All Forum Posts by: John Clark

Chicago code is that EACH habitable room must be at a SUSTAINED temerature of 68 degrees F during the day and SUSTAINED 66 degrees F at night. That requirement CANNOT be waived by the tenant, so there's no taking it out in the rent.

If the existing heating units cannot do this, they must be replaced with systems that can, BEFORE renting. Portable heaters CANNOT be used as a substitute or suppliment in order to meet the code.

Sorry, replace the heat systems before purchase/rental.

"I’ve had a heck of a time finding good deals in Albuquerque"

-----------------------------

Translation: "I’ve had a heck of a time finding people stupid enough to be willing to leave money on the table for me to pick up in Albuquerque."

Start by defining "good deal." If your definition of "good deal" is a 10% return on investment when the market says 8%, then your problem is staring you in the mirror every morning.

If you are finding that others are getting "good deals" (whatever those are) but you aren't, then compare how they operate with how you operate and adjust/resign yourself accordingly.

So how do you justify venting?

As my senior drill instructor was fond of saying, "my heart pumps kool-aid for you."

"Whyyyyyy is finding a buy and hold property in my area so hard?!"

-----------------------------------------------

I haven't read the entire thread and I'm not about too, so I'm sure someone else has already said the following: If it was easy, everyone would be doing it, and everyone would be a landlord and no one would be a renter.

"she listens to her ipad loudly in the evening. . ."

----------------------------

Define "evening."

Define "loudly."

There is such a thing as the overly sensitive person, and that person is not entitled to protection. If a quiet hours clause is needed in your rent agreements, add one. And I have one question: Did the upstairs tenant talk to the downstairs tenant  before complaining to you?

"Even acknowledging the Compelling interest that the city has and societal benefit, it could not override the landlords' fourth amendment rights"

--------------------------------------

I'm not sure that landlords have fourth amendment rights in premises that have been leased. The entire point of a lease is that the landlord is ceding control and possession of his property to another. That raises a standing issue; the fact that I violate your rights (tenant) does not give a third party (landlord) standing to sue. Unleased? Sure, I agree landlords do have a right against unannounced inspections.

Here, however, we have the actions of the tenant creating liability on the part of he landlord in situations where the landlord might not be able to control/over rule the tenant; as one poster here said, how many landlords have government co-operation clauses written into their leases?

As written, I think the inspection ordinance goes to far. As I suggsted it be written, however, inspections are jake.

Sorry boys and girls, but I stand by my post -- let the government require an inspection before each lease or renewal or the the lease/renewal is void.

You are dealing with a commercial activity (why do you think they call this web site "Biggerpockets.com" -- note "bigger pockets" AND the dot COM)? What risks you chose to subject your own family/children to in raising them (your particular religion (vice another's)/Pop Warner full contact football/ you get the idea (or else you're too stupid to contend with)) is very different from what society will allow you to subject others, with whom you only have a COMMERCIAL relationship. You may agree to waive protections. The TENANT may agree to waive those protections, but if you want SOCIETY (read "the courts") to honor your CONTRACT with the tenant, then you'd better give due consideration to society's concerns. Society's concerns include, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TOO, not having to take care of children medically after having been baked in a fire, economizing on the number of times the fire department is called, etc.... .

So can someone "demand" an inspection without notice and then punish a third party (landlord) when the tenant plays A-hole? No, they shouldn't. An inspection scheme that over rides contracts at the risk of voiding the contract pursuant to due notice (giving due deference to eviction laws)? Absolutely.

"Some tenants would refuse just so they could stick it to the LL at 500 bucks per day!!"

---------------------------------------------

I agree. I can see an inspection scheme based on city inspection before every lease (including renewals), and declaring leases void without inspections, but making the LL responsible because the tenant refuses a warrantless inspection of his home? Nope.

@ Matt P. , not sure that would be sufficient warning, Matt, but in the meantime, the original poster's scenario did not mention ANY warning being given to the tenant about the need to move things or the extent of the vibrations, so the landlord is still liable.

"So I have been going back and forth on a bank owned foreclosure. We keep making cash offers and they hardly budge on the price. After a month of going back and forth they finally told use "Highest and Best" as they have multiple offers. So we put our highest and best offer. All cash deal. My broker just got back to me and said the bank has now countered our offer. WHAT?!?!? - They basically came down 1 thousand dollars from the last time we made an offer and they countered. I thought Highest and Best was just that. Can a bank B.S. you and tell you they have multiple offers when they don't. Im feel like there are no other offers and they are just trying to get me to go higher."

----------------------------------

You, sir, are being diddled. Move on.

"So where does it end?"

------------------------------------

The test is reasonableness. So what would a reasonable person foresee as potential damage and what reasonable steps would be taken by that reasonable person to prevent that damage.

That's where it ends.