All Forum Posts by: Alexa K.

I self-manage my own properties and really enjoy it. I've been dabbling with a few different small business ideas to startup on the side, and I thought that perhaps starting a business that offers walkthrough services to landlords (particularly those out of state) and property managers might be an interesting and cool niche idea. Basically, charging a flat fee to perform walkthroughs on behalf of landlords/PMs, documenting the findings, writing up a report, and sending it their way. Does this seem like something that might not be too well received? I'm thinking that OOS landlords who self-manage, and PMs with busy schedules, might benefit from something like this, but I might just have my head in the clouds.

Pretty sure that, regarding the service dog's "authenticity," you can only ask for written verification from the tenant's health provider that the service animal is necessary, in addition to the animal's vet records to show proof of vaccination status and in good health. Aside from that, nothing else.

I think you're counting your chickens before they hatch. You're only 18 and won't be starting your journey for another 6 years -- focus on school for now, because a lot can change in just a few short years, especially going into your twenties. I'd put this on the backburner and focus on school and enjoying life, at least until you're pushing 22. Good luck!

Could you not get a HELOC if you were to use one of your units as your permanent resident? Simply leave a unit vacant, have your mail sent there, keep the address on your driver's license, and get a roommate to help offset costs.

No, it did not come off as harsh. Disagreeing is never rude, and having differing viewpoints is fine. I can understand how you'd think my third point is discriminatory, and it likely is. But in my opinion, I think investors should have a shorter stick. Again, just my opinion. Regardless, I wholeheartedly agree that there is too much BS around building. Something absolutely has to give in this regard. More lax building (zoning?) laws would be helpful. I have quite a bit of land in a residential area where I cannot even build property on because whatever does end up getting built there has to be a minimum of 2500sq ft. Such nonsense. I was planning on simply building a small ranch home for my mother, but I have to toss that idea out the window and build a whole triplex instead. Just sticks out like a sore thumb in an area full of small SFHs.

That exact number is not based on every property in my area, but rent increases have gone up at least 40% across the board. Insurance and property taxes have also seemed to stay more or less the same, save for some particular neighborhoods where taxes have increased, but even so it's been considerably minimal. So, your little "gotcha" question doesn't quite work here. As for everything else you address -- I was planning on actually answering and giving examples, but then I remembered that I have known you for a total of 5 minutes and have enjoyed none of them. I live and invest in my area and know this place better than you do. It cost me $4k to install a brand new 90% furnace and 2ton AC in each of my properties last year, M&L. I paid $5k for a roof tear off and replacement on a 1300sq ft property, M&L. I paid $6k for brand new vinyl siding and installation on a 1000sq ft property, M&L. I get brand new double-hung windows installed for $350/each, M&L. I know my market and I know my market's prices. Whether you believe the fact that I do, in fact, own (and manage) my own rentals is not of my concern. You are quite literally a nobody to me, so I have nothing to prove.

I do not know what every individual investor is doing in every market. However, I know that investors in my market are driving up prices based on my own experiences. Investors from CA, TX, AZ are coming in and paying at least 35% more for properties, overpaying for contract work, and in doing so are forced to increase rents to cover their costs to make a dollar. They're pricing actual residents of the area of their homes, because then other landlords all decide, oh, well I guess if landlord A is charging $950/mo, then that means I can jack up the rent at my own place from $600/mo to $850/mo. 

To pretend as if investors don't have any sort of hand in price-fixing whatsoever, especially in midwestern LCOL markets, is ignorance at it's best. 

And as for your last statement, no, it's not proof that rents are not too high. I quite literally explained why this isn't so in my previous post, which you responded to. But again, you can't see the forest for the trees because your brain is too clouded in ignorance. You simply listen to speak. Either way, your ignorance and lack of understanding is not my problem. All I came to say in the first place was that I was in favor of some more tenant-friendly laws. And when prompted for answers, I gave my answers -- which you clearly do not like. If you want to pitch a fit because I have different views from your own, then so be it -- but I don't have to be in the audience. 

Good luck. 

Cody, no offense, but we are in two completely different markets. As I've already stated in one of my responses, property taxes have remained the same and insurance rates have even lowered for my own properties. Besides, I was speaking about rents skyrocketing in areas where there's no real rhyme or reason for it -- clearly, this is not every market, and if it doesn't pertain to you, then it doesn't pertain to you. Insurance rates skyrocketing and property taxes doubling are, in fact, rhymes and reasons. It seems as if you simply responded to my comment as a knee-jerk reaction because you're unhappy with the idea of a fellow landlord being in favor of more tenant-friendly laws. 

tl;dr: You can say the government is the cause of rent increases. I can say that investors are the cause of rent increases. It doesn't matter one way or another. Neither of us are economists. We're investors.

Nick, the BP forums are not the best place to find any sense of morality when it comes to RE investing. You're going to find morals here to be undeniably skewered in one direction. It's essentially an echo chamber. 

The only advice I can give as someone who often dwells on the issue of morality of RE investing as well is to look inward -- and outward -- on your own. Don't take anyone else's opinion into consideration on this matter. And if you do, make sure to get equal sides of the coin. Spend time reading through the BP forums, but also spend time reading from the points of views of others elsewhere. You don't necessarily need to swing one way all the way in particular. There can be a middle ground. Whether or not you'll need to make some moral concessions, however, will depend on your own conscience. 

Personally, I plan on taking my portfolio and making it so that, down the line, my properties will not be able to be used for investment purposes, or ever owned by another RE investor. I want them solely in the hands of those who will benefit from them. How I can do this, I'm not entirely sure yet. I've read that it's possible to alter deeds so that they're unable to be used for specific purposes, and there's also the option of putting them into a non-profit syndicate of sorts where rental proceeds will be used to provide assistance or donations for other matters. Either way, this is so far down the line that it's not quite on my radar yet, but certainly in the back of my mind. This is how I've personally come to be able to compartmentalize my own moral concerns when it comes to RE investing. My belief system is sort of a mix of "smoke 'em if you got 'em" and "If I don't do it, someone else will -- and they might not be as benevolent." Whether it's right, who knows. But it's my own belief. Which, again, as I started off with, you should not care about because what I say doesn't matter. I only gave it as an example. You'll have to find your own system. Good luck!

 a) I am a landlord.

b) Landlords can, indeed, raise rents to unreasonable levels -- and in some instances, they have. Yes, there's the argument that eventually nobody will pay, but that doesn't mean market rates will then fall to a livable level and a comfortable equilibrium will be found. Rent prices will often still be high enough that renters will continue to be stretched thin, because that's just par for the course in how the landlord game works. The free market, in my opinion and experience, is not always the best arbiter. In my particular area, rent for a 3 bedroom SFH in a C or B- neighborhood has gone from ~$550/mo to ~950/mo in the span of a bit over a year. Property taxes have not increased in most areas at all, nor have insurance rates in a lot of instances. In fact, taxes and insurance have gone down for my own properties. The driving force behind the massive increase in rent, in my area, is the influx of investors -- particularly out of state investors -- who are (1) unfamiliar with the area and so end up purchasing properties for quite more than they're actually worth, which then means that (2) they now must increase rents in order to cover their investment costs and make a decent return. The landlords are essentially setting their own market prices at this point here, and most people can barely afford to rent anymore.

c) I'm in favor of capped rent increases under certain criteria, and also making federally-backed mortgages unavailable for investment purposes. I'm also very much in favor of investment mortgage loans requiring more than 20% down, and think they should require something closer to 30-40%. I also do like the idea of giving homeowners first choice over investors when it comes to purchasing opportunities on the market; I understand that this is, or has, already been implemented in some areas, but I'd like to see it across the board. I'm open to other changes as well, though am not too familiar with anything else; I simply believe that allowing those changes alone will allow for more fair competition between individual homeowners and investors. In my opinion, there are simply too many cooks in the kitchen. However, I am certainly not in favor of the suggested change to seal eviction records, or not being able to deny certain applicants on the grounds of their notable criminal history.

Again, these are my opinions based on my own experiences in my own markets, not only as a landlord but also as a fellow human being.