All Forum Posts by: Gusatvus Johnson

@Jim K. yes, part of the reason I didn't want to pay for the materials was that I didn't want to encourage this guy to think that whenever he feels like updating something, I'll happily pay for whatever he thinks should be installed. He has already suggested that there is other stuff (floors and windows, for example) that he believes need to be updated, and I don't want to get into that. I can do most of that work myself anyway, so getting his free labor is not actually much of a benefit to me. Plus, if I'm going to do updates, I'd rather wait until I am ready for new tenants, so I can raise the rent to reflect the updates (and have the selling point of brand-new updates, which is wasted if they are done in the middle of a tenancy).

I think I'll take the approach recommended by several folks here of just having my own contractor do the door. The cost will still be low, the work will be done right and it will make the tenant happier about this particular thing, all while avoiding setting a precedent for him to feel like he can renovate the entire apartment to his liking.

If he wants to update a house, he should buy his own house.

I just had new tenants (a group of guys in their 20s) move into a 4-bedroom unit. One of them, who is a contractor by trade, asked if he could install an interior door because it would make the layout of the apartment less strange. This request came after they had seen the unit and signed the lease.

Normally I would say absolutely no to a request like this, but it does benefit me because the current layout of the unit is a little weird, and the apartment should be easier to rent in the future with the new door in place. So I said OK to the door as long as he is willing to handle the work and buy the materials.

He replied that he'd do the work for free but that I should pay for the materials. That's a ridiculous request, right? It wasn't my idea to put in the door, and I never agreed to add the door as a condition of renting the apartment to them.

The tenant seemed really upset that I would not pay for materials, so I'm just looking for confirmation that I'm not in the wrong here.

I'm not worried about the cost of materials (which would be minor -- it's just a basic interior door) as much as setting a precedent with these guys about giving into bizarre requests.

I'm thinking of installing a leak-detection system in my multi-family rentals. I've seen several in the $200-$500 range that get installed where the main water supply comes into the house, then monitor water flow and send you an alert (via text, email or whatever) if they think there may be a leak.

My main goals are to detect pipes that burst during freezing, as well as to detect running toilets or other small leaks that my tenants don't bother reporting before they cost me hundreds of dollars in water bills.

I'm wondering if anyone has used one of these systems and how well they've worked. Did it detect leaks properly? Were there a lot of false positives? Are there any systems that can detect leaks at specific fixtures, rather than just telling you that there is a leak somewhere in the house?

For the record, I did interview other property managers. I went with this one because the building he is managing for me is near a university and I wanted to rent to students. He was the only person I interviewed (and really, the only one I could find) who had extensive experience with student rentals; the other people I talked to claimed to be able and willing to rent to students, but didn't seem to have experience with that particular type of tenant.

I suppose the fact that we discussed students as tenants means we did discuss tenant expectations to some degree. My only big surprise was when he started signing leases with students without communicating with me first.

Thanks for the replies. It sounds like it's normal for my property manager to want full autonomy for most operations as long as we discuss expectations ahead of time. I was under the impression that property owners were typically more involved in things like selecting tenants, but I can see how that would be impractical to scale, so I should instead make it clear what my expectations are for these things and then trust the property manager to handle them.

I recently purchased my second multi-family rental unit and hired a property manager to manage it. (I managed my first rental myself, and still do.)

So far, the property manager I hired has acted with more autonomy than I expected. He found tenants and signed leases with them without consulting me at any point, apart from discussing rental rates. I don't even what the lease terms are or whom I'm renting to. He also told me that when maintenance issues arise, he plans to address them without bothering me (either by fixing the issues himself, or hiring them out) and will send me the bill afterwards.

I don't want to be involved in the day-to-day operations of my properties (collecting rent, changing lightbulbs, etc.), but I would like to be involved in the big decisions, such as who to rent to or how to approach the repair of major issues (like a furnace that needs to be replaced). When I told the property manager this, he was touchy about it and said if that's what I want then I shouldn't have hired him.

Is the level of autonomy that my manager wants normal? Or should I find someone else?

The property in question is in my town, by the way, so it's feasible for me to be involved in finding tenants and overseeing significant maintenance work.

When you hire a Realtor to find tenants for a property, does the rental advertisement get posted in places (such as the local MLS) where it would not otherwise appear? I normally put rental ads on Zillow, but it has never been clear to me whether this places them on an MLS, or just on Zillow (along with a couple of other sites that it partners with for rental ads).

If hiring the Realtor means getting my ad on the MLS, it seems like it could be worth it, because 1) few other rentals are advertised there; and 2) I suspect that the quality of potential tenants will be higher.

I know most people here will say never to work with a Realtor to find tenants. I normally don't, but in one particular case I am thinking about it because I want to find really high-quality tenants -- and I suspect that folks who work with a Realtor to find a rental will be more responsible than ones who just use craiglist, etc.

I'm redoing the kitchen in a 4-bedroom rental. The Realtor I work with strongly recommends putting in solid-surface (i.e., Corian or similar) or granite rather than laminate for the countertop. The price for laminate installed will be around $1200, versus $3500 for solid-surface or granite.

That's a big price difference and I'm having a hard time believing it will be worth it. The rental is in the top 25 percent cost-wise for the neighborhood, due mostly to its being a very large unit, but most other homes in the neighborhood don't have granite or solid-surface counters. The unit is also old (about a hundred years) and although I just refinished the floors and did fresh paint throughout, it's never going to have the feel of a new-construction building where tenants expect granite or Corian as part of their "luxury" kitchen. Finally, the rest of the kitchen will be nothing special: Basic cabinets, basic linoleum floor, basic standard appliances -- so I'm not convinced that fancy countertops would even fit.

Should I believe the Realtor (whom I'm hiring to find a tenant for the place) or stick with my gut and go with less expensive laminate? I know everyone's mileage on this topic will vary depending on lots of factors, but I'm curious for thoughts.

I have a large apartment in an old house that just became vacant. I have about $5k to spend updating it. With that budget, I can do any one of the following:

1) Refinish the hardwood floors. They are not desperately in need of being refinished, but they definitely look worn.

2) Update the kitchen by adding some new cabinets, replacing the appliances and doing a new (composite) countertop. Like the floors, the current kitchen is not in dire need of being replaced, but it is currently very basic. With $5k I could make it above-average.

3) Repaint throughout. The current paint job is in OK shape. If I repainted I'd be doing it to get the "wow" factor (and fresh-paint smell) of a completely repainted apartment, not because any walls are so bad currently that potential tenants would look at them and run.

I no there's no one-size-fits-all answer, but generally speaking, which of these upgrades would deliver the biggest bang for the buck?

I am under contract to buy a multifamily. A previous tenant reported the property to the local government about six months ago for possible lead paint. The government agency sent in a lead inspector, who wrote a long report detailing where he found lead paint, and where he "assumes" there to be lead. I was given a copy of the report before I made an offer on the house.

I've spoken to the government agency about the report, but have not gotten a clear answer as to what I am legally required to do after I purchase the property to abate the lead paint. They said that they can't prevent me from renting the unit even if I don't abate the lead immediately, but it's unclear what would happen if I refused to abate it in the way the report wants.

For the record, I'm not looking to be a slumlord who knowingly rents houses covered in lead paint. My concern is that the report that the government did was over-the-top; all of the lead-painted surfaces in the house have been covered with latex paint and are not chipping, but the report still makes an issue of them. In addition, many of the areas that the report requires to be abated were not actually tested; the report just says that they are "assumed" to contain lead based on similarity in appearance to other areas that were tested. And the government wants the entire exterior of the house stripped and repainted, even though it is already covered in latex paint. (It has a layer of lead paint underneath that but the latex paint is generally in good condition, so only a tiny fraction of the lead on the exterior is exposed.) There are quite honestly many other houses in this city that have more serious lead paint issues -- paint that is actually chipping and falling all over sidewalks, etc. -- but the government has not issues with them, because no one has reported them.

I am perfectly willing to abate lead where it is a legitimate concern, but some of the stuff the report brings up is kind of outrageous, and doing everything the way the government wants will cost $22k (I got an estimate from a professional certified to do lead abatement).

I know no one can tell what the exact rules are in my local area, but I'm curious if anyone has ever been in a similar boat -- had a tenant get a government agency to inspect a house for lead, or dealt generally with HUD's lead abatement requirements (which are what my local government's rules are based on). What are the consequences of not following HUD's recommendations to the letter? Are there processes for disputing a government agency's lead paint report or get another professional assessment? Do I need to disclose anything to future tenants apart from my state's basic lead paint disclosure form, which I always give to tenants in houses built before 1978?

By the way, I'm buying the house as-is, so getting the seller to deal with the lead paint is not an option. And as noted above, I knew going in that there was lead paint, but I didn't know how expensive it was to deal with. (I figured about $5k, which is what a standard paint job would cost at a property this size, not the $22k that the guy with an EPA certification wants to charge.)