Skip to content
×
PRO
Pro Members Get Full Access!
Get off the sidelines and take action in real estate investing with BiggerPockets Pro. Our comprehensive suite of tools and resources minimize mistakes, support informed decisions, and propel you to success.
Advanced networking features
Market and Deal Finder tools
Property analysis calculators
Landlord Command Center
$0
TODAY
$69.00/month when billed monthly.
$32.50/month when billed annually.
7 day free trial. Cancel anytime
Already a Pro Member? Sign in here
Pick markets, find deals, analyze and manage properties. Try BiggerPockets PRO.
x
All Forum Categories
All Forum Categories
Followed Discussions
Followed Categories
Followed People
Followed Locations
Market News & Data
General Info
Real Estate Strategies
Landlording & Rental Properties
Real Estate Professionals
Financial, Tax, & Legal
Real Estate Classifieds
Reviews & Feedback

All Forum Posts by: Barry Wang

Barry Wang has started 3 posts and replied 9 times.

I am in the process of talking to some developers in the Austin area about buying new construction (BROHN HOMES).

Essentially, the term allows both buyer and seller to terminate the contract prior to closing for a fairly small amount of fee (a couple of thousands).  Is this common?   Would the seller just terminate if the price goes up during the construction? 

Well said. People don't just live to work, they also live to live. 

Originally posted by @Joe P.:

Just because folks can work REMOTELY doesn't mean and doesn't correlate to people MOVING.

If you work for a tech company in the Valley, for example, and they pay you commensurate with experience and in-line with your local costs, and you like where you live, why would you move? You would work remotely from where you are.

Some people may move, for sure, but moving is not a small feat. I couldn't put a number on the percentage of what it might be, but I'd be surprised if its anything higher than 10%.

I've been able to work remotely (thankfully!) for the past 6 years. Guess where I've done it...in the place I've called home for 10 years. I'm not moving. I have roots here, my wife has family nearby, and we are mostly satisfied with our neighborhood.

I think this is a GOOD thing for investors. High demand areas will continue to be high demand and homeowners/renters will seek to make their homes even more important aspects of their lives. It is incumbent upon us as investors, landlords, property managers, et al, to continue to provide quality housing for these folks.

The adjustment for your total compensation is going to be more than 10%. (I assume the number is just for illustration purpose). 
They might keep the base change relatively small as nobody wants to start getting a much smaller paycheck, but they will reduce the RSU refresh significantly in the upcoming cycle.  They want you to move because they want to reduce R&D code significantly and 10% is not enough given the overhead introduced in a completely distributed organization. And, don't forget the new people they hire will start with a much lower total compensation package and when the time comes, they will let go those people that started with a fat Bay Area salary.

I don't disagree with you that a lot people will move out of Bay Area, but at end of day, people like SF Bay Area/New York, they will always be the hubs of the world at least in next 50 years. People, especially young ones want access to things only major cities can offer.  We still live in a fairly physical world, there are too many things can only be experienced in person.  


Originally posted by @Brian Singh:

Lawrence. If you making 100K in SF as a IC3 coder and move to Montana you will be paid 90K . Its not going to be 70K. Just understand the tech companies want us to move. It better for them, they not going to penalize you for it.

I checked with my manager and HR, if manager says you are good and can work remtely, you can move. The following are on the list that I know of

1. Sales

2. Marketing

3. Coders( Dev , full stack, back end)

4. Finance and Ops

5. Network security engineers

So most people have done the math and we all the coming ahead. Taxes if we move to texas or cost of living if we move to midwest.
#Calexit is real

Thanks for all the feedbacks. Couple of things to clarify:

1: The people complained are not my tenants. They are neighbors who lived couple of buildings away. I have had conversation with my tenant each time I received complaints and they have always responded politely. At end of day, it is probably just different expectation people have when they live in a crowded city like SF. (People live in the buildings on both side of mine never complained)

2: Not renew is not an option in San Francisco. It is not up to the landlord.

My original question is mostly about what are some tools I have that I can enforce certain rules, but sounds like there is not really an option there other than keep having open conversation. 



Originally posted by @Brian Garlington:

No disrespect but 

Rule number one. Never have a rental property in the City of San Francisco, ever, no exceptions.

Rule number two. See rule number one.

I lived in the City and grew up in the Bay Area and have seen so many wacky rules that overwhelmingly favor tenants in San Francisco that it makes no sense.  

There are those that say Oakland, Berkeley and Richmond are tenant friendly as well, but San Francisco is on a completely different level. 

Don't disagree as I have been in SF for the last 10 years and fully aware of the risk, but what I am doing is more house hacking.  

I live in a nice neighborhood and charge high rent, so the number works for me and I also don't intend to keep them as rental forever, most likely will renovate and sell sometime in the future.
Owning pure rental properties especially ones targeted at lower-income tenants will just stress me out, not worth it, even though I know people who had done really well on the east coast follow that playbook...

  

Thanks all. That is the problem, they didn't really break any local ordinance. And unfortunately we are in San Francisco, so we can't just say we are not going to continue the lease (they are on month to month now)

For any new lease, we already add a clause that says, you can't drink alcohols in backyard and I think I can also add clause says , you cannot have guests over in backyard, that would give me some "teeth" in the future right?

In my three units, I have one group of tenants that in their early twenties and like to use the backyard for parties (BBQ, Beer Pong) with 10 plus people. We have a couple of senior neighbors who would always complain about this. I feel bad about them disturbing the neighbors but at the same time, they are actually great tenants, easy to communicate, take care the property and always pay rent on time.

But now, we will be moving into one of units ourself and likely we will be annoyed by this type of activities as well.

There is nothing on the current lease that I can use to ask them not to have parties or limit their use of backyard.

What are my options? Can I set a building rule like you need to send a notice to use the backyard if you will have guests over?

Ya Agree. I called our insurance agent and he confirmed it will be covered by landlord/personal liabilities.   I think it is a small risk I am cool taking.  Thanks everyone.

I have a 3 units in Bay area. Tenants from one of the unit volunteered to lay fake grass in the backyard (500 sqft+) as long we cover all the materials.  I am cool paying for all materials, but worry about the liability if there were accidents. My tenants are early 20 young guys and had experience doing yard work before actually. 

What are my options?  I am thinking have them pay for everything and I simply reimburse them all material costs.

Do I get them sign a wavier or something? I don't know if there is any similarities, but if someone fell off when they try to paint their own room, I guess I am not liable, but this is in shared area.

I do have landlord liability in my insurance policy. 

Thanks!