All Forum Posts by: Adam Martin

That's some nice virtue signaling but as already mentioned it is not going to happen.  If it did though I would have to assume that rents would skyrocket like never before as inventory is drastically lowered.  Not all of these renters are going to magically become buyers by either choice or underwriting.  If anything this may make the homeless situation even worse by kicking renters out of their homes due to a forced sale.  Actions have consequences and while this may sound great on paper to certain people as in anything there would be winners and losers.  I see this as more politicking and trying to pander to their base than realistically trying to pass a bill.  

I don't do any flipping so this is just for ltr.  I like to buy a house that structurally is sound just dated and I agree in my area I'm looking for houses built in the 80's and newer.  I don't want to have to deal with lead paint or asbestos plus I stay in the b+ to A- range and in my area that is pretty much the date range of those houses.  I'm going to paint all the walls anyway and at some point lay down lvp so if the house needs work I smell a discount.  I'm looking for one that has been sitting for a bit and if there are some ugly chandeliers or fixtures I just see that as a bonus to lower my competition.  

1. I don't usually see popcorn ceilings but texture is common.  I don't love it but I don't think I'm losing any prospects having it so I see no reason to remove it.  

2. For a fence it is standard here to have a wood 3 rail fence with the wiring.  I have tried renting a house before that did not have one and it was significantly harder.  I allow dogs and like them due to the additional deposit of 600 plus 35/month/pet.  Ideally I'm buying with a fence already installed but if not one is getting built if practical.

3. For paint all walls are Behr flat scuff defense in accessible beige which is a greyish beige.  I use flat because it is significantly easier to touch up since I don't have to worry about the sheen fading.  I've touched up walls that were 3 years old but in otherwise good shape outside of a couple nail holes.

4. I do all lvp everywhere except the steps where I install carpet myself.  Carpet is just gross and tends to get damaged.  I'm trying to turn vacant units quickly so if I buy and the carpet is in good shape I may leave it but when it is past it's useful life it has to go.  I do like carpet on the steps though for extra grip to help tenants not fall and it is really cheap.  

5. I have never replaced what is in there so no clue on the countertops.  Generally as long as it is useable and in good shape leave it alone.  

I had a couple questions on the paperwork and processes for my last claim through my tenants renters insurance and I second just asking the adjuster if you are unsure and this seems like a simple email.   Just as you don’t want to re submit a claim they don’t want to have to read through any more than they have to and are usually helpful in my experience.  Both of our time is valuable and I want it done as close to right as possible the first time. I was able to get my ceiling retextured new floors and a month of lost rent and feel that after some initial back and forth I was treated fairly.  

I would be a lot less worried about a non neutered dog vs am a non spayed one.  If it was a female dog the puppies would be over the animal limit so that is a no go.  Whenever someone has an esa I will of course allow them however I let them know up front that I use petscreening.com and they will verify the legitimacy of the letter and if comes back that they used one of the online services where you pay for the letter they are denied.  I rarely have anyone with a fake one push past that.  Has this person submitted an application because my qualifications are strict and a lot of time the person doesn’t meet the basics so the esa doesn’t even come into play.  

The comments are turned off without a subscription however this is absolutely crazy.  That said this is a highly tenant favorable area and it sounds like screening was probably lacking.  The article states that they leased with favorable terms for the tenant which was 110% a mistake.  If they had higher standards and stuck to them there is a higher likelihood this would not have happened.  With policies like this there are many losers.  The landlord in this situation is obviously loosing.  Applicants who have less than stellar history are also loosing because with risks like these who is going to take a chance on a marginal tenant with risks this high outside of this guy.  If it were me I’d be tempted to park my van in front of legislators and attorneys yards to live consistently being just below noise ordinances just to lower their standard of living just like they did to me.  If neighbors were curious I’d let them know why I’m there and how to get me to leave.  

I'm not sure how you would get your deposit back but am genuinely curious on why you think you deserve it. You both signed a contract and part of your offer was a guarantee of at least 33k on an accepted offer which is exactly what waiving contingencies does. You waived all your contingencies to make a stronger offer but if you can just get out of your obligation of your EMD than what good is it really. It is assumed that this would strengthen your offer and I bet it did which is why you did it. If you truly had no contingency I really don't think you deserve it and your personal work situation does not relieve you of your contractual obligations. I hope your work situation works itself out and wish you the best in the future and look forward to someone answering what happens if you all don't come up to an agreement but my bet is it would involve attorneys and litigation.

In all fairness this is a bigger rant than just your situation but in general I don't believe that people respect contracts as they should and are quick to hold the other party responsible but unwilling to look inward when the shoe is on the other foot.  

This is market dependent as other posters have answered this question before that in their area tenants have their own fridge and it is normal for the area.  For me it is not and while there are occasional listings where tenant needs to supply their own those tend to sit and have a lot of price reductions which I would think would put the landlord in the red vs. just buying a new one.  Where I live most people have or expect to get their own washer and dryer but I provide everything in the kitchen all stainless steel.   Kitchens are a huge selling point for tenants and you want to make a good impression.  In my opinion by cutting corners like not including expected appliances your first impression is that you are cheap and somewhat slummy.  Not saying you are but I just feel that is how I would be perceived but I'm in an A- to B+ market so that plays into it as well.  Many of the best prospects who are the ones you want are going to be touring several homes and you want yours standing out in the right way.  

Keep in mind I'm not a realtor or broker so I'm coming into this on the other side of the lens than many posters who have posted.  I would say the biggest reason we have the current system is most real estate agents are Realtors.  The purpose of that organization is to keep realtors profitable and the current system does just that.  I have always questioned the 6% split both ways as I don't see someone selling a 1M house having to work significantly harder with increased expense as a 100k house.  In fact I'd bet the opposite is true as the cheaper houses will have more issues come up in inspection and attract a class of buyer who is more likely to have issues come up with the mortgage.  I could be wrong and am open to being corrected.  

While I don't think the current system is perfect I don't have a better idea.  It is necessary though because like many businesses the majority of your money comes from the minority of your clients.  You have tons of people wasting your time that never close so those that do need to cover for that time.  My fear is exactly as @James Hamling stated that this will move more into a fee structure up front for buyers especially.  The issue I see with this is that buyers are already strapped for cash enough and it is hard for many to come up with a down payment so many won't be able to afford to come up with these fees and still have money left over.  You all still have a business to run though so you have to come up with your money somewhere.  My hope would be that we can somehow get your fees into the closing costs or wrapped into the loan so that lower income buyers can still afford good representation.  I also think that more buyers will just go straight to the listing agent hoping to get a discount rather than crating a relationship with their buyers agent who can guide them through the process.  I'm not a fan of double closing especially for the unexperienced because the sellers realtor's primary alliance is with the seller not buyer and it is impossible that you are both getting equal treatment.  As in a lot of government interference with free enterprise while they have good intentions I think the results will be the opposite that they were hoping for.  

 The more I think of it the more sure I am that I probably should be requiring it going forward.  Do you mind sharing the screening service you use that provides it for you.  

You can.  Go onto the brokerage company of your choice and research it will be under bonds for agency debt.  Not all brokerage companies carry all the cusips in their inventory but you should be able to find something similar.  If this is something you are interested in I would suggest giving the company a call and speaking with their fixed income desk, they will be able to provide you with some education to answer your questions and can probably point you to some resources.  Depending on the firm you can buy both new issues and buy on the secondary market but keep in mind minimums often apply and it can be expensive to buy enough to get the best price.