Rentable vs non rentable condos

[barnaby33]

I’ve been looking, as a lookie loo, at sail bay condo’s. Some allow short term rental, others do not. In an RE bust do the non-rental buildings fair better, because owners are generally in better shape, or do prices end up falling farther as its harder to get liquidity out of the units via rent?
Josh

[EconProf]

Unclear question. Please define your terms.

[EconProf]

Unclear question. Please define your terms.

[EconProf]

Unclear question. Please define your terms.

[EconProf]

Unclear question. Please define your terms.

[EconProf]

Unclear question. Please define your terms.

[barnaby33]

Condo developments which allow daily and weekly rentals vs those that require long term leases.

[barnaby33]

Condo developments which allow daily and weekly rentals vs those that require long term leases.

[barnaby33]

Condo developments which allow daily and weekly rentals vs those that require long term leases.

[barnaby33]

Condo developments which allow daily and weekly rentals vs those that require long term leases.

[barnaby33]

Condo developments which allow daily and weekly rentals vs those that require long term leases.

[peterb]

This can be stipulated in the CC&R’s.

Two schools of thought.
1) Makes the property more desirable to investors since they can rent their units or occupy it themselves. In this case vacation rental income potential.

2) Some buyers that will want to occupy their units may view this as a negative since vacation renters tend to be rowdier and less considerate than owner/occupants and long term leasee’s. (Public opinion, not mine.)

It has been my experience that buyers in the beach area want to have the option to rent short term. And consider it as a way to pay for the place. FWIW.
I would let the market dictate this. In other words, if these condo’s are in an area that has many vacation rentals, the damage is already done and there’s a kind of standard in place. Kinda like Mission Beach. But if it is the an area that’s not really got many vacation rentals, then I would go with the flow. It can be dangerous to be the odd one out in an area. IMO.

[peterb]

This can be stipulated in the CC&R’s.

Two schools of thought.
1) Makes the property more desirable to investors since they can rent their units or occupy it themselves. In this case vacation rental income potential.

2) Some buyers that will want to occupy their units may view this as a negative since vacation renters tend to be rowdier and less considerate than owner/occupants and long term leasee’s. (Public opinion, not mine.)

It has been my experience that buyers in the beach area want to have the option to rent short term. And consider it as a way to pay for the place. FWIW.
I would let the market dictate this. In other words, if these condo’s are in an area that has many vacation rentals, the damage is already done and there’s a kind of standard in place. Kinda like Mission Beach. But if it is the an area that’s not really got many vacation rentals, then I would go with the flow. It can be dangerous to be the odd one out in an area. IMO.

[peterb]

This can be stipulated in the CC&R’s.

Two schools of thought.
1) Makes the property more desirable to investors since they can rent their units or occupy it themselves. In this case vacation rental income potential.

2) Some buyers that will want to occupy their units may view this as a negative since vacation renters tend to be rowdier and less considerate than owner/occupants and long term leasee’s. (Public opinion, not mine.)

It has been my experience that buyers in the beach area want to have the option to rent short term. And consider it as a way to pay for the place. FWIW.
I would let the market dictate this. In other words, if these condo’s are in an area that has many vacation rentals, the damage is already done and there’s a kind of standard in place. Kinda like Mission Beach. But if it is the an area that’s not really got many vacation rentals, then I would go with the flow. It can be dangerous to be the odd one out in an area. IMO.

[peterb]

This can be stipulated in the CC&R’s.

Two schools of thought.
1) Makes the property more desirable to investors since they can rent their units or occupy it themselves. In this case vacation rental income potential.

2) Some buyers that will want to occupy their units may view this as a negative since vacation renters tend to be rowdier and less considerate than owner/occupants and long term leasee’s. (Public opinion, not mine.)

It has been my experience that buyers in the beach area want to have the option to rent short term. And consider it as a way to pay for the place. FWIW.
I would let the market dictate this. In other words, if these condo’s are in an area that has many vacation rentals, the damage is already done and there’s a kind of standard in place. Kinda like Mission Beach. But if it is the an area that’s not really got many vacation rentals, then I would go with the flow. It can be dangerous to be the odd one out in an area. IMO.

[Author]

Posts