All Forum Posts by: Nancy Curran

Location: professionally managed condo high rise (50 floors). The HOA fee includes basic cable (amongst other things). The mgmt company hired and negotiated a cable provider to service the entire complex. Service is spotty, frequent outages. Landlord buys the condo and uses it as an investment. Landlord has never lived in the condo. The Tenant that moves into said condo has experienced cable outages almost weekly. Cable vendor is rude, unresponsive. Tenant on the phone at least 4 hours a week troubleshooting or being home waiting for a technician. Tenant reaches out to property mgmt company to get some relief (suggest a new provider, or a cheaper rate, or talk to a cable company manager, etc). Property manager won't talk to tenant since tenant is not an owner.

Tenant calls Owner  and owner says "this is your cable, you signed up so you have to deal with them."

Since cable is included in HOA, thus the rent, tenant wants owner to get more involved. Tenant also wants to reduce rent for each day the cable doesn't work, because cable is in cluded in the rent. Tenant doesn't feel like managing a non performing or spotty vendor is the problem of the tenant.

Opinions on this situation? 

@Matthew Olszak, thanks captain obvious for explaining what was wrong with my apartment. My whole point was to explain to other landlords it's not pie in the sky. My point was you can rent to market tenants without all the nonsense and get your rental rate as well. If a tenant moved in, and told me an outlet didn't work, I can get it fixed. But with CHA, I have to wait a month to get the tenant moved in, because an outlet didn't work, that costs me a lot. The fridge had a small ding in the gasket. Gaskets are $150. I didn't even notice it because it was way on the bottom. A new fridge was my only option as the fridge was older. My point, similar to the point on your head, was a regular tenant wouldn't even notice. And if they did, again, I could have been collecting rent while changing out the fridge. 

Section 8 is very nonsense oriented. I interviewed a section 8 client, one of the nice grandmothers. Her voucher was for $1153. Great, my place is $1300 and she can pick up the rest. Then her voucher moved to $1040 but she works and can still pick up the rest. Then they come do an inspection, and nit pick the heck out of it. I had to replace fridge, fix 3 outlets, a few other things.  Have a great apartment, but, of course, there is always something. But I fixed everything and now they made an offer of $470, and the tenant can pick up the rest, which she can't afford. Now I'm stuck as social worker trying to get this working out. It's BS, I don't have time, meanwhile I have wasted a month while the CHAis scratching their ***. I'm trying to help, but the CHA is not being cooperative. No more to CHA, they are not cooperative!

It's all inside so, you don't need a permit. I would just do it. People do it all the time. If you want to get really technical, call an architect and he will draw up plans and get your permits.

Great story. Tell us more.

Why would you get sued? Follow the laws of the land, and you won't lose if someone decides to sue you. Also it's easier to find you in an LLC.

@Mark Creason, yes it's in the first ward and I and the proprietor both have good relationships with Moreno. So, that is set. I know how not to work with the Chicago government. So, I don't need help there. Now, I'm not incurring any costs. He is going to break through the back of his restaurant, into the back apartment. Everything he does, and always does, is on him. Of course, because I have eyes, I know that people live above establishments. But, is a restaurant/bar a hindrance as opposed to an accounting office that closes up at 6 at night? Do people have experience with tenants saying "I love the place but I would never live above a restaurant/bar"?  I'm not sure if it will add significant value to the building or not. Does a first floor restaurant/bar and 4 apartments sound better than a storefront with 5 apartments when I sell? 

@Mark Creason, you are answering questions that I haven't asked. I already told you the govt will approve, and you start talking about how I need govt approval. Then you start talking about Hooters which has nothing to do with my question or my property. Then you decide I shouldn't even post my question. Really? The other responders have given valuable advice and opinions. I don't know why my post has gotten you unraveled. 

@Mark Creason, like I said, the government (meaning Alderman) has already supported it. So we are good to go there. Is there a compelling reason to get a LL? Um, yes. Isn't it obvious? People enjoy drinking. 

You can't get a license without having the build out first and passed inspection. And you can't get a liquor license how the current space is configured, which is why the expansion is necessary. The government will approve a liquor license so I'm not worried about that. I guess I'm worried about how having a liquor license will effect the building/other tenants...do people object to living above a liquor establishment? Has anyone had a major build out while other tenants lived there? Or anything else I'm not thinking of?