:

        Ya I read it, pro and cons. The con referenced by Jerry Brown, “giving up local control”, thank God for that. Local control on taxation only means more taxes to fund the requirement for more studies thus more fix nothing bull shit requirements.
        Don’t get me wrong, I am a supporter of protecting the environment for today and tomorrow but we all know very well that sitting at a desk does nothing yet that is what local taxes largely fund. I have lived pre-prop 13 and currently benifit by the stability it has allowed me to choose. The additional housing I purchased in 2005 is a very large tax bill but I knew that when I bought it. The point that everyone needs to understand is that if you can’t afford the taxes don’t buy it. If laws need to be changed, we can start by stopping foreign nationals from buying our land and pricing U.S. residents out of the market thus adversely affect the tax factor on property affordability. My Dad and youngest brother are burried in Colma, California, now surround by Chinese neighboring graves. I asked what happened here? Is this now a Chinese Cemetary, the answer was that only the Chinese can afford to be burried here today.

        (0) 2 Total Votes - 1 up - 1 down
        • obispan says:

          If REIT’s got reassessed like everyone else since 1978 that 2005 tax bill could have been a lot less. And now you propose what regarding cemeteries and other property? Government regulation and price control? The one thing I’ve learned about Republicans since leaving during Bush One because of criminal actions (think Obama’s bad on Iran?) is that they love government control and socialism as long as they’re in charge.

          (1) 1 Total Votes - 1 up - 0 down

Comments are closed.