All Forum Posts by: Lawrence Leung

@Lois S. Have you tried using leasing agents or leasing companies? The only downside risk with these folks/companies is if they are not reputable they don't have skin in the game and are not truly incentivized to find the best and most qualified renter because they don't have to deal with the tenancy afterwards.

@Tim Shi your calculation is correct.

@Nick Robinson Duplexes have a great strategy for investment above a buy and hold strategy. The upside potential can be quite profitable, but it does require knowledge and understanding of the San Francisco market.

@David S. That's what I call job security ;) 

@Brian Garlington I remember how you feel about SF haha, but I still enjoy the higher rents and impressive appreciation

You just listed exactly the San Francisco market and I'm still loving it!! You just need to find the right properties to invest in and they don't always need expensive renovations. :) 

@Robert Withers I recommend you use any lawyer that routinely presents at the SFAA. These lawyers are intimately familiar with the myriad of local landlord and tenant laws.

@Lois S.Interesting company. It sounds like similar companies like Bungalow, but without a boarding situation. It sounds like they may take any excess off the minimum guarantee they offer their owners. Any reason why you wouldn't go with the traditional property manager?

@Sid Naik You are correct in your assumptions and that is why when investing in San Francisco, you must identify the value play above and beyond a simple buy and hold strategy. One thing to keep in mind is you are combining two different property types/classes that will have significantly differing valuations. Multifamily residential (2,3,4 units) have valuations that are influenced my more available investment strategies (especially duplexes and condo conversions) whereas Multifamily commercial (5+ units) is purely on NOI.

@John Clark, I agree with @Diane G. and respectfully disagree with your interpretation. IMHO you can have an income requirement that requires funds equal to the duration of the lease term (which could likely be around $50k or a little more than $4k/month for one year) as part of your policy as long as you apply it consistently.

I personally wouldn't use that type of income requirement. Our company philosophy is to try to make things more readily available for as much of a demographic as possible. We are rolling out a deposit free program at the moment.

@Simon Lopez What exactly was incorrect in MLS? Most standard purchase agreements from realtor associations contain mediation and arbitration clauses. Perhaps you can save some money and bring this up directly with Listing Agent's Broker?

@Diane G.  A little late to the game on this one... I'll save you an additional opinion and just call out that what @Elliot Blanford and @Account Closed said are correct in that what you are doing is discriminatory, but not based on any protected classes.

Whatever criteria you use for screening applicants needs to be applied consistently across all applicants and within the context of any existing laws both local, state and federal. And that is not just protected classes but other areas like source of income. (so Sue's comment about the $50k is not discriminatory as long you apply it to ALL your applicants)

To answer your original question, the law you are looking for you can thank Jane Kim.  She sponsored a bill when she was on the Board of Supervisors back in 2015 that passed and updated the SF Rental Ordinance to include provisions around occupancy limits.

In summary your PM is right. To not accept them is just a gamble on whether or not you think your applicants are not savvy enough to know they can sue you, and that is a gamble I would rather not take in a place like San Francisco.