All Forum Posts by: Account Closed

...I hear ya...I really do. Everyone does. We all do what we can, as we can, and hope for the best to make it down the road.

But that darn roof issue isn't going anywhere. Those things just don't last forever and eventually there just isn't anything for it other than replacing it.

Tarps and tar...no.

Replacing a couple of shingles to get on down the road for a bit...perhaps.

From reading into what you wrote, I'd say you need somebody who is truly qualified to assess your roofs for you. Not the neighbor, not people from BP, you know what I mean.

Best of luck to you.

From the numbers you post, someone in the room is way off with market value and maybe both of you are.

How do you have ARV comps from $120-$150 and get to $175-$200 as the ARV???

Perhaps the ARV is actually $120-$150, and the repairs really are $40k, which puts it at $80k as-is.

Are you offended that the list price is as high as it is??? LOL

Offer what makes sense to you.

And I strongly encourage you to do your homework first.

I dunno...

I think this is a great discussion/thread. I also think it's not. It's been too general and does not factor in the individual investor very much. Which after doing this for awhile, would say is the most significant element in the equation.

I've been working in the physically distressed areas of Milwaukee. While I would say all the things that have been said are surely pitfalls that can and do happen, I would also say they can all be avoided, and that has nothing to do with the property and everything to do with the investor.

Physically distressed areas have advantages too. They present opportunities that are sometimes over-looked. Limited cash can get in the game. Land is sometimes free. It forces an education in cap ex, which is perhaps the most necessary lesson and at the same time, the most ignored. And then there's the relationship between rents and cost.

As I read these sorts of threads, the ones dealing with what everyone endearingly refers to as the hood (including those who live there), it is always pretty obvious which people actually understand what they are talking about and which people rely on assumptions. I will say this, many of the assumptions are wrong. For instance, the assumption that physically distressed neighborhoods certainly equal a distressed economic status of their residents is not accurate.

The one part of this discussion that I would whole-heartedly agree with is that owning and managing rental property is complex. I think it's a tall order in the first place, and when I see droves of inexperienced and perhaps ill-equipped persons attempting to do it from outside of their own town, I worry they may have jumped in over their heads but again, successful people are successful and maybe that matters not.

For me, I'm getting out. I've done just fine as far as I'm concerned, but have come to some realities within my personal life that render the idea of continuing the endeavor a poor choice, most significantly my age and health, and that is what it is. The biggest mistake I've made in my endeavor is not factoring in my personal life when I started, not my choice of particular property. If anything, my big mistake was not starting when I was 20 and thinking I could start when I was over 40.

The largest rental property owner in Milwaukee owns in the hood. We all know who and where that guy is by his signature landscaping - lol. If owning in the older parts of town is such a terrible idea, how is it the largest owner is there? How is it that his properties are constantly being improved instead of left to rot? Does he know something the rest of us do not? Or will we all see him crash and burn in the future? Or maybe, he's just a rich philanthropist who wants to give away his money by fixing up the older areas...

I dunno...

 Bravo. I have a bad habit of taking the long way around with my words. You said it 3 sentences.

 Well, you do (probably) pay taxes so...there's that...lol...you housing provider you.

Little Johnny is five years old and has recently learned to speak. He comes up to a table of adults and loudly speaks a cuss word. What do the adults do? Do they all gasp? Do they ignore him? What does Johnny learn if they all gasp? What does he learn if they ignore him? What is he likely to do in the future in either case? Hmm...

 Tackling moratoriums is a fine endeavor. All I got to say is don't go making things worse. Say what you mean and mean what you say and be consistent is my two cents.

You are not being accurate at all. And when it comes to legislation, it is important for everyone that it is written accurately.

You provide an opportunity for people to purchase rights of use. That is what you have for sale. The house is not for sale. And because you are selling the rights and not offering them free of charge, you are not a housing provider, your tenant is.

Using the term Housing Provider to describe the landlord is downright offensive really. Much worse than the term landlord I'd say. What is it about the term landlord anyways that you believe is so horrible? The "lord" part? I'll tell you one thing, it's not really inaccurate. Have you taken a poll? Done any research? Or does it just "feel" right.

So if rebranding and image is really what you people are searching for, perhaps take some free feedback and give it another think. I suggest an honest approach will go the furthest to attain a better image for yourself and the industry while conversely, trying to employ silly meaningless ambiguous words will only add to any distrust that may already exist.

And as far as using the term in legislation, i dunno...hopefully someone else will step in and see the blatant language error.

Lessor/Lessee

Property Owner/Renter

Landlord/Tenant

Housing Provider/Housing ??? Recipient?

 ...and I like the sound of shamma lamma ding dong...but it might not be the best term to use in certain circumstances to describe certain things - lol

As far as a better connotation, I completely disagree and would say it has a much, much worse connotation, which is exactly why it's such a bad choice of term.

The entire point of language is to communicate. When the language we employ fails to create an understanding between people and further creates a misunderstanding between people, the language is a failed one. The use of ambiguous terms is never helpful for the purpose of clarity, and can be disastrous when used in legislation. Politicians love ambiguous terms and employ them endlessly.

The term "housing provider" does not well describe the property owner within the business of residential rental property. It is ambiguous and suggests a role that is false. I own property and I rent it to people for them to use however, they have provided the housing for themselves, not the other way around. I provide housing for myself and my dependents; my employer does not do that for me, my bank does not do that for me, and the builder who constructed my house does not do that for me - we are not all housing providers, only I am. The term "housing provider" suggests a dependent is involved.

I am a property owner. I provide a leasing opportunity to people who are in need of housing. If anything, we are lease providers and not housing providers. As it turns out, more specific terms for landlord and tenant already exist in the legal world, they are lessor and lessee. Look at that, the terms are specific to exactly what it is we all are doing, in no uncertain terms. Perhaps what's really needed is a lesson in vocabulary.

With all due respect, I think this endeavor is dumb. There is nothing that needs to be solved and further, the suggestion of using the term "housing provider" creates unnecessary ambiguity when the entire rationale for the change according to the OP is to eliminate ambiguity. This is an incredible waste of time and money that in my opinion makes things worse, not better for landlords or tenants or anyone. Frankly, using a term like 'housing provider' in this situation is downright thoughtless and lazy. If it's all that bothersome and persons are bent on making a change, use lessor and lessee. People can Google what those terms mean if they don't already know. Even then though, what about all the legislation that already uses the terms landlord and tenant??? LOL. Is someone going to go back and get all those pieces of legislation changed too? How about the ambiguity of having one term used in the past and another used now and into the future? Will the term "housing provider" be deemed inappropriate in the future and then someone will go back and change everything again? Will we have three different terms for the same thing depending on when the legislation was written? Good grief. Leave well enough alone.

This whole thing stinks of PC BS to me.

I reckon that type of decision comes into play when you have more than one bathroom.

I would recommend that so long as you have the space to do so, you design the bath to have a tub/shower combo. That way your unit will serve all the bathroom needs of everyone. It would be a picky renter indeed who would walk away because the shower was a tub/shower combo. On the other hand, there are plenty of people who demand a tub.

Everyone needs at least a shower. If you are only going to provide the least, would it not stand to reason it would be worth the least? Then again, people pay more for less all the time so who knows - lol.