All Forum Posts by: Max Brunke

@Christopher Benjamin, @Bill Regan is right. The 2% rule is a good guide if you can get it. Even 1% is hard in Portland area markets. BUT you can't stop with the 1% or 2% rules.

You really have to review the finances with a fine-toothed comb. There's no sure thing. In tighter markets you have to do the right thing which means considering all the costs and benefits of real estate investing, not just cash flow. See https://www.biggerpockets.com/renewsblog/2016/05/3... or https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/250677 which was written by our very own @Brandon Turner

You're in a cool position wanting a short-term or periodic rental for yourself which you are willing to share with other renters. That's spectacular. Good luck!

@Casey Carroll, you mentioned being investigated but that you didn't face legal consequences. Can you tell me what happened either here in this thread or offline? I wonder what "facts" they found and which conclusions they reached when applying their statutory mandate to the facts of your situation. I'd be interested in seeing any documents/opinions they issued if you would be willing to share them. Cheers.

I am with you, @Marcus Mathews.

Be careful! Portland's relocation assistance ordinance is still on the books. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/citycode/article/630447

@Matt Garboden, the concern for rent affordability is valid. If the response to the concern is pointing fingers, we have a problem and not a solution. The ability for the largest land owners to absorb costs does not prove other landlords are price-gauging jerks. The responsibility to provide affordable housing is not the responsibility of a single group.

In my view, there are conditions in the Portland real estate market that are beyond the control of most landlords. Landlords did not set federal interest rates which have been at historic lows causing increases in prices. Landlords did not (well maybe some) make Portland a desirable place to live and work. For many landlords, who we call moms and pops, the controls proposed are too onerous. 

I disagree that any U.S. real estate market is a free market. There are hundreds of regulations from the local level up to the federal level directing real estate market participants. Landlords cannot discriminate against protected classes of individuals. Landlords cannot rent dangerous units. Nor should they. 

The fact that landlords and tenants respond to market factors does not make the Portland market free or efficient. I agree with you, @Matt Garboden, if rents or cap rates aren't good, if investments don't pencil out, investors will not invest. But that's the problem if you take a market approach. It doesn't necessarily follow that prices will fall. Demand would have to be constant (stagnant) for supply shifts to explain 100% of market price. Rental affordability (price) is not solely a factor of supply or demand. It's a combination. 

A VERY unpopular opinion I enjoyed is this: Much of Portland should be down-zoned. This view assumes sales prices are high because everyone thinks their property will be the next higher-density development. They want the big payout the last guy or gal got. So everyone holds out. The problem of hold outs is well studied and I think it explains some of the pricing and affordability problems in Portland. 

I also believe demand partially explains Portland's high rents and prices. I don't believe setting a price ceiling or imposing taxes on supply will give us more affordable housing. We need more units constructed to catch up with demand, not fewer. Portland should be doing everything it can to attract real estate developers to increase housing supply to reduce rents. Right now, the new buildings coming online have ridiculous prices, more competition, in the market theory, is the right response. How this ought be done is another story.

I agree, @Kelvin Lee and @Steve Moody, Eudaly is bad for tenants and small landlords. She, and many of her supporters, misunderstand the mechanics of the residential real estate market. I don't know whether she's taken the time to understand the consequences of her actions. 

@Matt Garboden, it's not that simple. The controls proposed by Eudaly raise substantial barriers to small real estate investors that cannot be surmounted by being nice. A REI who buys in today's market from a seller who bought at a substantially lower price MUST raise rents to cover the mortgage on today's price. Buyers will start requiring vacancy or price reductions to account for the rent shortfalls buyer will face when attempting to carry the property. 

I would like to educate renters and Eudaly but I am not optimistic. 

I wish you luck and hope you find a result promptly. If law in Oregon were as bonkers as it is in Ohio I might lose it. There are no jury trials for evictions in Oregon. There are crazy protections for tenants regarding rent increases here in Portland (legally requiring cash-for-keys in some cases). But, no way an eviction properly executed would take a year. That's wicked bad.

Hi @Aaron F., I regret I don't know Tigard values very well but I wanted to take a moment to applaud you in getting to work. Congratulations on the contract.

On comps: there almost a pseudoscience. If you're at a lost, so will others be.

@Nathan Miller is right. Oregon, esp. Portland, loves to beat up on the landlords. 

Most recently was Portland Ordinance 30.01.085. Essentially, if a landlord wants to evict without cause, elects to not RENEW a lease at expiration, the landlord increases rent by 10% or more, then landlords have to pay tenants "relocation assistance" from $2900 for a studio to $4500 for a unit with 3 or more bedrooms. Landlords who don't pay can be sued in court and pay up to three months' rent in penalties in addition to the relocation assistance. Read it and weep: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/citycode/article/63...

You nailed it @Melissa Dorman. Good work! Did you buy your list from a list provider or build it from the ground up by driving/biking/walking for dollars?