Our most recent post regarding 521 MBB
passed over another issue with that listing: It's coded as the MB "Sand Section," but it's not.
Maybe being on MBB right near downtown "feels like" the Sand, but, as we explained in 2 recent posts: No
. (See "The Church in the Sand?
" and "When Maps Collide
Do you want to blame the unfamiliarity of the agent hustling the property? The firm seems to be a foreclosure/short-sale specialty shop that's fairly new to MB.
Then what about 2 other listings just a stone's throw away that are also coded, incorrectly, as "Sand Section?"
And in each case, the names behind the listings are well established. 513 11th Place
is in the yellow-stuccoed Mediterranean townhome development at the corner of MBB/Ardmore. Technically, that's the Hill Section. (The orange "144" area on this map.)
But the listing agent, no rube, has it coded as "Sand Section."
Cut back across MBB to the Trees, and 1312 Ardmore
is back. (The listing tried but failed to sell last year, and is now beckoning for "all offers.")
Being east of Ardmore, this one is plainly in the Tree Section (green area 143), but it's not coded that way.
The listing agent, one of the bigger names in the local RE community, has coded Ardmore as "Sand," too.
Does any of this matter? After all, the home is in the same place, regardless of how it's coded online.
One argument would be that the "Sand Section" designation brings these listings up in a search by potential buyers (or out-of-area agents) looking for beach-adjacent properties only.
Or perhaps there's some gravy added to the value if a buyer thinks a home is "Sand" and not Trees or Hills. (Though with 521 MBB and 513 11th, MBB is such a dominant factor in the location, no coding trick or even an essay about the joys of walking to Metlox is going to improve the situation much.)
Bottom line, it's about standards. The South Bay Association of Realtors creates a map. Everyone in the association is supposed to follow it. Freelancing your location descriptor seems like a shaky practice.