All Forum Posts by: Adam Johnson

Many facilities guard this. You may not know that detail until after the contract is written. Write in for a due diligence period that allows you to escape the deal if you don't like the mix. In fact, the due diligence clause should be kind of vague, except for the duration.

Glad it worked out! These are generally pretty low maintenance, but it is a good idea to remove sediment from time to time because it is bad if it builds up in the pipes.

For a red neck fix, next time there is moderate to heavy rain forecast, cover the drain with a piece of plastic or tarp in order to intentionally flood the lot. Once it builds up a bunch of water, pull the plastic so that it rushes down the drain. This will help to clear the sediment from inside the pipe too.

@Jonathan Stone - the jetter is probably going to be your next step then.  I'm pretty sure that most, if not all, have a vacuum with them, but you will want to confirm that before committing to any particular vendor.  If the outlet is plugged, which I would assume it is completely plugged, you will need to manage the water coming out of the jet until they get it flowing.

If you have more than one catch basin, make the most of the money you are spending and have ALL of them cleared out at the same time, even if they still kind of work.  You might add an hour or 2 to the job, BUT you are then only paying one mobilization charge instead of one now and one in the future when the next drain gives you problems.

Next step to consider - call your attorney that handled the closing.  Failure to disclose a latent defect (something that you might not ordinarily notice, but the seller likely knows exists) could put you in a position to go back and tap the seller on the shoulder.  What you are showing in the picture and describing didn't "just happen", it took quite a while to build up to this point and the seller will likely have a very difficult time claiming otherwise.  Your attorney might agree with the argument that unless you inspected the property after a significant rain or snow melt event, you would not have been afforded the opportunity to notice a significant defect in the storm drainage system.  The seller could argue that a visual inspection would have revealed the catch basin full of silt, but that would not necessarily support their failure to disclose the problem prior to the sale.  If you purchased the property "as is", this suggestion likely won't matter.  It is worth 5 minutes on the phone with your attorney.

Forewarning - there is a chance that the jetter may not clear the outlet line, which would require excavation to replace it.  First thing's first, try the jetter.  That's exactly what I would do as the next step.

Is this a concrete structure? Can't tell from the picture for sure. I assume that it is. There should be an outlet pipe of some sort. It is possible the PM hit the bottom, which is likely concrete, so the next thing to discover is the outlet pipe.  There is a good chance that pipe is full of silt. If that's the case, then you are likely going to need someone with a better to try to clear the line again.

Your PM can try to locate the outlet by scraping the wall near the bottom. If the hit a softer spot, clear it out a little bit. If it is nearly round, that's likely it.  Depending on where you are located, you might try talking to the city streets department. They might be able to give you helpful information on where it connects to. You might also get lucky if you turn on the charm and get them to help, but don't count on it.

In my opinion, no way.  I don't think 70 is much better.  I will use this example - my truck is 22 feet long and I have a 34 ft. fifth wheel camper.  Because the hitch is in the bed of the truck, there is an overlap.  Let's say the overall length is around 52 feet bumper to bumper when it is straight.  That only leaves 8 feet (4 in front, 4 in back), but that is NOT the problem.  With the doors facing each other, you are forcing a 90 degree turn in a VERY tight space.  This doesn't even consider the overhang on the trailer from the rear axle to the back of the RV, so there is a tail swing factor when backing into or pulling out of these units.  My RV, like most, is 8 feet wide, some will go to 8 1/2 and some boats are overwidth.  For easy math, let's use 8 feet.  That leaves 3 feet on either side of the RV/boat, which is decent when backing more or less straight in.  If you force a hard turn just before entering/leaving, that tail swing becomes an issue.

If you put ANY building that close (even 70'), you are looking for trouble.  I am not a designer, but if you are looking at this size unit (or you already have that size unit), my thought is that you should be more like 100' between buildings.  Otherwise, you are going to get a ton of tenant complaints, increase vacancy, and increase damage to your buildings as well as tenant's vehicles.

If you want to see my point in person, as the weather improves, go to a boat launch ramp and watch how many people can actually back there boat into the water like they know what they are doing.  Next, go to a campground and watch how many people can actually back an RV/camper trailer into their site without major issues.  My rough estimate is 40-50% can actually control their vehicles with any degree of proficiency.  And that is in an environment that is more open than what you are looking at.

Another exercise to try - buy a half dozen traffic cones, the taller ones that are 20" high or more or pound some stakes in the ground.  Set them at 60' away from your current building and have a tenant try to maneuver into/out of their unit.  Do it with them backing a trailer in from both the driver's side as well as the passenger's side (which is trickier).  See how many tries it takes.  By using the cones or stakes, you can play around with different distances very easily and inexpensively before you put a building in the wrong spot.

I hate to be a Debbie-downer, but I think you are no the wrong track with your current plan.  You could compromise the value of what you already have.

Any chance you can put the doors of the current building on the other end, then put a second building up back to back with the current building so that the doors face out instead of toward each other?

I can only answer from a driver's perspective. If you have a 50 foot unit, you will likely attract trailers or RVs that are 40 feet or longer. I have a crew cab F350 that is around 22' long.  I have a lot of commercial truck experience, so I am pretty comfortable backing a large trailer into a tight space.  HOWEVER, most RV owners struggle to back up straight, let alone around a tight turn into a relatively narrow opening. I don't encourage having doors facing each other, you are asking for trouble.  Trouble will come in the form of units that are tougher to rent because they are difficult to get in and out of, as well as more damage from drivers that lack the skill to maneuver into the units in BOTH buildings

Personally, I would consider the 2nd building more seriously if you were saying that you had 4 different tenants interested in the building instead of only 1 interested in the whole thing.  Your information is pretty vague (lack of clarity on just how much operating expenses are versus actual income potential), so I am merely making my call based on very limited information.  I don't like it.  You state higher operating costs and only one tenant.  If that tenant leaves, your building is dark very quickly, leaving you holding an empty building with higher operating costs.

Personally, I like the multi-tenant per property model a lot, be it residential or commercial.  It helps spread risk out to some degree.  Using your 7-unit building as the example, if you lost 3 tenants all at once (not very likely, but possible), you could probably limp along until you recovered.  Looking at the 4 unit property with one tenant, if/when something happens to that tenant, you are 100% out of pocket for both debt service as well as operating expenses until you begin to stabilize it.

I agree with @Joe Splitrock, with the exception of having the PM do it.  That only gives the PM an opportunity to cover his/her tracks more.  While it sounds like the PM made an honest mistake, there is a point to be made to both the PM as well as the tenant that while you have a PM to take care of business, you yourself are also not afraid to take care of business as well.  I can't think of a single occasion where a tenant that started out by lying about something ended up "coming around", it is an indication of their character, in this case, poor character.  I do agree that right now, likely your best option is to wait and see.  However, keep your eyes wide open both with the tenant as well as the PM.  I tend to classify tenants that start off like this as "future evictions".  Don't give slack on late rent, regardless of how much you hold as a security deposit (that advice actually applies to all tenants, but tenants that go out of their way to do right by me also get the most flexibility from me.  The tenants that try to get me right out of the gate don't get any slack ever.)

I would contact the agent and their broker immediately. They were negligent, they did not act in your best interest if they represent you. You may also want to consult your attorney on that matter.

Regarding the tenant, it probably won't end well, but I would confront them immediately as well to try to determine why and what to do now.

Not giving legal advice, but strongly recommend you get some. There may be potential to recover damages from the agent if they occur.

Very simple...money talks, bs walks.  Until there is money on the table, they aren't a serious buyer.