All Forum Posts by: Steve K.

What’s wrong with 100 year old houses? As a carpenter I can tell you that newer houses aren’t always better. A house that has survived 100 years of neglect has probably got good bones, while modern construction is often all about slapping stuff together as quickly and cheaply as possible in order to maximize profit for the developer. As one extreme example of newer homes not being better, in Connecticut there are 15,000 houses less than 10 years old that were recently condemned because the builders used bad concrete on the foundations. Many brand new houses I see being built in Colorado are built so poorly I’d much rather own a 100 year old brick house instead. I’ve seen brand new patios slope back towards the house, joist hangers attached with deck screws instead of nails, brand new roofs that leak, etc. there are a ton of hack builders out there creating problems for whoever buys the houses they build that’s why it’s recommended to hire an independent 3rd party home inspector even for new construction. I love old houses with big moldings, cool original details and some character. Cookie cutter subdivisions and contemporary designs aren’t my thing. There were some periods of really bad construction over the years and some questionable materials used, just learn to avoid that and do due diligence on any home new or old, at least on the old ones it’s easy to see if the foundation is going to sink or not, if it was gonna sink it would have started by now. I feel like some of the new materials being used today like MDF which is basically glued together sawdust will be looked back on in the future like what were they thinking to use that stuff. Even the new automation and internet of things houses that are controlled by apps, I don’t want to use my phone to adjust my thermostat. I’d rather put another log in the wood stove. I’d much rather have a 100 year old brick building with good bones (and updated electrical, appliances and plumbing) that was built by true craftsmen than a new stick framed house covered in glued together sawdust built with poor workmanship and controlled by smart phones but maybe that’s just me.

Mavi Unlimited in Lakewood is a great local PM, they manage a few properties for me and have done a stellar job. The owner Mike Hoover is a great guy and his whole team is excellent. I’ve also heard good things about Grace Property Management (and I think the owner is on here), but I haven’t used them personally. A competent local PM should be able to get things back on track for you. There are some good management companies in Denver, but there are a few crooks here too. Vet any potential manager thoroughly and carefully. I interviewed about a dozen companies before I found Mavi which was the best fit for me. Denver is currently a hot sellers market so you might also consider selling.  Condolences for your loss. 

Have you seen the short video about fracking in Erie called Fracktured Erie? Link to it (and lots of other good info) in this article, sorry couldn’t find a link to the actual video: https://www.coloradoindependent.com/165168/fractured-boulder-fracking-moratorium-regulations whether or not you believe fracking wells emit carcinogenics or contaminate ground water, these wells are definitely not good to have nearby imo. Would you want your neighbor building a 30 foot tall fence, making loud noises all the time and pumping a bunch of chemicals into the ground causing weird smells? Having a well within a few hundred feet of your home (I believe the setback from residential areas is 350 feet) would certainly limit the number of people willing to buy that property (it’s making you think twice, the next guy will have the same reservations) and could negatively effect resale value. Most Erie real estate is appreciating because it’s one of the last affordable towns in the area, but  not houses unlucky enough to be in close proximity to fracking wells. Colliers Hill and Vista Ridge have been written about a lot in particular and definitely don’t benefit from articles like this one: https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/neighbors-are-fed-up-with-fracking-smells-noises-in-erie-subdivision. If I were you I’d make sure any home you buy is as far away as possible from capped, current or future wells. Boulder county has had far less fracking than Weld county historically (Erie spans both counties), so you might look as far into Boulder County as possible but the future is uncertain because the moratorium was recently lifted in Boulder County. 2 people were killed last year in nearby Firestone when a new house exploded because it was built close to an improperly capped flow line, and these flow lines are not mapped, so it’s definitely an issue to be concerned with. http://www.timescall.com/carbon-valley-news/ci_30959619/firestone-explosion-started-by-gas-from-cut-flow

DIsclosure: I work for a solar company (if anyone reading this hasn’t read all the other solar threads on here yet). Also just for the record owning/financing a solar system is superior to leasing in my book partly because returns are better and for other reasons as well, but in the case of investment property when the owner can’t claim the tax credit, then in that case leasing is currently the best option for going solar. For a primary residence I always recommend cash or financing, not leasing. 

@Nathan Gesner the leasing companies have driven equipment and installation costs so low that the systems are relatively cheap for them to install, and they sell the tax credit to entities looking for a tax haven, so that helps them recoup most of their initial investment and selling energy is gravy on top. You are not wrong that the margins are thin, if you follow any publicly traded solar leasing company you can see why they call it the “solar coaster”. I agree that 20 years is a long time to be locked into an agreement but the savings aren’t necessarily small, upwards of $50k for just an average resi system (in some areas depending on net metering, price per kWh, etc.) and much more than $50k for bigger systems. Keep in mind that the initial investment is often $0 when leasing so returns are infinite, it’s akin to getting a property with 100% financing and negligible mortgage payments.

@Chris Seveney I normally would agree with you regarding ownership/financing being a better option than leasing. Ownership is typically better in almost every way. However in the case of investment property, the owner may not be able to take advantage of the tax credit, in which case leasing is by default the best option to go solar because the leasing company can claim the tax credit and pass those savings on to the owner. 

The issue is more likely to be creating another unit on your property. Start by calling your zoning/building department and ask if adding an ADU is allowed. Don't give hem your name if you want to stay off their radar. If your property is zoned to allow an ADU (and this is a big IF), then ask about regulations for short term rentals. Where I am, short term rentals in a spare room in your house require the owner getting a $25 business license, 7.5% sales tax, and the room can only be rented for 120 days a year or less. Failure to comply can result in a $12,000 fine (and they do enforce the rules, which are easy to enforce seeing as short term rentals are almost always advertised on a handful of websites that anyone can see including code enforcement agents). Definitely check out your local rules and regulations, and if there aren't any yet in your town regarding short term rentals, research whether or not there are any in the works as a lot of towns are adopting similar rules to my area. It would be a bummer to make that initial investment and then have new rules come out that negatively effect your situation, so it's almost better if your town already has rules in place, (at least that way you know what you're dealing with and can make a business plan based on the rules). And yes you should have the proper insurance as well. If you end up doing the work without a permit and get caught you could face hefty fines and have to undo all the work, or if you don't get caught it could cause issues when you sell.

@Nathan Gesner average “break even” for solar where OP lives in DC is 5 years on a cash purchase in 2018: https://solarpowerrocks.com/washington-dc/ but payback period is irrelevant to the OP since there is no initial investment to be recouped on OP’s end, as this would be a leased system (a third party owns and operates the system, the upfront cost to OP would be $0). The third party leasing companies are able to leverage economies of scale/ bulk buying power on equipment / vertical integration to drive costs down such that they can install solar cheaply enough that they will be making money on the system very quickly if not immediately (by selling the tax credits to banks/investors/tax equity funds and by selling energy back to the grid at a premium) . They then pass the savings on to the owner of the roof that they're “renting”. 

Had this happen TWICE last year, and the neighbor still didn't have a claim even after the second time. 

Purchased a 4 plex in Longmont in July. A few days after closing, a big branch broke off a giant elm tree on the corner of our new property and landed on the new neighbor's house as well as her new BMW. Turns out elm is very dense wood, so the extremely heavy branch ripped off a corner of the neighbor's house on its way down: shingles, gutter, soffit, fascia board, even the framing of the overhang lookouts and some of the siding. Also did a ton of damage to the shiny beamer, plus made a mess of the yard. The neighbor (an elderly woman) got my number from our tenants and left me a message. I drove out there ASAP with my chainsaw and trailer, apologized, cleaned it all up really well for her and we traded insurance info. I thought for sure I'd be dealing with a claim, increased rates, possibly getting dropped, etc.  

After speaking to my insurance and her insurance I was surprised to find out neither one was planning to cover any of it. Even though it was our tree, the only way we could be held liable was if she had been able to prove negligence on our end. Seeing as we had owned the house only a few days I couldn't be negligent having no history with that tree and not being an arborist. She would have had to have warned me with an official certified letter that the tree was dangerous.  I fixed her fence and roof for her because I felt badly about her loss (I had tools and material out there anyway to remodel my building).

I had arborists come out and assess the tree. They removed any dead limbs and advised me to keep it as it was a healthy tree. About a week later, 100mph winds ripped another large portion of the same tree down on the same neighbor's house and driveway AGAIN. This time they had two cars in the driveway, the ill-fated beamer and a nice shiny new Nissan. Both were buried under another giant elm branch, and her grandkids were actually sitting in one of the cars this time (thankfully unharmed). Needless to say she was pissed and vowed to really come after me. Our insurance companies both opened a case. My insurance obtained a letter from my arborist and a copy of the local weather report that recorded 100mph winds. I was cleared of any negligence since I had recently had the tree professionally maintained and it had recently been deemed healthy by a professional. The wind event classified the claim as an Act of God. We were off the hook again. If the neighbor had proper insurance it would probably have covered it, but I don't know how she ended up faring (I haven't brought it up with her, but the beamer is still all cracked up in the driveway a year later so I don't think it was covered). 

I had the tree removed after this, $3k. I again removed all the debris from the neighbors property and fixed all the damage to the roof and fence. I just told them, "Let's let the insurance companies figure this out and I'll do what I can to help in the meantime". Since I incurred the cost of removing the tree and fixing their house they knew I had suffered an expense as well, and with the tree being gone now there's nothing else I can do. She apparently didn't have the right insurance coverage so that's on her. I don't see "mature shade trees" as a selling point on listings after this, and I will look up before parking from now on. 

 In your situation, the lady didn't notify you in the proper way about the tree. The letter, if it did in fact exist, should have been delivered to the owner of the property, not the tenant. If she's a PM she should know the tenant isn't the owner of the tree. She also should have used a certified return letter to verify that you (the owner) received the letter and were notified of the problem. Since there is no official record of the supposed letter, if it goes to court you would just say you never got any notice about the tree and did everything a reasonable person would do to take care of the tree. You had no idea there was a risk of it falling on her car because you are not a tree expert nor clairvoyant and you never received her letter that she gave to the wrong person. If she really wanted to cover her bases she should have documented the dead limbs that posed a risk by taking photos as well as having an arborist inspect the tree and provide her with a letter stating that the tree posed a nuisance or a risk in their professional opinion. Then she should have included both the letter from the arborist and the photos with the certified letter that she sent to you, the owner of the tree. If she doesn't have any of that, she doesn't have much of a case.  Also if she knew the tree was such a problem, why then did she choose to park beneath it? Furthermore, it's hard to tell exactly what's going on in that photo, but that tiny little branch looks too small to do any significant damage, and the dents appear to be hail damage (not typical of a tree limb which would be scratches not perfectly round dents). There's a chance her car was actually damaged in the giant hail storm that hit most of Golden last year and now she's looking for a way to repair it using your insurance. If that's the case, insurance experts will be able to determine if the damage to her car is actually hail damage. 

If I were you I'd politely extend my deepest sympathy for her car, express relief that no one was injured, thank her for bringing the tree to my attention for the first time, and wish her the best of luck with a potential insurance claim with her car insurance. She'll probably figure out soon enough if she hasn't already that she doesn't have a case against you without a certified letter or any way to prove you were negligent. You probably won't hear from her again.  

 I'd also remove the tree to avoid any future issues. The tree being gone will provide closure as the risk is no longer there, it's all taken care of, end of story, done. If it happened a 2nd or 3rd time, that would be tricky to explain. Removing the tree shows that you are not the negligent type and would be seen as a positive for you, not an admission of guilt. 

Boulder county or city of? In a normal situation I’d agree with everyone else here that you should get a permit and that the handyman recommending not getting a permit is dubious. However in our area it’s common for contractors to skip getting a permit simply because permitting can be downright next to impossible and unaffordable. I’ve had a lot of projects fall through because the permitting dept. They often require expensive upgrades such as sprinklers (~$10k), energy efficincy upgrades like expensive windows, insulation, solar panels, HERS rating requirements, etc. A lot of Colorado contractors won’t even work in Boulder. On top of the headache and expense, permitting can take forever and contractors can’t afford to wait months on end. So I can understand better than others on here why you’d consider doing cowboy style work. That said, if you’re not adding square footage and don’t trigger the the site plan review process, it might not be that bad to pull a permit in your situation. You’d  be required to use high quality energy efficient windows, but you’d probably want to use good windows anyway. In my experience permitting only gets very onerous when adding 1’000ft2 or more which triggers the dreaded Site Plan Review (SPR). I’d talk to a few more contractors, see if you can find one with enough local experience to tell you if you’d have to do the SPR or not, and have them put together a bid with permitting included to compare to your estimate going cowboy style. Fees for unpermitted work are hefty (twice the regular permit fee), and the enforcement division is definitely out and about, and they will definitely make you rip out any unpermitted work if you get caught, so consider the risk by all means. But you wouldn’t be the only one going cowboy style round here, especially in the mountains.