Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
As a landlord (and as a former tenant), i don't see any need to "reason" with thieves - the law requires a written notification/itemization for damages within a specified time period - if i didn't agree with the tally, i'd just file in court. It's like $75~ish bucks including service to let a judge sort it out. As a tenant, i always complied with the terms of the lease to a "t", and had receipts & pictures to back it up. As a landlord, my tenants get a cd with a .pdf of the signed lease & prolly close to 100 hi-res pics of the property taken the same day the lease was signed, as fast as i can burn it & drop it back off - there won't be any arguments about whether a room had blinds, a carpet was stained, or if a wall had a hole on move-in day (or if there are, they'll be short arguments). It's too easy to do things right & not worth arguing about. If my business model required me to steal damage deposits to turn a profit, i'd find another business.
You made a good point. Documentation is extremely important in proving your point of view. I would also assume landlord scammers wanting to keep someones deposit is pretty rare.
With that said, there is a saying I'd like to share... In a p_ssing contest, everybody involved gets wet. So a $75 filing fee is just the beginning. Now you need to docket the judgement, potentially attach leans, etc etc. So "winning" == a massive amount of work. Therefore before it turns into that p_issing contest, I like to present my logic to let them know that I am not a pushover. Because when it turns into the P-contest, peoples imagination can take hold and they more easily rationalize why they are "right". Hence, I avoid the process anytime I can. As luck will have it, I've been to small claims court once. I one and it took 2 years to collect $300. His motivation was he wanted to refinance. I mysteriously just couldn't find the time to get into sign the paperwork in front of a notary. Legally I had to do it quickly. But unfortunately it took me over 4 months with him pleading with me to get it done.
Taxes on rental #1 $1195 in 2010, $873 in 2014
Taxes on rental #2 $1219 in 2010, $889 in 2014
The rental I manage for my parents? 2010 taxes $1068, 2014 taxes $782
The HOA on that property did go up $48/yr in the past 4 years..
My primary residence - 2010 taxes $1512, 2014 taxes $1253
All are valuation-capped @ 5% per year now as well..
Labor rates have certainly gone up from the peak of the crash, but I "front-loaded" most of those common repairs with cheap labor during the crash. Any incidental repairs in the past few years have been minor & they're actually welcomed- my CPA thinks my expenses are too low.
I did say very few exceptions and you cherry picked the exception, taxes being tied to value when it drops like it did taxes will go down which is why I said what I did. 2010 to 2011 saw a big drop to go along with the reduced values post crash. Taxes on one of my rentals from 2013 was $959, in 2015 $1057, and in 2016 $1130 (county assessors website is down so I don't have 2014).
I did say very few exceptions and you cherry picked the exception, taxes being tied to value when it drops like it did taxes will go down which is why I said what I did. 2010 to 2011 saw a big drop to go along with the reduced values post crash. Taxes on one of my rentals from 2013 was $959, in 2015 $1057, and in 2016 $1130 (county assessors website is down so I don't have 2014).
I really don't care to argue the point, you were the one citing "property taxes" as "increasing", and justifying a rent increase.
The property taxes on my rentals are actually 11% lower today than they were in 2005. I'm not sure how that's "cherry picking" anything. I bought them in 2010/2011, set the rents based on the market rate at that time, & forecasting expenses using those 2010 assessments & even after losing "homestead" status, I'm still paying less than the previous owners were a decade ago.
The rental market has moved in the area where my properties are & I *could* jack the rent 20%+ because the market will bear that price, but I don't have to do so "because my taxes went up".. They didn't go up.
Even in your own example, an $80 tax increase set against $12,000? in gross annual income is a nothing burger. Especially when you figure that many of these properties have doubled (tripled?) in value. No need to get greedy & "pass on" a $6.xx /mo "tax increase" to a tenant. Are you going to give them a $4.00 "discount" if your taxes go down, or you get cheaper insurance? Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.
I really don't care to argue the point, you were the one citing "property taxes" as "increasing", and justifying a rent increase.
The property taxes on my rentals are actually 11% lower today than they were in 2005. I'm not sure how that's "cherry picking" anything. I bought them in 2010/2011, set the rents based on the market rate at that time, & forecasting expenses using those 2010 assessments & even after losing "homestead" status, I'm still paying less than the previous owners were a decade ago.
The rental market has moved in the area where my properties are & I *could* jack the rent 20%+ because the market will bear that price, but I don't have to do so "because my taxes went up".. They didn't go up.
Even in your own example, an $80 tax increase set against $12,000? in gross annual income is a nothing burger. Especially when you figure that many of these properties have doubled (tripled?) in value. No need to get greedy & "pass on" a $6.xx /mo "tax increase" to a tenant. Are you going to give them a $4.00 "discount" if your taxes go down, or you get cheaper insurance? Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.
Did you seriously just call landlords greedy for offsetting their costs? You do know that is the point of business right? Real estate actually has some of the worst margins around unless you inherit paid off property and even then repairs on old homes are expensive; AC at $5k-$10k, roof at $10k minimum unless you shingle it, I don't own any shingle homes so I don't actually know their cost.
I did say "taxes alone" because it was just one example of the increase in expenses every year but thanks for agreeing with me that expenses do go up. You chose to eat those costs but there is no need to call anyone greedy because they offset the costs by increasing rents. Taxes, insurance, payroll, goods and services all increase every year and if rents didn't go up with it then eventually landlords wouldn't be making any returns on their investments, most would consider it good business practices but lets call it greedy. Throw in one terrible tenant that does thousands in damages that you never collect on and you could very well be at a loss fast if you ate all of the annual increases yourself, and every landlord gets at least one.
I personally keep rents below market not because I think keeping up with market makes someone greedy but because it attracts better tenants, and terrible ones too that have to be screen out. Lower rents are an incentive for tenants to stay longer which brings down vacancy rates and turns into higher profits. It is nearly as good for the landlord as it is for a tenant to keep lower rents but those increased costs will always be offset somehow and it wont all be out of my pocket but that doesn't make me greedy.
Good. The government has no business telling the free market what to charge or not charge for their product.
Funny, you want the government out of they process when it comes to zoning, but want it in the process when it comes to rent.
Actually, I want local option for both or local option for neither. Zoning (protectionism and supply control for incumbent homeowners) and rent control (protectionism and price control for incumbent renters) are mirror images of each other and thus should be regarded by states equally.
Other than CA and NY, states have taken sides and picked winners.
Taxes on rental #1 $1195 in 2010, $873 in 2014
Taxes on rental #2 $1219 in 2010, $889 in 2014
The rental I manage for my parents? 2010 taxes $1068, 2014 taxes $782
The HOA on that property did go up $48/yr in the past 4 years..
My primary residence - 2010 taxes $1512, 2014 taxes $1253
All are valuation-capped @ 5% per year now as well..
Labor rates have certainly gone up from the peak of the crash, but I "front-loaded" most of those common repairs with cheap labor during the crash. Any incidental repairs in the past few years have been minor & they're actually welcomed- my CPA thinks my expenses are too low.
Some states, including Michigan, like to sock it to rental properties.
Like most states, Michigan has a "split roll" property tax where the tax rate is higher on rentals than on owner-occupied homes. Specifically, there is an extra "nonhomestead tax" levied on rentals and everything that is not an owner-occupied primary residence.
Michigan has a 5% cap on annual "taxable value" increases and a constitutional amendment (Headlee Amendment) which separately caps taxes and allows voters to 'override' the cap. (Because of the 5% cap, taxable value typically lags well behind assessed value.)
When property values are rising rapidly, homeowners (who are exempt from the nonhomestead tax on their primary residence) HAPPILY vote to override the 5% cap on the nonhomestead tax. (Voters are NEVER asked to override the 5% cap on homeowner taxes, because that would be political suicide for the officeholders who ask voters for an override.)
As a result, rental property taxes necessarily skyrocket while homeowners enjoy an even greater tax advantage every year.
What in the world would we have to do to get some sort of rent control around here?
Move to a socialist state like California.
I don't want rent control. We don't need rent control. It's arbitrary, it doesn't work, it's hard to enforce, and it eventually doesn't even benefit the people it purports to protect. All the Left wants is control control control control. There's Section 8 housing if people need to move into something with a semblance of rent control. People make choices. You adding more controls doesn't change the choices they made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentleman Jason
If not rent control, what about a $15 minimum wage?
The point that's missed by people about minimum wage is that it solves nothing. PEOPLE ARE NOT PAID WHAT THEY ARE WORTH. THEY ARE PAID WHAT IT IS WORTH TO THE COMPANY TO GET THE JOB DONE WITHOUT PUTTING THE COMPANY OUT OF BUSINESS. No I wasn't shouting. I'm making a point that seems to be missed by everyone who advocates for minimum wage increases. As Kent Kellar says:
Neither I, nor anyone else, is suggesting landlords should return security deposits during the tenancy (although some states do require partial returns under certain circumstances).
I'm talking about landlords who:
- commingle security deposits with their own funds
- have the tenant pay the security deposit to the realtor to cover the realtors fee
- do not credit interest when legally required to do so
- attempt to require security deposits greater than the maximum allowed by law
- do not do walkthroughs
- do not send tenants a statement of deductions within the time frame required, if at all
- attempt to deduct for normal wear-and-tear or other bogus deductions
Yes, there are good landlords who don't do these things, but in my experience they are the exception rather than the rule. But then, I dealt mostly with people who were renting SFHs as a one-off, not professionals, and as you point out they tend to be either ignorant or defiant of the law.
If you know of a Landlord doing these things, turn them in. I worked in Real Estate for many years. Co-mingling funds is a huge no-no. That can be dealt with quickly and severely. Here are the AZ Landlord/Tenant laws - which are rather comprehensive, in case someone has harmed you. Arizona Revised Statutes Go for it. We can't help you in this chat room.
The simple message is this: If you rent, know your rights. Take photos and document the property when you move in. If something happens on the property that may cause damage, document it (we all have cell phones with cameras, yes?) and contact the landlord in writing. Stay on top of it. And if you see suspicious things happening in your complex, don't be shy about letting the LL know. I wouldn't get involved in renting without using some kind of management agency. It's too dicey and too much risk these days.
I have seen the nightmares that landlords go through in renting. One renter above us in an apartment complex many years ago seemed like a decent chap. I heard some animals from time to time, but believed he had permission to own cats. He lived there for about 5 years. One day I was coming home from work and saw the door was open. His car was gone from his spot and there were boxes strewn about. I called the Landlord to alert them to a possible break-in. Nope. The guy had sneaked out in the middle of the day. He was 10 months in arrears on rent. The trash hadn't been taken out in years. The floor was caked so severely with cat droppings, rat droppings, food and trash that they had to bring in a jackhammer to get it all up. It took more than 2 months to gut the apartment and remodel it so it could be rented out. Essentially the landlord was out one year's rent plus all the remodel and cleaning costs. I'm pretty sure the security deposit didn't cover it.
This is just one hellish story. For every one of the horror stories people tell about landlords, there are an equal number of stories about hellish renters. You should sit with Section 8 housing landlords. Being greeted with a gun in the face, drug sales, domestic violence, fists and feet through walls, doors torn off the hinges in a rage, prostitution rings, drop houses, police raids that damage the homes (and they don't have to pay to fix the damages!) .... oh, it's a joy to be a Landlord. /sarc/
I'm not sticking up for bad landlords. I agree, some people have no business being in that business and some don't even understand that it's a business. But some of the 'bad behavior' of landlords can be directly attributed to bad experiences with bad renters.
BTW - rent control will only make these problems worse. Only the dregs will want to rent out their properties if there's no reward and not enough profit in the business venture to make it possible to pay for upkeep, taxes, and a small profit for the person taking the risks.
I started pre rent control and since it has come into being I have been transitioning from residential to commercial... business to business with NNN leases.
A few years ago we were doing move in incentives... now that the market has picked up housing providers the bad guys.
I go to market when a unit is vacant... most of my tenants go several years without an increase... good tenants make being a landlord possible.
With the new proposals people like me will get burned... those that raise every year will be fine.
Here's an example of a bottom of the barrel dump in San Diego. Located in the neiborhood of City Heights off off El Cajon Blvd. (One of the worst gang infested dumps in SD county). Only $1,100 a month . We are very lucky here in AZ for the cost of living although, I've noticed it's skyrocketing in the last few years or so. 4330 53rd Street, San Diego, CA | Trulia
I agree. I've driven through that area of San Diego many times. It is a gang infested ghetto IMO, but I think people from foreign lands, other than Mexico, are finding homes there (which is good.) I knew a guy who lived in City Hts.. He was burglarized twice, then got some sense and moved elsewhere.
Personally, I am not in favor of rent control. I think the market should be allowed to determine rent prices. If middle class people are forced out of San Francisco due to sky high rents, so be it. Plus, rent control is not fair. People living in a rent controlled building a long time pay way less than the new tenants do. Let the market figure this issue out, not the all knowing government.
BTW, Santa Monica has rent control also, and I think Manhattan too.
The Free Lunch Party, known in some circles as the Democratic Party, has brainwashed millions of folks that they can get free cable, college, healthcare and other goodies from the government.
Then you wind up with liberal-created hellholes courtesy of the Pelosi clan and their successors as BALTIMORE!!!!!
Makes you wonder why anybody votes for Democrats only to have their lives ruined and their self-worth destroyed for being so gullible.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 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 2 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.
