Ridgeway D
Preliminary Information – Full Audit Pending
This buildings features were determined from publicly available data, including MLS listings. While we cross-referenced additional data sources, it still likely contains incomplete or inaccurate information, as it has not yet been personally verified.
Once a building has been fully audited, this page will be replaced with an in-depth analysis featuring verified details and photos of every key feature.
Until then, we provide a data‑driven overview that blends statistical analysis of the checkbox selections agents make in MLS with an AI‑powered read of their public remarks—yielding a clearer picture of the building than raw listings alone.
If this building is important to your search, you can help prioritize it for a full audit by requesting one below. To see what a complete report looks like, check out the example full report.
Ridgeway D
Building Overview
Ridgeway D in neighborhood not specified; built 1971. Pets and short-term rentals are not allowed (according to MLS data).
About Ridgeway D
Ridgeway D is a condominium building recorded as built in 1971. Neighborhood and unit size or construction details are not specified in the available MLS data, so those particulars should be confirmed with listing records or the managing entity.
According to available records, the building does not allow pets and short-term rentals are not permitted. The MLS data does not list common-area amenities, unit layouts, or on-site services. The management company is listed as unknown in the MLS information provided.
Additional details such as parking arrangements, maintenance fees, permit requirements, and other policies are not included in the provided MLS data. Based on MLS data, buyers and agents should verify parking, fees, rules, and management contact information with the listing broker or the association prior to making decisions.
Building Features & Data Confidence
All features from MLS data with AI-assisted confidence analysis. Click each category to expand and see details.
No analysis available
Calculated from the lowest association fee observed across all non-penthouse unit listings for this building.
Calculated from the highest association fee observed across all non-penthouse unit listings for this building.
Calculated from association fees observed in penthouse unit listings for this building.
No analysis available
No analysis available
Both available listings currently indicate common-area electricity is included in the association fees (2/2). No public remarks explicitly mention this, so the evidence is from consistent MLS checkbox data and could still reflect copy/paste, but there is no contrary evidence.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Both listings currently show sewer included in the association fees (2/2). There are no remarks confirming it, so this rests on MLS data alone, but the consistency across listings supports it.
Water is marked as included on both current listings (2/2). The public remarks do not mention water fees directly, so this is supported by consistent MLS checkbox data rather than listing descriptions.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Evidence is weak but present: 1 of 2 current listings has PRIYAR, and the remarks describe a "private patio" with an "end-unit, perimeter lot" location. No listing explicitly says "private yard," "fenced yard," or similar, so this may be a copy-paste MLS checkbox rather than verified yard space.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Parking is clearly present in this building. The remarks explicitly mention 'one assigned parking stall and ample street parking,' which confirms parking availability and also matches the current MLS parking_features data.
Assigned parking is directly confirmed in the listing remarks. The phrase 'one assigned parking stall' is explicit and aligns with the current MLS data showing ASSIGN, so confidence is very high.
No analysis available
I searched for 'deeded parking,' 'owned stall,' or parking included in the deed, but the only parking description is an assigned stall. That supports parking being assigned rather than deeded.
No analysis available
I looked for any parking rental, monthly parking charge, or additional parking cost language and found none. The remarks only mention one assigned stall and street parking.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
I searched for 'parking waitlist,' 'parking waiting list,' or instructions to join a waitlist and found nothing. The listing instead notes an assigned stall and ample street parking.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Double wall construction is shown in both current MLS listings (2/2), suggesting this is a building characteristic rather than a one-off unit note. The public remarks are silent on construction, but the repeated MLS coding supports including it.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Slab foundation is only present in 1 of 2 current MLS listings, so the evidence is weaker than the other construction features. Because the remarks do not mention foundation details, this should be treated as a lower-confidence feature that may apply to some units or reflect inconsistent MLS entry.
No analysis available
Wood frame construction appears consistently in the current MLS records, with 2 of 2 listings marked WOOFRA. The public remarks do not mention construction, but there is no indication of a correction or contradiction, so this looks like a reliable building-level feature.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
I looked for explicit STR language such as 'short-term rental allowed,' 'vacation rental allowed,' 'NUC,' or 'TVU' and found none. With no evidence in the remarks, STR is not established as allowed.
I searched for hotel pool references such as 'hotel rental pool,' 'managed by hotel,' or brand-specific pools and found nothing. Because STR is not supported in the remarks, this must also be false.
I looked for mandatory participation language like 'must be in rental program' or 'cannot opt out' and found none. Since there is no evidence of STR being allowed, mandatory pool participation is also false.
No analysis available
No analysis available
The listing explicitly identifies the property as fee simple rather than leasehold. I looked for any ground-lease or lease-expiration year references and found none.
I looked for phrases like 'VA approved,' 'VA financing,' and 'VA loans accepted' and found nothing. With no current value and no supporting remarks, this is treated as not evidenced in the public remarks.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Flood zone determined from official FEMA Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) data using building coordinates, not from agent-reported listing data.
No analysis available
There is limited but real evidence for ocean views: 1 of 2 listings includes OCEAN in the MLS view description. The public remarks only mention a private patio with 'beautiful sunset views,' which is not explicit enough to confirm ocean, so this is supported mainly by the MLS data.
Mountain views have the strongest MLS support of the four features: 2 out of 2 listings include MOUNTA in the view description. While the public remarks do not spell it out, the consistent MLS data suggests this is not just a one-off agent entry.
No analysis available
City views appear in 1 of 2 listings, which is enough to suggest the building offers some city-view units. The remarks provide no direct confirmation, so this looks like a partial building-level feature rather than something described consistently by agents.
No analysis available
No analysis available
Golf course view is supported by 1 of 2 MLS listings, though the public remarks only say the home is near Pearl Country Club. That proximity is not the same as a view, so this is supported by the MLS view description rather than the narrative remarks.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Confidence levels are based on MLS checkbox data and AI analysis of listing remarks. High = strong evidence, Medium = some evidence, Low = limited or conflicting evidence. Buyers should always verify critical details independently.