All Forum Posts by: Ricardo R.

You should align youself with a more experienced investor/manager. 

@Robert Snowden thank you so much for sharing. Robert, I believe the reason you are having a difficult time findind funding  and the reason why your 2 lawsuits where unsuccessful is becuase YOU ARE SEEKING 'LGBTQ-friendly' funding in the first place. I support you but, what exactly does 'LGBTQ-friendly' funding mean???? --- In fact, this is likely and largely the reason why you are unsuccessul but not for the reasons you may think or infer. The real estate/business lending space is HIGHLY regulated - the same regulations which aid you and protect you as a member of the LGBTQ community or ANY OTHER community also apply in the other direction and to all other consumers. 

The regulations do no allow for you to seek those protections which give you the right (and rightly so) to seek justice towards lenders which descrimante based solely on the the fact that you are LGBTQ aligned whilest you also inturn now only seek 'LGBTQ-friendly' funding sources. A lender even if they did only cater to 'LBGTQ' would be in violation of these regulations if they promoted it... no different than if a lender promoted funding for 'Asian only' or 'Straights only'..... this and any other to include your want of 'LGBTQ-friendly' is a violation of those regulations put in place to protect you and all other cosumers from descrimination.... these protections apply both BOTH WAYS. For example: You would not be able to go to a lender and say 'I only want to work with you and give you my business ONLY if you are LGBTQ friendly' --- in this case, YOU ARE IN VIOLATION... now you can certainly still do this and it is your right if you want to approach it this way... BUT, the mere fact that you are attempting to place a lender in a position in which they will now ostracize all other non-LGBTQ customers is a clear violation of the same regulations put in place to protect you and all other cousmers in the first place and is why they will decline to work with you in this manner... you are forcing them to encroach on the rights of other cosumers to access their services, which is a violation of the cosumer safety regulations impossed on them.  

I would recommend, you instead seek funding sources based solely on the numbers and the mission and would forcast that you would have much much more success in this manner. 

@Grace Hartman you gave limited information in your post but I'll attempt to assist you. From what I understand from your post is that you are a landlord in which you have rented your unit to a company so that they can provide corporate housing to their employees (employee). 

If this is the case, I am also assuming that the lease in place in the 'company's' own lease since most want to have their own leases. If this is the case then it depends on what the lease says, is there a clause that states they can house their employees regardless of who they are? 

Regardless of lease though and moving forward, even so, and lets just assume you are correct and they are in violation of their lease. I'll ask you this: Are you a savvy investor who keeps their eye on the ball? or are you the 'principles' police? 

I'm only bringing this up because you mention 1) rent is always paid on time; 2) neighbors have no issues; 3) The tenant's are hardly there (which means less property wear and tear) and 4) I will also assume becuase of the first 3 here, that your property is also being cared for...... seems like picture perfect Tenants.... 

So... you can certainly be 'RIGHT' and still be a horrible investor making nonsensical arbitraty decisions or you can just be an investor and look at if from that standpoint - sure, you can decide to nickel and dime for additional Tenants and you would be even more justified if you are paying Tenant utilities (if this is the case). It's completely up to you... but keep in mind that just becuase it's on the lease, does not make it right nor does it make any investment sense.... it may be completely situational dependent. In this case, 1) you are receiving rent on time as agreed every month and 2) your property is being cared for... situation dependent... up to you. 

@Clinton Davis some many here have brought some really solid advice Clinton. Heck.. even @Bill B. brought up an 'investment strategy', j/k... but it's solid advice. The issue with good people and landlords that do it 'part time' (as is the majority) is that we want to apply our 'good' ethics to a situation or person that doesn't follow these same ethics. 

Would you have cat feces everywhere? Would you talk about the cost of a $20 ID as the reason for not working? Would you continue to inhabit a place with the utilities off and knowing that you're not welcome?.... Most of us would not.... but this individual is fine with it all.... it is a completely different set of ethics (or absecence thereof) in which they operate by, it would be a fallacy think that your verbal agreement when you met with him will be honored, have any of these above questions been honored so far?... those are your ethics, it may not necessarily be his... but since you did meet with him and you agreed to something it does now make it more complicated but shouldn't change your outcome. 

I agree with most here like @Melanie P. and @Nathan Gesner ... you are kicking the can down the road. This may turn out well and nothing is 100% but in my experience... I have never seen an issue like this turn around before it takes a worse turn... it is extremely rare. Typically, eventually the tenant will move out but not as agreed and not per the timeline agreed, in fact most times, they will actually go from a receptive/agreeable stance in person (such as you experienced in your meet up) to a challenging and accusatory stance later on as you get closer to move out and the worst keep going to downright damage and nightmare issues. The worst you can do is string this along, its better for you and its better for him (he just doesnt know it yet) in the long run. Be concise and decisive in your communication and do not deviate from the repurcussions -- and again Clinton, like so many have mentioned, enter a dialogue with an attorney now - better to have and be ready and not need. 

@Diran Deukmajian yes and yes. 

@Albert Johnson its great to hear that and makes me happy that it's of help to you.... Do I hear a review coming Albert? ... You don't have to but I would honestly appreciate it if you can. Either way I'm glad to help. 

@Albert Johnson yes just do that, not only is it the correct liability stance but it's the correct way to run your 'business'. You should never ask Tenants or enter into dialogue with tenats in which tenants are repalcing anything other than filters, batteries or lightbulbs. You have to realize that not only do you take on liablity if there is an accident or even just the claim of an accident from the Tenant, but you must also realize that no matter how well meaning you think your tenant is, if there is an accident, their loved ones might not see it that way and may take action against you. Additionally, you do not look very good in court, when a tenant claims they do most of the maintenance beyond what I mentioned above; you may even find yourself owing the tenant for their time and labor.  We haven't even covered if there is an issue in the other direction whereas, if there is property damage i.e. electrical fire becuase of the way the issue was approached, is the Tenant responsible? are you responsible? will your insurance even cover you now?... as you can see there are many other issues, I'm just giving you a glimpse of the top of the iceberg. 

Lastly, and just as important, you have to think of the safety of families which will take tenancy in your unit AFTER this tenant moves out. 

Point here being: 1) you want it done right; 2) you do not want to be responsible for someone elses accidents; 3) You want to streamline your process (everyone is happier this way); and 4) you want to run your buisness as a business. 

I sent you DM on BP I hope you can assist and I hope this advice helps you a bit. 

@Albert Johnson you shouldn't have the Tenant do that. Instead, you need to just charge them for the parts, aquisition and labor and hire a vendor to do it or do it yourself if you are self managing. I don't think you understand the liability implications of what you are doing. 

@Rebekah Bloom it's still pretty vague in your description. 1) What does your property currently rent for (market rent). 2) What did your previous hired PMC charge?