Worcester North - Building a House to Rent (Holden, Sterling: 2014, apartment)

[Cloudship]

I was curious on people's opinions on whether it would be worth it to build a small house specifically as a rental property in the towns just north of Worcester.

Looking around, it seems rents in this area are pretty high. It is hard just to find a house (not an apartment) for rent, let alone something in the under $1500 range. This would be a small home, under 1000 sq ft, two bedroom. One the one hand, it seems to me there would a number of small families with one kid looking to get their foot in the door in one of the better school districts. On the other hand, would these people be m,ore inclined to buy an older house in the area and rehab it themselves?

[Shrewsburried]

Originally Posted by Cloudship

I was curious on people's opinions on whether it would be worth it to build a small house specifically as a rental property in the towns just north of Worcester.

Looking around, it seems rents in this area are pretty high. It is hard just to find a house (not an apartment) for rent, let alone something in the under $1500 range. This would be a small home, under 1000 sq ft, two bedroom. One the one hand, it seems to me there would a number of small families with one kid looking to get their foot in the door in one of the better school districts. On the other hand, would these people be m,ore inclined to buy an older house in the area and rehab it themselves?

Which towns? Towns like Holden and Sterling pull decent rents thanks to their school system and reasonably good access to job markets. Rutland? Not so much.

[MikePRU]

Why not build it and sell it instead? Then you don't have any kind of long term obligation and you don't have to worry about carrying a vacant property or a tenant destroying the house.

[Cloudship]

Originally Posted by Shrewsburried

Which towns? Towns like Holden and Sterling pull decent rents thanks to their school system and reasonably good access to job markets. Rutland? Not so much.

Rutland rents are cheaper, but more because of distance from main highways. All three belong to the same school district.

[Shrewsburried]

Originally Posted by Cloudship

Rutland rents are cheaper, but more because of distance from main highways. All three belong to the same school district.

Same district, different elementary/middle schools. The social economic backgrounds are quite different between the towns and the student body reflects this. This isn't to say any of the schools are bad (they're not), but I am suggesting the elementary/middle schools in the higher income towns generally test/rank better.

[Cloudship]

Originally Posted by Shrewsburried

Same district, different elementary/middle schools. The social economic backgrounds are quite different between the towns and the student body reflects this. This isn't to say any of the schools are bad (they're not), but I am suggesting the elementary/middle schools in the higher income towns generally test/rank better.

Not anymore. Maybe was like that 15 years ago, but Rutland has really developed over the last few years. The number of houses going up is huge. Easier to find land to do than now in Rutland than it is in Holden. Rutland still has a number of older houses that can keep average home prices and rental rates a little lower, but all that does is attract more people and more builders.

[Sotsgreen]

There have been a bunch of large builders buying up pristine historic land in that area, clearcutting them, and filling them will large generic houses.

There were issues with a lot of the development there and people building things even though they weren't supposed to given certain regulations. They don't seem to care and have made statements that they should just be allowed to build.

Read these article that describe the kind of attitude developers in that area have and how they don't think they regulations they need to follow are relevant to them.
http://www.telegram.com/article/20141213/NEWS/312139685

http://www.thelandmark.com/news/2016...support_o.html

Not a resident of this area, so don't know anything about all of it specifically, but that's some of what's been reported on it.

[Cloudship]

Originally Posted by Sotsgreen

There have been a bunch of large builders buying up pristine historic land in that area, clearcutting them, and filling them will large generic houses.

There were issues with a lot of the development there and people building things even though they weren't supposed to given certain regulations. They don't seem to care and have made statements that they should just be allowed to build.

Read these article that describe the kind of attitude developers in that area have and how they don't think they regulations they need to follow are relevant to them.
History, development at odds in Rutland - News - telegram.com - Worcester, MA

Rutland residents pack public hearing in support of preserving Davis property | March 31, 2016 | www.thelandmark.com | Landmark

Not a resident of this area, so don't know anything about all of it specifically, but that's some of what's been reported on it.

While I am not going to go into details, it is not JUST the developers who are behind this. A big problem is the zoning boards, which basically are great friends of the builders. They tear down smaller houses to build huge ones.

[Shrewsburried]

Originally Posted by Cloudship

While I am not going to go into details, it is not JUST the developers who are behind this. A big problem is the zoning boards, which basically are great friends of the builders. They tear down smaller houses to build huge ones.

Ethics not considered, it is largely done out of fiscal necessity. I was talking to an independent contractor who does work for an established MA developer. He was saying the developer had 350K tied up in each .5-.75 acre lot after covering his cost to purchase the land, survey, clear, install gas/sewer lines, and put in a road. This in a town with a median price of 380K. And really, why would a town want it any other way? They get excellent tax revenue with limited cost burden (i.e., school system resources).

[Sotsgreen]

Originally Posted by Shrewsburried

Ethics not considered, it is largely done out of fiscal necessity. I was talking to an independent contractor who does work for an established MA developer. He was saying the developer had 350K tied up in each .5-.75 acre lot after covering his cost to purchase the land, survey, clear, install gas/sewer lines, and put in a road. This in a town with a median price of 380K. And really, why would a town want it any other way? They get excellent tax revenue with limited cost burden (i.e., school system resources).

They don't always want it because they can be detrimental to neighborhood character and people living near them if the new house is close to the property and a lot larger. They remove trees and things like that. More towns have created bylaws to put limitations on home sizes. Also, newer houses that bring in more students can result in more expenses for the town and people already residing there. It really depends on the location.