All Forum Posts by: Account Closed

It's possible that the tenant wants to do their own background check, hence the ID request. 

As a renter, two houses I rented in a row were foreclosed on and I had to move. This is a HUGE disruption and expense. Tenants take on a risk when they rent, as they must trust that the owner is using their rent money to pay the mortgage.

If a renter must show their ID and possibly even share their SSN, then at the very least, the landlord should reciprocate with the ID bit. I mean, the landlord has the key to the renter's home and could theoretically enter at any time.

Personally, if I ever rented again, I'd want to see my landlord's good credit report and no criminal record. 

When I ask for my tenant's ID (usually during lease signing), I automatically offer mine so they don't have to ask. 

Most people learn the hard way to take possession only of vacant units when eviction looms. 

To add to what everyone else has said, the laws are different if you'll occupy the property or if this is your only rental. 

There are many conditions and laws and if you're not educated, you could step onto a legal/financial landmine. 

Moral: get them out before you take possession.

 Derrick, that's the place my partner's client had a pending offer in for like a month a year or so ago! Ultimately the client couldn't get financed and the deal fell through. That's how I discovered that banks think containers are personal property.  Small world.

@Dakota Mivshek Generally speaking, pre-fab modular residential buildings won't save you anything compared to stick-built, except, generally speaking, time.  In this case, whether you'd save time or not depends on Portland BDS.  

It might seem like I'm biased against shipping containers, but my thesis project in architecture school was a mid-rise mixed use building based on a shipping container model.  After some research, I abandoned the shipping containers but kept the concept of a stackable module (but at 12' wide rather than 8').  

Basically the biggest reason someone might use a shipping container as an ADU is for the "cool factor." Sustainability (because we're a nation that imports more than we export and shipping empty containers to China takes fuel) might be another reason, but by the time all the holes are cut in the steel frame and the container has been modified to live in, the embodied energy in that little container (even after taking shipping into account) is probably higher than FSC-certified stick frame construction. And with custom construction, you can maximize your building for solar energy and passive heating/cooling/lighting, plus any other features that apply to your situation.

Right now, ADUs are allowed to be up to 800sf.  If someone is going to put a foundation and accessory building in their back yard, from an investment perspective, it makes sense to build to highest and best use by maximizing the square footage and maybe putting in a second half or full bath.  There are Portland zoning rules that allow ADUs in the setback, as long as they conform to certain standards (no windows on the property line side, height restricted at 15 feet through the middle of the gable, medium roof pitch, etc.).  It might be more difficult to take advantage of these zoning exceptions with a pre-fab container structure.  

@Jay Hinrichs so true.  Portlandia is Portland as Seinfeld is NYC.  Before I moved to New York, I loved Seinfeld.  After?  I was George Costanza, and Seinfeld just wasn't as funny anymore.  :-\

Unless they're on a foundation, container buildings will be considered by banks as "personal property," and banks won't finance the main house if there's a "trailer" on the property when the next buyer takes possession.  Also, unless they're on a permanent foundation, the city won't permit them as ADUs.  

Also, and while I haven't tried to permit a container building myself, I've been told by people who have that, because it's out of the ordinary for them, the city will require all the engineering drawings and stamps from an engineer registered in Oregon.  So it may prove to be more time-consuming to permit than stick-built.

Lastly, I suggest that whoever considers converting/buying a container home actually physically tour one first.  Depending on how it's been converted, they may prove to be a bit too narrow and low-ceilinged for some.  

Oh, and actual lastly, I've seen some nice-looking modern container-to-habitable structure conversions, and I've seen some fugly ones.  If on the outside it looks like there's a shipping container in the back yard with a couple window cutouts, that might not make the neighbors happy, and might reduce the value of the main house.  

 I was wondering about something like that too.  For example, could you subdivide a lot with a minimum density of 30 units into 2 or more lots with fewer units?  Seems like this strategy might work in areas zoned residential multifamily (in Portland, that's the R1-R3 zones), but it may not work the commercial zones where density is mandated by FAR rather than number of units.  Then again, maybe the city still counts the total development density, regardless of how many lots it's on.  

Thank you for your golden nuggets of wisdom, Jackson.  I will be sure to keep these in mind as I enter into my next "binding" contract, whether with credit card companies, tenants, or my fellow RE investors here on BP.  

Homosote aka "soundboard" is good for one thing only when it comes to sound absorption, and that's for impact noise like footsteps. It would raise the level of your floor, but you could put a layer down beneath your underlayment and LVT (which is quieter than laminate) or upgrade to cork for an environmentally sustainable option.

Mass is what reduces vibrational noise (like talking). You could add a layer of drywall over Green Glue on the lower unit ceiling. That would reduce sound transmission. Be sure to seal the edges with acoustical caulk.

 An accessory dwelling unit is "accessory" to a main dwelling.  Another unit at an existing multifamily isn't "accessory;" it's another unit.  At least, it is according to the city.  

If you add a unit to a duplex, you then have a triplex, and all units will be subject to the commercial building code, meaning you'll need to add $prinklers. (Duplexes fall under the city's "residential" building code.) Also, adding a unit to a MF won't get your SDC waived like it would for developing an ADU at a SFR.

If you want to add livable space to an existing duplex-4-plex, for example in a basement, you might have better returns by expanding the existing units (convert 2/1 to 3/2, for example) and/or adding rentable storage rooms than by adding one unit.  

One thing you could do if you find the right property in the right zone is, you could subdivide a lot and then build a SFR + ADU on each lot. That will get you a higher density than if you try to build a MF building in the same zone.

I second @Dan's recommendation to go on the ADU tour. You would probably also benefit from Kol Peterson's ADU workshop: http://pdxadu.blogspot.com/