All Forum Posts by: John Clark

"Have you looked into Airbnb or VRBO. Generally you can get a good price if you just rent out each individual room or you can rent out the entire house."

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

Can't AirBnB the basement as a bedroom if the basement doesn't meet code for bedrooms. If regulations permit, you could AirBnB the whole house and who they stuff down there is their business, so long as you portray the house as only having the code compliant bedrooms

"I’ve estimated renting it without the basement would only bring $1500 each month whereas with the basement $1700 each month if I rent to a family."

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

Families can stuff children and family members into areas that strangers cannot be put into. Renting a specific basement to a stranger is a commercial activity. Renting an entire house to a stranger family, with no limit on that family putting a family member down there, is not the same, and in most places would be permissible.

@Cody L  "But if I pay $100k cash for a home, and then go to a bank to give me $80k after (with the property to secure their loan), where by the bank has $80k of debt secured by the property, and I have $20k of equity -- somehow this is different?"

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

Yes it is. Look up the difference between purchase money mortgage priority in settling debts and regular debt, even secured debt. Purchase money mortgages can avoid arguments by other secured lenders and blanket lien holders that they come first.

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.