Is there an aversion towards two-family homes in MA?
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I understand that many two and three family houses have been converted to separate condos, but I'm guessing most are still single pieces of property in which the owner-occupant defrays their mortgage payments with rental income from the other unit(s). Am I wrong?
I couldn't cite percentages, but it seems there are a few different permutations. (1) owner-occupied house with additional rental unit(s); (2) house with rental units owned by non-resident (our situation); (3) condo conversion.
I think the condo situation has gotten quite common. Certainly in Belmont. There were owners who inherited the place, didn't want anything to do with being a landlord, and found they could make a killing by converting to condos and selling 3 separate units. The people next door had that situation. Older owners passed away, their kids in Duxbury or whatever inherited, renovated and converted, and instead of selling the 3-family house for $775,000 or so, they sold 3 2-bedroom condos for $400,000 each.
Personally, as a buyer I'd prefer the condo set-up to buying a full house and having to rent it out. I don't have much time for the logistics of that, and it can be a real pain. It's also expensive if you have a long vacancy, which some people around our area have had in the last couple of years I'd keep an eye out for a decent fee, but $200 or $300 a month wouldn't deter me. It's not that much of an add-on when you're paying $2000 a month for a place around here anyway.
It looks like Belmont is all full of two-family homes. Are they mostly welfare white trash with 20+ relatives in one bedroom?
OK, my secret is out. Dang.
The "and/or" threw me a bit, but I thought he/she (for some reason I'm envisioning a he) was saying that the illegal immigrants had the 20+ relatives in one bedroom. The other subset of people who deign to share a structure with others, the welfare recipient white trash, only have maybe 8 or 9 relatives in a room.
Having been outed by the wise and all-knowing renault, I can now confess that I know about this firsthand.
Since you had the baby sleeping in the bathroom, with a little practice and fewer teeth you can be just like us!
It looks like Belmont is all full of two-family homes.
On a more serious note, it's not "all full" of two-family homes, but it has a lot. They tend to be on the side streets off of Belmont St. and Trapelo Rd.
In my mind I split Belmont into roughly three parts. (1) The two-family house zone, where the white trash welfare recipients like myself sleep. (2) The center of the town, where there are a lot of largish single family homes. (3) The area west of Pleasant Street, which is more woodsy and has large estates such as Mitt Romney's place. Though I hear he's moving (or already has moved) to Boston.
It looks like Belmont is all full of two-family homes. Are they mostly welfare white trash with 20+ relatives in one bedroom?
This is almost sarcasm-free, I am unassuming and just asking, having never been to NE.
No, not at all. Belmont, even the poorer parts, is still very well off. The two and three family homes are occupied by young professionals that can't afford a single family in Belmont, but want the proximity and great schools Belmont offers. Belmont even got lambasted on car talk for being too rich and boring.
My wife and I lived in Belmont for two years in a two-family rental (top floor/bottom floor arrangement). Even with great neighbors--which we had--there were still noise and privacy issues and it was a pretty frustrating arrangement. I can't imagine if we had mean or annoying neighbors and would be absolutely terrified to purchase something without any control over who would be living so close to us.
Good inside info on Belmont from JayR and Holden. Reps, JR, and would like to rep Holden, but there's that "spread some" requirement.
There has been enough detail about the practical issues of two-families that this consideration has been covered well. These issues are worth some serious thought, but I wouldn't be concerned about status, or white trash, living in a two-family in Belmont. Note JR's description of the young professionals who typically live in those houses. Belmont has a general reputation in the area as an affluent town. As JR points out, even the "poor" neighborhoods aren't really poor. Notice a name Holden mentioned as a longtime Belmont resident: Mitt Romney. We're talking old-money, former governor, presidential candidate, Olympics CEO, etc.--THAT Mitt Romney. Now somehow I really don't picture Mitt living in a ghetto kind of town.
Brightdog, great description of McMansions. I laughed through the whole thing. Would rep, but there's that "spread some" snag again.
I couldn't cite percentages, but it seems there are a few different permutations. (1) owner-occupied house with additional rental unit(s); (2) house with rental units owned by non-resident (our situation); (3) condo conversion.
I think the condo situation has gotten quite common. Certainly in Belmont. There were owners who inherited the place, didn't want anything to do with being a landlord, and found they could make a killing by converting to condos and selling 3 separate units. The people next door had that situation. Older owners passed away, their kids in Duxbury or whatever inherited, renovated and converted, and instead of selling the 3-family house for $775,000 or so, they sold 3 2-bedroom condos for $400,000 each.
Personally, as a buyer I'd prefer the condo set-up to buying a full house and having to rent it out. I don't have much time for the logistics of that, and it can be a real pain. It's also expensive if you have a long vacancy, which some people around our area have had in the last couple of years I'd keep an eye out for a decent fee, but $200 or $300 a month wouldn't deter me. It's not that much of an add-on when you're paying $2000 a month for a place around here anyway.
I live outside Chicago and actually own a 3 unit building with my sister. It's a really good way to buy property if you keep some things in mind. Choosing good tenants is absolutely key. The apartment we rent out is kind of funky and appeals to 20 somethings without great jobs. After 1 really bad tenant we've put some rules in place that we tell them upfront they'll have to deal with. We tell them this is not like living in an apartment building. Our big issue is noise since we live on the 1st floor and the rental is above. We let them know that walking 50 times across the length of the apartment in stilettos at 10 p.m. on Sunday night will not be tolerated (the bad tenant). We also don't allow smoking in the building or near the building. I was laid off last year and was unemployed for 8 months. The rental saved us. It covers the principal and interest on our mortgage.
I would be a whole lot more leery about buying a condo in a small building. We've had some horror stories here, mainly newly constructed high end buildings where one or 2 of the owners fell on hard times and defaulted on their mortgages. An unit that's been foreclosed on and is unheated during the winter is going to have pipes burst and then a serious mold problem come spring. If the other owners are jerks, you're stuck. We have control over building maintenance. We've never gone more than 2 months without a tenant in over 12 years over ownership. You need to know how to price for your market and realize that it's cheaper to keep your good tenants than to try to jack up the rent and have to deal with finding a new one.
p.m. me if you have any questions.
I would love to move to MA some day and so I've been checking out real estate. The converting small older buildings (less than 6 or so apts) to condos trend doesn't seem to have made it here.
Not that I'm landlord material, but the laws in Mass.make it very hard to evict people even for excellent cause. Bad tenants are very savvy. Can cause damage in the apartment and then refuse to pay rent while it winds through court. It can take months (easily) to evict someone no matter what the reason, even if you live in the building that you own.
A two-family gives you a little more leeway if you live in one of the two units. That is, you can discriminate more about who moves in, since it's your home (I believe not so with a three-family, even if you live in one unit). People run to the Commission on Discrimination and get supported for the craziest claims of discrimination (as happened to my friend in her two-family).
One guy I know was evicting people from his two-family because of drug activity. In the time it took to get them out, they painted every surface in the six rooms... black. Ceilings, too.
When I had a rental house in Colorado, I was told if someone is evicted, you put a notice on the door and they had three days. When I asked what happened if they didn't leave, I was told, "You go down there with the sheriff and they leave." (Although that didn't save me from my inept property manager from renting to deadbeats, ex-cons and losers from all over the Western Slope. And this in time when things were prosperous there).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
