Siegfried & Roy?Quote:
Originally Posted by sirbumpsalot
The cage looks like a great way to keep the kids out of your hair, but maybe that wasn't the original intent.
https://photos.zillowstatic.com/fp/9...1536_1152.webp
Printable View
Siegfried & Roy?Quote:
Originally Posted by sirbumpsalot
The cage looks like a great way to keep the kids out of your hair, but maybe that wasn't the original intent.
https://photos.zillowstatic.com/fp/9...1536_1152.webp
Silicon Valley Bank goes tits up. Sounds like they were banking on the fact their VC money would never dry up and the interest rates would stay low. Where have I heard this before?
relevant to the conversation on converting commercial buildings to residential
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...e=articleShare
Was thinking about the S&L crisis way back in the day. If banks start failing, that could be the beginning of a crash in RE values also if history repeats.
Liberace?Quote:
Originally Posted by sirbumpsalot
You have the right team, wrong player
out with it
Those guys must have been swimming in pussy with a sweet pad like that
Graph:
Attachment 451929
Buy and hold, if you can. Lack of inventory will insulate the housing market from a deep crash in anywhere mildly desirable. Millenials and GenZ fucked over once again.Quote:
Originally Posted by sirbumpsalot
Attachment 451939Quote:
Originally Posted by Percy Rideout
ain't going to happen
everyone gets bailed out and the national debt goes to 41 trillion in a week
boomers are dying so what do they care they just want to keep milking society for the sake of owning a tesla and saying they care
mitchy McConnel tripped over his shoe laces until we get rid of these 80 year olds running the country this is what we get
My dad has a twin home in Maricopa, AZ that he has had on the market for several months with almost no action. Realtor says the market there is just dead.
Bank stocks getting taken for another wild ride today. And not just here in America. Is this where we get the all is good messaging from the Feds and nothing to worry about?Quote:
Originally Posted by liv2ski
a client said he would be unavailable all this week last saturday
he's the big wig and a big bank
and guess what he hasn't answered any texts or emails this week
3 houses just went up for sale last weekend on my neighborhood dog-walk loop in the Seattle suburbs. 2 of them are right next door to each other. All listed for way more than they should be worth.
https://media3.giphy.com/media/XEo7YJHUeplXa/giphy.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Toadman
Holy fucking shit! Have you seen this "Just Cause Eviction Bill" in CO?
https://kdvr.com/news/local/just-cau...olorado-house/
Basically says that once you sign a lease with a tenant, the only way to get rid of them (unless they straight up violate the lease) is to sell or do a major remodel, and then you have to give them 2 months rent assistance to get them out.
You can't simply say "hey I'm not renewing your lease at the end." You have to let them stay.
I'm not a landlord, but I would NEVER rent long term ever with a law like that in place.
CA is pretty close to that. These new laws are making owning a rental a lot less desirable for sure. Downside for tenants, is the screening process to rent a place from me got way tougher.
You think thats awesome? Portland wants a cap gains tax on everyone in the county to pay a bunch of lawyers $4000 to defend against each eviction. And the cap gains rate is variable from year to year so good luck planning:Quote:
Originally Posted by summit
https://www.wweek.com/news/2023/03/1...uncertain-net/
I think its awesome. But then again I don't live in Portland but thats beside the point right?
I would start requiring two months and security, and use that for those last two months.
Doesn't work that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by rideit
One anecdote I can offer is that we just secured a rental in Lacey, WA and much like with renting here in MT there is a hefty screening process involved.
Lots of opportunities for a landlord (or in this case a property management company) to deny an applicant before they ever snag the place, and if we didn't have a crystal-clear-perfect record to show I'm sure there would be a lot of hassle trying to secure a place.
We'll see how things develop around Oly through the rest of '23, but we are certainly rooting for any kind of slowdown in the housing market here.
That bill is ridiculous. I'm all for robust tenant protections, but you shouldn't be forced to renew someone's lease. What's the point of a lease length if a landlord has to renew forever?
Yeah that bill is BS. I hear stories from CA as well and am sure glad to be in NV with my little rental. I'm not sure it would even be worth it to rent if i couldn't get people out of MY PROPERTY when their lease was up. WTF?
Pertaining to Colorado, can't you just raise the rent if no controls in place, cite 'market rate' and inflation like they all do when it comes time to renew the lease? Seems to me that would flush out a tenant that you want to leave, no? Or does the bill actually state that you can't raise the rent?
I haven't read the bill, but the article says this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jax
And I can't imagine that they would make it so difficult to evict but allow a giant loophole of doubling the rent on the existing tenants, getting them to move out, then advertising for the original rent or similar.Quote:
The bill only allows an eviction if a tenant:
[snip] refuses to sign a new rental agreement with terms that are basically identical to the current one.
This sounds like de facto rent control.
Our plan in the next 3 years (after pups over the rainbow bridge) was to also rent out our home for 2 years, to go live in Yurp. That plan is in jeopardy if I can't give notice to move back in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
Wth? Uhhhhh no.Quote:
Originally Posted by summit
The article says the CO bill allows for removing the tenant "if you want to move in an immediate family member.” I would think yourself would qualify as an "immediate family member" but it would be hard not to be wary.Quote:
Originally Posted by liv2ski
So the article mentions "certain exemptions for small landlords", how that's defined in the bill I don't know.
I hear ya and we are in CA, so hopefully the laws here don't go full retard, but bad examples (thanks CO) are not helpful. We will see when the time comes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dantheman
NIMBYs... I don't participate in our neighborhood assoc but do follow them. They've been clamoring for more density and affordable housing in town the last few years. The city just put out the draft PZ changes and here's our assoc's outline requesting those who live in the neighborhood submit public comment against the changes.
I will not be commenting. Those on the board live in 4,000 sqft multi-story houses.Quote:
EENA’s Development Committee has identified the following as concerns for the East End:
Lot Coverage limiting the size was removed from the Duplex, Triplex, and Fourplex allowing units over 4,000 sq ft.
The height transition limiting the height of new structures next to single-story houses was removed from the Duplex, Triplex, and Fourplex allowing 3-stories and up to 40 foot tall structures next to a single-story home.
The City is removing all neighborhood notification for all allowed uses with allowed form.
Cafes and retail shops will be allowed in the R1-C Zones (R1-C is how most of the East End is zoned) on corner lots without a Conditional Use Permit allowing the uses without neighbor notification.
I had to do this to get rid of one bad tenant, if the property owner wants to move back in to their property and make primary you can break the lease and give them 30 days notice. Even less if they break the lease, I think it's like 7 days. TY CO!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dantheman
TBF, if they converted that to units, where in the fuck would everyone park?Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
I found this kinda comical:
https://www.reddit.com/r/FirstTimeHo...e_in_ct_today/
You don't need a car as much as these other people need to live in these ADUs. What are you, a NIMBY?Quote:
Originally Posted by rideit
But seriously, when NIMBY shifts from "that going into my community might slightly decrease my enjoyment of my community" to becoming literally NIMBY because the proposal is literally "we are taking your literal backyard away and you cannot have it at all for anything."