rental with non-functional pool

[Sun Kim]

I am buying a primary residence, and in 2 or 3 years, converting to a rental.  The current owner bought the house with a pool and has not used it in 20 years.  The cost of the repair is$27K and don't want a pool either.  The pool does hold water and is not cracked, but looks to require some maintenance.  Is it advisable to leave the pool as is, and save the fill cost of about $12K, or just fill it from a liability stand point?

[Blair Poelman]

I've done lots of houses with pools (at least 30 in the past 10 years). Most have been rentals, some flips. In many cases, the pool has been a defining factor in rentability and salability.  A couple things come to my mind:

1. Seems to me that an empty pool is just as much a liability as a fully operating pool. 
2. If it hasn't been used in 20 years there is likely a substantial amount of updating to get it up and running.  
3. Somebody is going to have to deal with either fixing it, covering it, or filling it in.
4. If you choose to fill it in, you might have to actually take it out - meaning bust up the walls and haul it to the dump.  CA isn't exactly the most relaxed construction / demolition atmosphere.
5. Consider the cost to fix vs. the increased value you will have with an operating pool. 
6. Consider the local rental market - will a functioning pool allow you to get higher rent, or a better tenant?

I know I've not really provided any specific answers for you here, but these are things that I consider when it comes to old pools.