Marin Real Estate Sales for March 2009,
| Marin Real Estate Sales for March 2009 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Single Family Homes | ||||||
| Conventional Detached Dwellings | Condominiums/Townhouses | |||||
| City | #Sales | Mean price | Median | #Sales | Mean price | Median |
| Belvedere | 2 | $4,050,000 | $4,050,000 | 0 | ||
| Corte Madera | 7 | 855,714 | 760,000 | 2 | 379,625 | 379,625 |
| Fairfax | 4 | 546,250 | 647,500 | 0 | ||
| Larkspur | 1 | 575,000 | 575,000 | 1 | 655,000 | 655,000 |
| Mill Valley | 4 | 1,425,000 | 1,430,000 | 2 | 620,000 | 620,000 |
| Novato | 25 | 585,760 | 570,000 | 20 | 273,850 | 231,500 |
| Ross | 2 | 1,477,500 | 1,477,500 | 0 | ||
| San Anselmo | 6 | 934,167 | 625,000 | 0 | ||
| San Rafael | 13 | 649,070 | 670,000 | 15 | 273,007 | 190,000 |
| Sausalito | 1 | 1,300,000 | 1,300,000 | 2 | 848,750 | 848,750 |
| Tiburon | 3 | 4,176,329 | 3,825,000 | 0 | ||
| Unincorporated | 24 | 1,104,744 | 761,000 | 5 | 405,700 | 415,000 |
| Total | 92 | $1,027,552 | $699,500 | 47 | $339,412 | $250,000 |
| Total Single Family Homes Sold: 139 | ||||||
| Mean / Median Home Sale Price: $794,871 / $605,000 | ||||||
| Mean Home Living Area: 1,731 sq. ft. | ||||||
Report on the Outlook for Housing, Where will we find a bottom in housing prices?
Sorry I haven't blogged anything here in awhile. I've been out of the country. However, here is the Wells Fargo Special Outlook for Housing. Where will we find a bottom in housing prices? Read below on what Wells Fargo thinks...
Wells Fargo Report on Housing
Marin housing...a great long term play
Local housing shows 5-year net value growth
Sunday, December 7, 2008
(12-07) 04:00 PST Washington --
The latest federal statistics on housing prices in hundreds of local markets reveal patterns that haven't been making the nightly news: Nationwide, homeowners have lost more than $1 trillion in equity since the end of the boom, but the overwhelming majority of local markets continue to show net cumulative value growth over the past 60 months.
In fact, according to the third-quarter survey released Nov. 25 by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, out of 292 metropolitan markets, 273 showed positive net home values over the previous five years, while 19 were negative.
That may be of little comfort to consumers who bought houses late in the boom in 2004 and 2005, and are now underwater on their loans. But it's important for anyone who wants to understand real estate cycles and may be considering a purchase for the long term.
Unlike stocks, where your asset values can go from peak to zero in a matter of weeks, house values tend to be far slower-moving, and can be more durable over extended periods. Buy a house and hold on to it for five to 10 years in all but the most severely depressed local economies, and you'll probably see growth in its value, even if a rough patch of price deflation intervenes.
The housing agency's quarterly data track price changes in several hundred local markets stretching back to 1975. Unlike other indexes - which may omit entire states and give extra weight to high-cost, historically volatile areas - the agency covers every metropolitan market nationwide. Its data are based on repeat home sale and refinancing transactions where mortgages were funded, owned or contained in securities backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As a result, the properties tracked do not include houses financed with jumbo loans, and the survey data under-represent the subprime slice of the total marketplace.
In the latest quarterly study, dozens of local markets showed positive appreciation for the past 12 months, despite negative national numbers. Most of them are in areas with moderate housing costs that never experienced the hyperinflation of the boom.
For example, Austin, Texas, saw average housing prices gain by 5.6 percent during the past 12 months and by a cumulative 35.3 percent since the third quarter of 2003. Houses in Grand Junction, Colo., increased in value by 4.7 percent during the last 12 months and by a cumulative 66.1 percent over 60 months. Prices in Syracuse, N.Y., were up by 2.8 percent over the past year, and by 29.9 percent during the past five years.
Forty-three metropolitan markets saw appreciation gains of 2 percent or higher in the past year, while others - mainly in California, Florida and Nevada - experienced double-digit deflation. Twenty-seven metropolitan areas around the country have racked up 50 percent or higher cumulative gains since 2003. (The complete 85-page survey is available at www.fhfa.gov.)
The data also provide an overview of home values in many metropolitan areas that have seen losses in the past 12 months but are net positive over the last five years. For example, Chicago prices dropped by 3.8 percent in the past year but are up by a cumulative 28.3 percent since 2003. If you bought a $200,000 house in late 2003, in other words, it's likely to be worth $256,600 today. In Los Angeles, where prices exploded during the boom but plunged 18.8 percent last year, the cumulative value gain from third quarter 2003 through the same period this year is 45.6 percent, according to the data.
In Washington, D.C., and its suburbs, which saw a 12.5 percent price decline in the past year, the cumulative gain for homeowners over the past 60 months has been 43.7 percent. Other examples include Phoenix (negative 16.6 percent one year, positive net 48.3 percent over 60 months); San Francisco (negative 8 percent one year, 31.9 percent gain five years); Seattle (down 3 percent past 12 months, but up 54.9 percent for 60 months); and Tampa-St. Petersburg (down 15.1 percent for the year, but up 37.6 percent since 2003).
Among the top markets for cumulative gains over the past five years: Honolulu (up 78.7 percent), Virginia Beach, Va. (72.6 percent), Flagstaff, Ariz. (66.5 percent), Bellingham, Wash. (65.6 percent), Wilmington, N.C. (62.1 percent), and Baltimore (60.6 percent). Worst performers: Detroit (down 18.4 percent) followed by Merced and Stockton (San Joaquin County), both down 15 percent.
There's no question that there have been some painfully steep local declines in the past two years. But the statistical fact is that values in the overwhelming majority of markets are positive over a five-year timeline.
E-mail Ken Harney at kenharney@earthlink.net.
This article appeared on page K - 2 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Finding Deals In Marin County Real Estate
The general theme of many e-mails of the Summer/early Fall has been “our buyers are waiting for the perfect house at the perfect price – we need more inventory”. While, this buyer feedback may be a disguise for multiple other objections, I suggest to you that our market is currently ripe with a breadth of opportunity at what could be very attractive prices.
In a speculative home building business,
rarely do people seek opportunity via new listings. They are generally attracted to
assets that are aging on the market or have recently fallen out of escrow.
Whether it was a buyers’ or sellers’ market, these circumstances generally
proved to favor the buyer.
If you are seeking opportunity, I encourage you to revisit the inventory with > 100 DOM. Approach the inventory with aggressive pricing. See slightly beyond the “dislikes” and consider what simple cosmetic improvements / landscaping can do to valuations. In many instances, a offer @ 10% below list price ($100K for every $1 million in value) may need modest ($15K per million) cosmetic improvements / landscaping to immediately recapture the discounted value.
The average DOM in Marin County is 88. There are seven (7) cities where one-third (33%) of the inventory has been on the market 100 days or longer. Cities include: Sausalito, Tiburon, Belvedere, Kentfield, San Rafael and Novato
Marin Sun Farms Tour
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
Economics a refresher course
Economics: a refresher course
The US is in the midst of some serious economic turbulence — just try to sell a house or fill up a car, and you'll glimpse it firsthand. But for those of us without a background in finance, it's not always easy to discern how such disparate factors as the subprime mortgage fiasco, peak-oil pricing, and the surge of developing economies figure into local troubles — and what our government can do to better the situation.
For a professional opinion, we turned to economist John Campbell. The Morton L. and Carole S. Olshan Professor of Economics at Harvard, Campbell has consulted to the Federal Reserve Board and has published over 60 articles in finance and economics journals. He's a former president of the American Finance Association, a co-author of the leading advanced textbook in empirical finance, and an expert in international markets — an ideal person to speak with about the current imbroglio.
AT: How serious is the current US economic crisis? Do you view this as a standard economic downturn or the beginning of a more serious situation? And given the uncertainty, what should the government be doing right now?
JC: Since World War II, the typical US recession has been caused by the Fed tightening monetary policy in response to rising inflation. The current situation is very different. The economy is weak for several nonstandard reasons. First, the housing downturn and the heavy burden of debt have tightened US consumers' budgets, leading to weakness in consumer spending. Second, the housing downturn has depleted the capital of the US banking system, so credit has become less available, and more expensive, both for businesses and consumers. Third, the relative prices of energy and food have changed dramatically. This requires a reallocation of resources towards agriculture, energy production and conservation, and related technologies; such a reallocation across sectors often reduces output in the short term.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is well aware of the importance of stabilizing the US financial system. As an academic, he studied the Great Depression intensively and argued that the weakness of US banks contributed to the severity of the depression in the early 1930s. He also argued that Japanese policy toward financial institutions was too passive in the 1990s. I believe the measures he has taken will prevent disruptive failures at the core of our financial system, although there are likely to be multiple failures of smaller institutions, including regional banks with mortgage exposures.
The danger is that while curing the patient's acute symptoms, the doctor may exacerbate chronic health problems. Specifically, easy monetary policy in combination with high energy and food prices has already allowed inflation to creep up, and inflation is likely to increase further before the Fed can act against it. I do not question the Fed's continued commitment to long-run inflation stability, but if US investors and workers come to doubt it, there could be a painful period while the Fed reestablishes its credibility as an inflation fighter.
Also, the Fed's actions have shown that large investment banks and the housing agencies (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) will not be permitted to fail. If these firms are to be protected at taxpayer expense, they must be regulated to control the risks they take. This is a lesson that we learned painfully in the 1980s, when federally insured savings and loans invested recklessly, knowing that any profits would accrue to the S&L owners, while losses would be borne by the taxpayer. However, the investment-banking business is extraordinarily complex and will be difficult to regulate in a rational manner without choking off beneficial financial innovation.
AT: What are the implications of China's economic rise, and the existence of a more level economic playing field worldwide?
JC: When China and other formerly isolated developing countries first integrated with the world economy, they provided an immense supply of unskilled labor and little else. The effect was to increase the rewards to skilled workers and owners of capital, while depressing the relative wages of unskilled workers. (It is important, however, to keep in mind that technology has probably been a more important influence on unskilled wages than trade or immigration.)
In recent years, China has accumulated both capital and skills, with spectacular benefits for Chinese prosperity. This increase in the standard of living of one fifth of humanity is surely something to celebrate. From the narrow US perspective, however, the effects are mixed. On the one hand, China provides an immense market and is starting to contribute to the advance of technology, with positive effects on productivity worldwide. On the other hand, Chinese demand for natural resources is raising their price, making the traditional US resource-intensive way of life much less affordable. In addition, Chinese energy consumption is greatly increasing carbon emissions, shortening the length of time that we have to deal with the problem of global climate change.
AT: Are you in favor of a carbon tax to combat excessive energy consumption, as many economists are? What other suggestions do you have to deal with global warming?
JC: I think global warming is a major threat — probably the most serious threat to the wellbeing of my children and their future descendants. I strongly favor a carbon tax because it uses the power of the price system to reallocate resources and stimulate innovation. The problem is too large to solve through moral suasion, and a bureaucratic regulatory solution will be prohibitively complex and costly to implement.
Government can also play a helpful role by removing obstacles to innovation and reducing uncertainty about regulation and tax incentives. Reorganizing our energy system will require major work on infrastructure, including offshore wind farms, new power transmission systems to link the windy plains with electricity demand on the coasts, carbon capture and storage facilities, and perhaps a new generation of nuclear-power plants. It is unrealistic to think that these systems will arise without thoughtful policy to establish the rules governing the private-sector players.
AT: One commonly cited cause of the subprime-mortgage crisis is that borrowers didn't realize what they were getting into when they signed on with lenders. What regulations (if any) should be put in place?
JC: It is true that many subprime borrowers did not understand the risks they were taking in the mid-2000s. The irony is that investors who bought subprime securities also failed to understand these risks. Almost all mortgage-market participants shared the belief that house prices would continue to rise as they had done in the past. On the basis of this belief, borrowers and lenders agreed that there was little need to worry about what would happen if house prices declined, since house prices were extremely unlikely to fall by any large amount or for a prolonged period of time. In an environment of rising house prices, most borrowers were expected to be able to refinance their mortgages after a couple of years; the high rates charged by many subprime mortgages after the first rate adjustment were expected to apply only to a small minority of borrowers experiencing financial problems that would make them unable to refinance. In effect, these high rates were supposed to compensate lenders for the high risk of a small pool of non-refinancing mortgages.
In retrospect, it is clear that the belief in ever-rising house prices was self-destroying. As more and more investors piled into residential real estate, house prices reached unsustainable levels, setting the stage for a historically unprecedented decline in prices. This price decline prevented the refinancing that both subprime borrowers and lenders had anticipated, leading to the current crisis.
The main factor that will prevent a recurrence of the subprime crisis is that lenders have learned a painful lesson about the behavior of speculative market prices: any market whose participants believe that prices can only go up is a market that is becoming overpriced and will eventually experience a major correction. Regulation can play a supportive role. It may be appropriate to require that mortgage originators should retain a portion of the mortgage risk on their own books, since this will give them incentives to manage the risks of their lending. Regulation of mortgage brokers can also be helpful — it appears that the current housing crisis is worst in those states, such as California and Nevada, that had particularly weak regulation — but the most important discipline on brokers is the caution of lenders, who are no longer willing to pay brokers large commissions on risky high-rate loans.
A rather different problem in consumer finance is that many financial products have features that reward consumers who make active, smart decisions. One obvious example is the traditional US fixed-rate mortgage with a refinancing option. In my 2006 presidential address to the American Finance Association, "Household Finance" (published in the Journal of Finance, August 2006), I presented evidence that sophisticated borrowers are much quicker to refinance, leaving unsophisticated borrowers paying unnecessarily high mortgage rates. Because mortgage markets are competitive, mortgage lenders pass on the dollars they receive from unsophisticated borrowers in the form of lower mortgage rates. In effect, unsophisticated households subsidize the mortgage costs of sophisticated households. There may be room for government policy to promote innovative mortgages that eliminate such cross-subsidy, perhaps through automatic refinancing provisions.
AT: What do you think are the most significant economic issues facing the next president?
JC: The next president has a particularly full plate. The most urgent economic issue is, of course, the stability of the financial system, and particularly our system of housing finance. But the next president must not let the urgent drive out the important. Restructuring health care, addressing the explosive costs of entitlements (especially Medicare), developing policies for energy security and climate change, rationalizing the tax code, restoring some momentum to world-trade negotiations, and finding a sensible compromise on immigration policy are all hugely important challenges. If the next president is to have any hope of solving these problems within our democratic political system, he will need to shift the public's current pessimistic mood and remind people of the benefits of an open world economy. This task will require political skill of the highest order.
- This interview was conducted by Benjamin Hart
Marin Real Estate New Escrow Stats, Market Update
Attached you will find our Marin County Single Family Homes Market Dynamics Report for July 14th. Once again the blue bars and lines illustrate New Escrows by week and the green bars and lines illustrate Sold (closings) by week.
In summary, the summer season has arrived:
· For the second week since April 1st new escrows (Single Family Homes) have fallen below 40 per week.
· The peak was 62 new escrows (SFH) the week of June 23rd
· New Single Family Home escrows will likely remain below 40 per week for the next 4 weeks.
· We anticipate an increase in activity (> 40 per week) again in the second half of August.
Notes to Sellers - All properties being equal (which they are not) and all property marketing efforts being equal (which they are not), pricing your home realistically is the best strategy for maximizing proceeds. On average, homes sold in 30 days or less trade at 99% of list price while those closing after 100 days on the market trade at 94% of the adjusted list price (after one or more reductions). Time on the market is not a successful strategy for sellers. The key is realistic pricing!
Notes to Buyers – This is a great time to be a Buyer! On average we are dealing with a market off 5% at the low end to up 8% on the high end vs. same time last year. The best properties sell in the first week at or over asking prices. Be prepared with a pre-approved mortgage from a top tier lender, Expectations for near term appreciation should be modest. Appreciation over 3 – 5 years will likely be 5% - 8% annually.
New Escrow Stats
Fed plans new rules to protect future homebuyers
Fed plans new rules to protect future homebuyers
By JEANNINE AVERSA, AP Economics Writer 48 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The Federal Reserve will issue new rules next week aimed at protecting future homebuyers from dubious lending practices, its most sweeping response to a housing crisis that has propelled foreclosures to record highs. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke spoke of the much-awaited rules in a broader speech Tuesday about the challenges confronting policymakers in trying to stabilize a shaky U.S. financial system. To that end, Bernanke said the Fed may give squeezed Wall Street firms more time to tap the central bank's emergency loan program.
To prevent a repeat of the current mortgage mess, Bernanke said the Fed will adopt rules cracking down on a range of shady lending practices that has burned many of the nation's riskiest "subprime" borrowers — those with spotty credit or low incomes — who were hardest hit by the housing and credit debacles.
The plan, which will be voted on at a Fed board meeting on Monday, would apply to new loans made by thousands of lenders of all types, including banks and brokers.
Under the proposal unveiled last December, the rules would restrict lenders from penalizing risky borrowers who pay loans off early, require lenders to make sure these borrowers set aside money to pay for taxes and insurance and bar lenders from making loans without proof of a borrower's income. It also would prohibit lenders from engaging in a pattern or practice of lending without considering a borrower's ability to repay a home loan from sources other than the home's value.
"These new rules ... will address some of the problems that have surfaced in recent years in mortgage lending, especially high-cost mortgage lending," Bernanke said.
Consumer groups have complained that the proposed rules aren't strong enough, while mortgage lenders worry that they are too tough and could crimp customers' choices.
In an extraordinary action aimed at averting a financial catastrophe, the Fed in March agreed to let investment houses go to the Fed — on a temporary basis — for a quick, overnight source of cash. Those loan privileges, which are supposed to last through mid-September, are similar to those permanently afforded to commercial banks for years.
"We are currently monitoring developments in financial markets closely and considering several options, including extending the duration of our facilities for primary dealers beyond year-end should the current unusual and exigent circumstances continue to prevail in dealer funding markets," Bernanke said in prepared remarks to a mortgage-lending forum in Arlington, Va.
The Fed's decision to act — temporarily at least — as a lender of last resort for Wall Street firms was made after a run on Bear Stearns pushed the investment bank to the brink of bankruptcy and raised fears that others might be in jeopardy. It was the broadest use of the Fed's lending powers since the 1930s.
Bear Stearns was eventually taken over by JPMorgan Chase & Co., with the Fed providing $28.82 billion in financial backing.
Those controversial decisions have drawn criticism from Democrats in Congress and elsewhere that the Fed is bailing out Wall Street and putting billions of taxpayer dollars at risk.
Bernanke, in appearances on Capitol Hill has said he doesn't believe taxpayers will suffer any losses.
In his speech Tuesday, the Fed chief defended those actions anew. If the Fed didn't intervene, he said, problems in financial markets would have snowballed, imperiling the country.
"Allowing Bear Stearns to fail so abruptly at a time when the financial markets were already under considerable stress would likely have had extremely adverse implications for the financial system and for the broader economy," Bernanke said to the mortgage forum, organized by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
The Fed's consideration of giving Wall Street firms more time to tap the Fed's emergency loan program is part of an ongoing effort by the central bank to bring back stability to fragile financial markets and help to bolster shaky confidence on the part of investors.
Policymakers — in the White House, in Congress and other federal agencies — will need to work together to come up with ways to make the U.S. financial system more resilient and stable and to prevent a repeat of the types of problems that brought about the end of Bear Stearns, an 85-year-old institution, Bernanke said.
Although those efforts are already under way and will be the focus of a House Financial Services Committee hearing Thursday, it will fall to the next president and next Congress to settle them. Both Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson are scheduled to testify at Thursday's hearing.
The Bush administration has proposed revamping the nation's financial regulatory structure. That plan would make the Fed an ubercop in charge of financial market stability. But the Fed would lose daily supervision of big banks. Bernanke said the Fed must maintain this power if it is to be an effective overseer of financial stability.
The Fed, which regulates banks, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, which oversees investment firms, announced an information-sharing agreement on Monday aimed at better detecting potential risks to the financial system.
Over the longer term, though, Congress may need to adopt legislation to bolster supervision of investment banks and other large securities dealers, Bernanke said.
Bernanke recommended that Congress give a regulator the authority to set standards for capital, liquidity holdings and risk management practices for the holding companies of the major investment banks. Currently, the SEC's oversight of these holding companies is based on a voluntary agreement between the SEC and those firms.
Jason's Restaurant now in Greenbrae
Here is an Ij review of Jason's restaurant...one of our favorites in Greenbrae.
You can also read reviews on Jason's at yelp @ http://www.yelp.com/biz/jasons-restaurant-greenbrae-2
Dining Out: Creativity meets visual appeal at Jason's
I was a fan of Jason's when it fed people in a small space in an industrial neighborhood in San Rafael where, against all odds, it flourished for 3 1/2 years.
In early May, chef Jason Lee, who owns his eponymous restaurant with his parents, opened doors in Greenbrae in the spot that was formerly Giorgio's.
The huge new venue appears to be paying off. In just a month of business it's already packed at lunch and dinner with regulars and newcomers who are developing a taste for Lee's imaginatively plated, full-bodied dishes.
Jason's emphasizes seafood. Most preparations have an Italian flair, though some show Asian influences. There are even a couple with Cajun zip. The same menu (with the addition of a few sandwiches) is available at lunch and dinner; the portions are a smaller and the prices lower at lunch.
In terms of comfort, little, if anything, has changed from the Giorgio's days. The restaurant was one of the more welcoming in the county and still is.
A huge covered outdoor patio surrounded by potted plants and with clear plastic tenting to block wind is one of the nicest in mid-Marin. Inside, there's a pleasant bar with high stools and a few low tables and chairs. The asymmetrical main dining area with its creamy gold walls features banquettes, padded chairs and tables that stretch into the back of the large space. I'd sum it up as an amalgam of comfortable, casual and upscale. You could be at ease here in jeans and a T-shirt, or all spruced up for a romantic evening out.
A starter of Hawaiian poke ($14) is as good as it was when Lee built a following for it in San Rafael. It seemed more impressive here because the atmosphere is so much more appealing. A martini glass bristled with four long strips of deep-fried wonton skin. It was piled with finely chopped cucumber in a garlic sauce; these in turn were mounded with chilled ahi tuna chunks that gleamed like a rubble of rubies glossed with a mild, slightly Asian-inspired dressing hefting a little back-kick of heat.
Dragon prawns ($12) were four lightly tempuraed prawns striated with an unusual wasabi-based aioli plus a spoonful of bright orange tobiko to add crunch and color. They were deftly, greaselessly fried. As a basic fried shrimp starter goes, it was in a thoughtful class by itself.
A nightly special of seared scallops ($28), four to the order, were served over penne pasta slicked with a light pesto sauce and plenty of fresh diced tomato. It was a hearty dish thanks to plenty of pasta. The scallops were juicy, seared to a deep mahogany. But for the price, I thought it was a raw deal.
Much better - in fact the highlight of our meal - was a combination that may be one of the most solidly creative in Marin: It's billed as Cajun ahi tuna ($24). You get plenty of just-seared slices of ahi tuna piled on soft mashed potatoes, then dotted with a sweet/tangy mango salsa. Leaning against this construction was a vertical bouquet of tempuraed green beans. Everything was cooked just right. It looked like an art piece and tasted like a chamber jazz arrangement: Sweet, a hint of spice, smooth, crunchy, vegetal, velvety. Wow. I'd eat this any time under any circumstances for any meal.
While the menu offers chicken and a couple of steaks, it's pretty solidly weighted toward seafood. Other dishes include ceviche ($10) of assorted seafood; crab cakes ($13); blackened salmon Caesar salad ($20); linguine and clams in a white wine garlic sauce ($19); and a mixture called Cajun pasta ($20), Italian sausage, tiger prawns and mushrooms in a spicy red sauce with rigatoni.
I like that Jason's has a full bar. You're not limited to beer and wine; in addition, some of these dishes, such as the Cajun tuna, would be perfectly complimented by a cocktail such as a margarita or daiquiri, just for a change.
Desserts are made in-house. Bananas Foster is not worth the $11 price tag, as it's maybe a banana and a half sauteed in butter and brown sugar and served over a large scoop of vanilla ice cream. However, I loved a coconut creme brulee ($8), its coconut flavor adding richness and smoothness to the traditional presentation of custard in a shallow dish with the thinnest of crackling sugar crusts on top. Following that tuna, this was the perfect dessert.
Our server was excellent: Attentive and not overly familiar. He made sure the rhythm of our meal went smoothly. If he was knowledgeable about the dishes, I don't know. We didn't need to ask because the menu is clearly written and you get a strong sense of what each preparation is about.
With the carpeting and all the padded furniture, Jason's was also relatively quiet, even though it was packed on a Wednesday night. That's another plus.
Lee is a young talent to watch. He's particularly effective at turning out plates that look as appetizing as they taste. His restaurant, once it's more grounded and his dreams of expanding the menu are in place, will likely claim the reward of being one of the most popular in the county. Based on how much business he's getting, it already is.
REVIEW
Jason's
Address: 300 Drakes Landing Road, Greenbrae
Phone: 925-0808
Web site: www.jasonsrestaurant.com
Cuisine: California with Italian and world accents emphasizing seafood
Service: Good, attentive, knowledgeable
Noise level: Tolerable when crowded
Recommended dishes: Ahi poke; seared Cajun ahi tuna; coconut creme brulee
Liquor selection: Full bar, wine and beer
Corkage: $12
Heart-healthy and vegetarian selections: Minimal
Parking: Free lot on site
Wheelchair access: Yes
Hours: Lunch, 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. weekdays; dinner 5 to 9 weekdays, until 10 p.m. weekends.
Credit cards: Most major cards
Summary: Jason's, which built a large following in its 3 1/2 years on Andersen Drive in San Rafael, is sitting pretty in Greenbrae. It fills the space that was formerly Giorgio's with a crowd of regulars who show up at lunch and dinner for the better-than-average, often creative seafood dishes with Italian, Asian, even Cajun flair. Some plates here are so good they're a destination in themselves.
Leslie Harlib can be reached at lharlib@marinij.com.
California, Marin, Mid Year Real Estate Market Forecast Update, California Association of Realtors
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
||||
