@Robin Krieb Unless they were privy to out-of-state investing in the first place, I don't think this will push someone out of the city, it'll simply tighten criteria.
@Sean McKee Thanks for sharing. One-time Pay to Stay would be OK if:
1. There was a limit to when they can "stop the eviction". Silly to wait until a sheriff is at their door and they've been holding the cash. For example, 5 days from the initial eviction notice.
2. There is a fast lane for a repeat offender.
Sometimes it feels like things weren't thought through. The harder you make it to hold a security deposit, the more likely I'll take move-in fees instead. I favor move-in fees in the first place. I vet people upfront so using the security deposit to twist their arm has never been necessary.
Let's assume rent is $1,600. After four $400 move-in fees, you've made your security deposit. On top of this, the law allows up to 1/2 of rent so you actually make it back in two tenants, at four that's $3,200 additional income that would not have existed.
In the SD case, the tenant would have to do enough damage to keep a security deposit, and you have to justify why you're keeping it. Regardless of the amount of SD, you're netting $0 regardless since they obviously did enough damage to warrant keeping it.
Even so, I'd hope 1/4 tenants aren't doing enough damage to warrant keeping a security deposit. Sure, a SD can be 1.5x rent, which would be $2,400 in our example, yet again you have to justify why you kept it so you're spending most, if not all, on repairs.
@John Warren At 62 units, at $1,000/month rent average, that's $31,000 in move-in fees left on the table? That's initial rental after purchase, fixing up, etc. If factored over time at 6-8% turnover, is 4-5 units/year, that's $2,500/year.