All Forum Posts by: Aaron M.

I love hearing contrarian thoughts and with the mainstream thinking being that DFW is a better overall place to invest in, what is it about SA that makes you prefer it much more to DFW? 

The problem I have is that I am doing a 1031 exchange and will have 45 days to decide where to purchase my rentals.  That's the part that I am struggling with the most is the time constraints of having to deal with the 1031 and the decision of what city to invest it in.  I think in my mind I have created an idea that DFW is an appreciation game and the city has already experienced a huge amount of appreciation and I don't want to get to the party late and pay the price in the event of a correction.  I "feel" (I really don't know) that SA is a safer bet (newer properties and more cashflow) but I would be very happy to hear critical objections to that. 

Hi Lucia,

I was just recently in SA and loved Beorne but I haven't yet visited DFW. We will definitely be checking out both areas again before we purchase, I am just conflicted about where to purchase investment property because I am coming in with a clean slate and can purchase a primary residence and investment property in the same town but it looks like DFW has lower cashflow with somewhat older properties and is more of an appreciation play (after the area has already seen considerable appreciation, which is risky) versus SA which has better cashflow and seems to be a more conservative play at the moment.  But as far as primary residence goes, we are definitely going to go with what feels best.  We are primarily looking at McKinney because we feel we can get the most of our money their without going too far outside of Dallas.

My wife and I are leaving California (we have no kids so schools are not a consideration to us personally) and we are selling our primary residence and rental property and are moving to Texas with a considerable amount of cash. Here is the dilema,  we are not sure if we wish to move to the San Antonio area or the Dallas Fort Worth area.  I am familiar with San Antonio (mostly north and north east) and would likely live in Beorne or the Diminion if we choose to relocate there.  We have not yet visited the DFW area but are very interested in seeing what McKinney has to offer and looks like.

While I am less concerned about figuring out where we wish to live, I am far more concerned about where we wish to invest.  I believe the DFW has seen a lot of appreciation already and that rents have not kept pace with property tax increases.  Therefore, the cashflow potential also seems more limited right now in DFW (where the homes are less than 10 years old) versus parts of San Antonio I was thinking of investing in like Converse, Stone Oak, and generally in areas that serve the military bases.

My primary question is this, how wise is it to invest in your backyard?  If I choose to live in DFW, how wise would it be have all of my rental property in San Antonio, especially when I don't currently own any rental property in either place and have complete freedom to choose where to live and invest?  I like the idea of purchasing a newer home for a rental that has less maintenance and then renting to military families, whom I understand typically make very good tenants.  I am clearly looking for less maintenance, including at the cost of reduced profit margins (looking to purcase rental property between $225k and $300k).  That said, I am not stupid so I don't want to just park my money somewhere when clearly better opportunities exist elsewhere.  

If I choose to live in either SA or DFW, who would recommend to HEAVILY consider only purchasing investment property in close proximity to where I live, especially considering I am coming in with no strings attached?  I am really thinking that I may want to live in the DFW area and have 3 or 4 houses in SA but I would love to hear from investors that are more experienced than I am as to their thoughts.  BTW, my strategy would be, regardless of where I choose to live, to have an agent find the tenant and show the house and I would manage the property once there is a tenant in place.  So the way I see it, if I purchase a newer home in SA and have a good tenant in place, then it shouldn't matter too much where I invest minus when I am looking to purchase a new investment property and have to drive to SA from DFW to do house hunting.  I am very much interested in critical viewpoints to this logic.

I live in California and have a "professional renter" (he is very knowledgeable about the lease and laws and acts strictly within those bounds - I perceive him to be a potential lawsuit threat) in my rental property.  Fortunately, I have a natural tendency to do the right thing and in a timely manner so his complaints to have "safety" issues addressed are not too much of an inconvenience for me (although the renter himself is an annoyance).  I am going to go on vacation for 10 days and I want to be clear on when I should authorize calling a plumber or electrician after business hours to address an issue.  Obviously, I am going to authorize an after-hours call to a plumber if there is a leak that results in water accumulating  under the bathroom sink (preventing property damage is a no-brainer); however, if a toilet is clogged, the water heater stopped working, electric power is no longer coming into a section of the house, then I dont want to pay the premium to have the tradesperson come after-hours (I dont feel like paying a premium for the convenience to my renter) when the call can be made the following day or on Monday if the issue occurs on Sunday morning.  

I know that by law (regardless of what a lease may say) landlords are supposed to provide basic amenities (hot water, electricity) to renters, but what are the timelines that such services need to be made available to the renter when there is a plumbing or electrical failure? 

I want and will be in compliance to the fullest extent of the law, but to be truthfully honest, I dont want to go any further for this particular renter than what I am legally supposed to do and I want to be ready if the late night plumbing call comes and I am on vacation.

 I would love nothing more than to drop it, but the tree is old and this tenant is legal savvy.  If anything happens I am confident a lawsuit will follow and I just dont want to deal with that regardless if "I am found harmless."  Again, this property is located in California where people are a little different than other parts of the country when it comes to suing.  Many things are not worth fighting over (and I have already agreed to, and paid for,  several "non-mandatory\non-safety" requests made by this renter), for me, this is.  I am wondering what my options are.

I am having difficulties with my tenant (The property is in California).  He put up a swing on a tree on the property without prior permission and is refusing to take it down.  The lease was drawn up with a California Association of Realtors (CARS) lease agreement, which states in the section on Alterations and Repairs: 

Unless otherwise specified by law or paragraph 29C without Landlord s prior written consent i. Tenant shall not make any repairs alterations or improvements in or about the Premises including painting wallpapering adding or changing locks installing antenna or satellite dishes placing signs displays or exhibits or using screws, fastening devices.

I wouldn't have minded the swing so much if the tenant hadn't already demonstrated in the past that he is quite savvy with the lease when I had requested that he provide receipts for maintenance items that the lease specified that the renter is required to take care of.  His response was that he doesnt need to provide the receipts even though he agreed to take care of the item (which he did).  He was right that the lease does not specify the need to provide receipts for maintenance items that he is responsible for maintaining but the experience caught my attention.  The other day I went to check on the property because he stated that a tree branch was hanging low and looked unsafe.  I then noticed the swing and sent him a note to take it down per the lease agreement.  He was quite unhappy about it but I am not willing to take on the liability of someone getting hurt using the swing.  The swing is "fastened" to the tree (otherwise gravity would bring them down to the ground), which to me sounds like a violation of the lease as permission was never given to put up the hammock and swing.  

I asked the renter to take down the item within 48 hours and provide photographic evidence that he has done so.  The deadline has passed and he has not provided the photos.  Can he take down the swing and hammock but then not need to provide photographic evidence that the swing was taken down because the lease does not specify that photographic evidence needs to be provided in such a case?   I am not an attorney so it is possible that the swing, for some legal reason not obvious to me, do not qualify as an "alteration or repair" as specified in the lease.  What are my options in this case?  Should I seek legal counsel?  I am not willing to take on the liability of someone getting hurt using a swing on a tree on my property.

My property's lease is coming up for renewal at the end of June and I wanted to get a sense of how many weeks before the end of lease do you start to advertise the property?  What is a reasonable amount of time to expect it takes to lease a property priced fairly during the summer?

Also, I would appreciate any advice for how to show a house that the tenant is not keeping in good share (mainly pretty filthy bathroom conditions?)

 I did do a walk through with the tenant and I also have a pet deposit.  I have clear documentation of the condition of the floors prior to this tenant moving in.  Also, these are not real hardwood floors.  The enamel on them is THIN.  I cant imagine they would take more than 2 sandings before they reveal particle chips.  I am thinking of having them sanded and then not allowing a pet over 20 pounds.

 No, this is not a service animal.