Landlord or Tenant, who’s right on this?

[Coronita]

[quote=walterwhite]I’m kinda feeling like taking the landlords side. We all don’t have the whole lease in front of us. Maybe there’s some other provision that could affect this one?

Water is included in the rent? Is that the exact language? I’m not yr lawyer nor giving legal advice, but maybe if u put the exact language out here someone could give you a plausible alternative interpretation of the words.

What if the tenants ran the water night and day? Is there no limit?[/quote]

Except you really don’t want to unnecessarily piss of a tenant unless you really want him/her out…

[Hatfield]

[quote=flu]Except you really don’t want to unnecessarily piss of a tenant unless you really want him/her out…[/quote]

Even then, the change in terms is unenforceable.

[temeculaguy]

Earlier today I wrote a long post about how I disagreed with the assertion that condos were bad and fodder for rookies, then I deleted it before posting because it seemed fruitless, like arguing religion with someone. Now I read sdr posted essentially the same thing from a different area and I decided to weigh in. My experience is anectdotal at best, a family trust with about 25 years worth of rentals that I do not control exclusively but stay abreast of it’s performance. I pay attention because I’m a self admitted geek and because the responsibility is inevitiably heading my way in short order. 7 or 8 properties, mostly sfr’s, spanning multiple cities and counties in so cal. Some have been added and some sold off over the years but the best ones have actually been condos and the top of the heap have always had HOA’s, contrary to what some have said. I realize that a great deal of research went into the HOA prior to purchase but by and large in this small sample, HOA properties held up better and made more profit over time.

Before anyone quotes me and bolds my words, I acknowledge that there are exceptions and horror stories on both sides of the aisle, but sfr’s can be horrific and non hoa sfr’s seem to attract a certain demographic that make for bad tennants and those same tennants are repelled by rule laden hoa condos. Maybe it’s a factor, maybe not, but like sdr, my real world experience runs against the grain. When I analyze and investment property, there is little emotion and lots of math. In a primary residence, that is not the case. The roi often beats the sfr. In my own primary I have some regrets because I could have bought two townhouses for the same price, or three for the same “net cost” and right now I would be up more than 100k in equity over my current situation and be cash nuetral with my two rentals paying for the one I lived in and themselves. But emotion played a role, I wanted to be happy, I wanted a big house on the hill and I could afford it and I am happy. I just cringe when I see sweeping generalizations against condos and even more so against home owners associations.

I’ve never been involved in an hoa, never even been to a meeting, yet my experiences from a financial aspect have always been positive and my non hoa experiences been negative, including sfr’s. I liken it to people’s bias about race and sexual orientation in others, using a broad brush never paints an accurate picture. Actually, the very fact that some people listen to “pearls of wisdom” creates an opportunity for you to find the hidden gems. Every hidden gem I’ve ever found in both real estate and in life has been because I ignored conventional wisdom.

[sdsurfer]

[quote=temeculaguy]Earlier today I wrote a long post about how I disagreed with the assertion that condos were bad and fodder for rookies, then I deleted it before posting because it seemed fruitless, like arguing religion with someone. Now I read sdr posted essentially the same thing from a different area and I decided to weigh in. My experience is anectdotal at best, a family trust with about 25 years worth of rentals that I do not control exclusively but stay abreast of it’s performance. I pay attention because I’m a self admitted geek and because the responsibility is inevitiably heading my way in short order. 7 or 8 properties, mostly sfr’s, spanning multiple cities and counties in so cal. Some have been added and some sold off over the years but the best ones have actually been condos and the top of the heap have always had HOA’s, contrary to what some have said. I realize that a great deal of research went into the HOA prior to purchase but by and large in this small sample, HOA properties held up better and made more profit over time.

Before anyone quotes me and bolds my words, I acknowledge that there are exceptions and horror stories on both sides of the aisle, but sfr’s can be horrific and non hoa sfr’s seem to attract a certain demographic that make for bad tennants and those same tennants are repelled by rule laden hoa condos. Maybe it’s a factor, maybe not, but like sdr, my real world experience runs against the grain. When I analyze and investment property, there is little emotion and lots of math. In a primary residence, that is not the case. The roi often beats the sfr. In my own primary I have some regrets because I could have bought two townhouses for the same price, or three for the same “net cost” and right now I would be up more than 100k in equity over my current situation and be cash nuetral with my two rentals paying for the one I lived in and themselves. But emotion played a role, I wanted to be happy, I wanted a big house on the hill and I could afford it and I am happy. I just cringe when I see sweeping generalizations against condos and even more so against home owners associations.

I’ve never been involved in an hoa, never even been to a meeting, yet my experiences from a financial aspect have always been positive and my non hoa experiences been negative, including sfr’s. I liken it to people’s bias about race and sexual orientation in others, using a broad brush never paints an accurate picture. Actually, the very fact that some people listen to “pearls of wisdom” creates an opportunity for you to find the hidden gems. Every hidden gem I’ve ever found in both real estate and in life has been because I ignored conventional wisdom.[/quote] Bummer you had to type it twice, but thanks for doing so to throw in your 2 cents.

[sdrealtor]

I do agree that HOA dues only go up. Mine has gone up a total of $23/month in 13 years. Oh the pain!

[Anonymous]

Like many, I’ve heard the “condos are a bad investment” argument for many years but have always been skeptical.

If condos were really a “bad” investment – i.e. ultimately did not cash flow as much as buyers expected – then market forces would eventually cause them to be priced on par with equivalent investments. It’s unlikely that any type of asset with an active market can consistently be a “bad” investment (or a “good” one for that matter.) Although Piggs know that markets can be mis-priced, they don’t stay that way forever.

I think much of the mythology comes from the fact that many first time investors buy condos because they are cheaper and/or perceived as easier to maintain. So we tend to hear more “disaster” stories about condo investors who made poor choices.

Keep in mind that there are many large urban areas where condos are the norm and houses are rare (e.g. West LA, New York.) I doubt that the millions of people who live/own in these areas all made bad investments.

[sdrealtor]

Its human nature pri,
Have a great meal at a restaurant and you might tell a friend or two. Have a lousy meal or two and you tell the world.

[bearishgurl]

TG, I will neither quote you or bold your words. I just have a question for you, though. You state your (parent’s?) rental condos have increased in value faster than their rental homes. How long ago were these condos purchased?

I’m asking because, up until about ’84, many “investment grade” condos could be bought in SD County for $20K to $70K. Of course they would have increased in value by 300%-1000% by now! OTOH, investment-grade SFR’s were about $45K to $90K. So they wouldn’t have increased in value at the same percentage as condos.

You didn’t state in your post whether your family’s SFR rentals had more stable tenancy over the years (fewer vacancies) than their condos. I would be interested to know if this has been the case in your family’s experience.

If your family’s rental properties were located in a cheaper county than SD county, then the prices would have even been less than what I quoted. Perhaps the tenant-makeup of less expensive CA counties is different than SD County also.

In addition, I disagree that SFR’s w/o an HOA are attractive only to “bad” or “unreliable” tenants. Nothing could be further from the truth. The ones w/o HOA’s are situated in SD’s most convenient and upscale neighborhoods. I would agree that there are more SFR rentals in newer areas than older ones (due to “involuntary LL syndrome”) but many of the rentals that can be found in older areas likely rent for $3000 or more per month. Many tenants seeking SFR rentals in older areas (w/o HOA) are doing so because they have longtime family who lives nearby.

In this thread, we were (OT) comparing SFR/condo investments which were recently purchased or about to be purchased.

ROI wise, that’s not the same scenario as having purchased a newly-built 1 br/carport condo near SDSU in 1976 for $27K.

[temeculaguy]

BG, they vary, from those purchased decades ago, to some being bought last year. Some are in more expensive areas than SD and some cheaper. There are to many housing variables and renter demographics to go into here. My point is that I have a certain level of experience beyond just one or two (but not hundreds) and that experience does not jive with some of the generalizations. It’s like what pri mentioned, prices find their true value often times, I believe the trick to good investments is catching them when they are undervalued. Being undervalued often requires other people being blinded by emotions or emotional advice. Horror stories are great for that.

As for right now, I believe the best return on ivestment is the best return on investment. In my area that happens to be condos. Two recent aquisitions in my area are a 150k townhouse that rents for 1500 while a 300k house rents for 2k. The condo carries 250 a month in hoa, but that includes trash, exterior water, landcaping (they actually have lawns), pool, gate and fire insurance for the structure. But the condo actually has a lower tax rate. The sfr has about 150 mo for those things individually (just gardner,trash and fire insurance but no pool or gate or water, actually i think its higher but lets say 150), so the roi could be calculated as if the sfr was two of the same condos and the net would be 2800 for the two condos and 1850 for the house for the same 300k investment.

You can dismiss it and say that sd is more expensive, true. but this same scenario exists in our more expensive areas in los angeles county and the cheaper areas in the desert. It works for the 1947 house, the 1980 condo and the 2008 house and condo I mentioned above. Your example I think is of a narrower focus, not sure there are that many people looking to spend 3k a month in rent to rent in an older area with no hoa so they can be by family. I’m sure there are some, but it’s a small part of the population. Unfortunately, those might be the people you know, so it seems like everyone. If those pencil out then they are a good investment. But if a similar condo returns more per dollar invested, then you can’t knock the condo. That’s all I’m saying. In some cases, the condo is overpriced compared to the sfr’s. But the actual type of housing doesn’t determine the quality of the investment, the math does.

Those san diego high rises with the $1,000 hoa’s, I’m not defending those whatsoever, I think I’d buy a north park sfr instead purely for the math, but I’d make sure th math made it better and not just my bias or perception or what people said at the barber shop.

Here’s another myth, that all hoa’s go up. TemekuT can vouch for this, our hoa does nothing but go down. For four years in a row that ive been here it has gone down, each year being $10 a month less than the previous. It’s the only bill I have that costs less each year.

[sdrealtor]

TG
Question on hoa going down. Mine did also the first two years as the community was not built out. It went down as more homes were sold. Has yours gone down as the master association gains more members as the community gets built out? Or has it gone down while the community is already built out? Just wondering.

[scaredyclassic]

Condominium is kind of a strange word. I always think least number of condoms. Smallest useable condom?

Looked it up. Latin. Con. Dominium, joint sovereignty.

Condo is an odd shorthand.

Maybe ought to callem “joints” for short.

Just Dominions sounds better.

Master of my domain. And dominium.

[temeculaguy]

[quote=sdrealtor]TG
Question on hoa going down. Mine did also the first two years as the community was not built out. It went down as more homes were sold. Has yours gone down as the master association gains more members as the community gets built out? Or has it gone down while the community is already built out? Just wondering.[/quote]

Actually both. In 2008 and 2009 construction was completely halted, they sold off the models and I think let the lots go back to the bank about the time I moved in. Sometime in 2010 or maybe even early 2011, they started back up, but a different builder, actually a couple of different builders. So now the drops I assume are related to more people paying for the clubhouse, tennis, pool, those fixed costs that don’t go up much as they add users.

Each year i read that multiple page financial report they send but to be honest, I chuck it after one or two read in the bathroom so it’s hard for me to remember why exactly it went down whe they werent adding houses. They aren’t building very fast so I’d guess they have a few years to finish at this rate, I vaguely remember TemekuT telling me it should find it’s way to $75 or something like that at build out. I also read some e-mail about how they put cameras at the community center and let the security guard service go to save money or something like that. I also remember reading some hoa election flyer of some candidate saying they could lower it to $60 if they got rid of the paid full time staff at the center. But I like them being there cause I don’t need to haul pool floats, tennis balls or anything else, they check them out to you and they keep the teenagers in check, especially mine over the years. For me, I think it’s a freaking bargain at $100, so knowing it will keep going down is just a bonus.

I found a video from some realtor on youtbe

They have kid stuff, mommy and me, yoga, other classes, I never use much of that but it’s kinda cool and I dig how they have thumbprint readers to get in and still have a concierge or two at the desk when you get inside. People hate their hoa’s, I like mine. But then again I keep my yard nice and I’m the kind of guy that likes rules, yet I’ve never heard anyone complain about them being too strict. They did tell me to paint my fence once, but I needed to and they were noce enough to tell me where to buy the paint and what color it was (that’s one of the many little things you don’t get told when you buy a repo).

Everybody should find their beach in life, mine has an HOA.

[scaredyclassic]

Hoa terrifies me. Friend is on a board. Stories are hairraising from the belly of the beast. Never get involved with running one.

But if u don’t, some moron may take charge.

Shiver.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=walterwhite]Condominium is kind of a strange word.[/quote]

I feel the same way about condiments.

[Coronita]

[quote=sdduuuude][quote=walterwhite]Condominium is kind of a strange word.[/quote]

I feel the same way about condiments.[/quote]

never mind. too easy.

[Author]

Posts