Blogging Bayport Alameda

February 2, 2016

Rent meeting, a summary: part 3

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:12 am

I meant to circle back to these video clips, but totally ran out of time.  Here are the others that might be of interest that I’ll move quickly through but the bulk of the post will be on relocation benefits and discussion on whether and/or how to allocate relocation fees in the case that a tenant is evicted with “no cause” and/or “no fault” evictions.

Once a year rent increases: Council all agreed that tenants shouldn’t have their rents raised more than once a year.

Monetary penalties and enforcement: Council supported this, but the actual design of the monetary penalties were not defined and would be tackled “later.”

Sunset provision:  Council agreed to a sunset of the ordinance and annual reviews of the ordinance.

Increase between tenants: This is actually one that the City Council will have made a significant change. And, to give credit where it’s due, Mayor Trish Spencer was actually the one was aggressively pursuing this one, but I’m not quite sure — based on the pushback from the city attorney — if what was being pushed by the City Council was necessarily kosher.  Essentially what the City Council, by consensus wants, is upon eviction the landlord can’t charge more to the new tenant than what was collected from the old tenant.

Substantial Rehabilitation and Mass Evictions:  Consensus on the requirement of a Capital Improvement Plan prior to eviction, details to be decided in the future.  Staff will come back with more details about mass eviction percentages.

Here’s the video on Relocation benefits.:

It took about 19 minutes to get through this item, here’s what happened during that discussion:

  • Tony Daysog wanted to create two classes of tenants, one class of tenants that lease from corporations and another class of tenants that rent from “small mom and pop landlords.”  Essentially ensuring that tenants that rent from mom and pop operations are less protected.
  • In response to Tony Daysog doubling down on his need to protect mom and pop landlords from relocation fees that would only be required if the landlord initiates a no cause/no fault eviction action, Marilyn Ezzy-Ashcraft points out that there is no empirical data that shows that mom and pop landlords are less positioned to afford this cost.
  • Jim Oddie also pointed out that small buildings could be owned by corporations like here.
  • Frank Matarrese called the formation of this ordinance as “byzantine” and would have rather just gone back to the RRAC model with penalties.  Or a case by case mediation model that he suggested earlier in another discussion.
  • Tony Daysog spoke up for relocation benefits and a clear expectation dollar wise.
  • Tony Daysog wants the landlord to be able to choose between staff’s recommendation of four month’s rent or time because he believes that some landlord’s won’t be able to afford four months’ rent to which Jim Oddie responded that the landlord would then need to make a decision on whether or not to evict, or they would need to find a cause to evict (for cause evictions would no incur a relocation fee).
  • This is where Tony Daysog brings up the family member needing to move in even though he understood that it was considered “cause” earlier in the evening.

Here’s what the City Council finally landed on:

  • Consensus was reached (3-2) on tying the relocation fee on length of tenancy.

So essentially the only changes from the current process are:

  • Relocation fees are a new thing.  This is a considerable change from the current process, but it’s unclear how effective this will be (deterrent wise) to slowing down evictions.  Given that most folks that are evicted won’t be able to find replacement housing easily even with four months, there won’t be a huge payout to many of these tenants of these relocation fees but instead most tenants will simply have to stay put, continuing to pay rent with a countdown until they will be out of their housing unit.
Advertisements

50 Comments »

  1. I appreciate Tony Daysog looking out for the small mom and pop landlords – who will be the most impacted by this rent control ordinance. The landlord who owns 20+ units can absorb these costs more easily than a landlord who owns 2-4 units.

    Comment by Karen Bey — February 2, 2016 @ 7:57 am

  2. “Increase between tenants” – if applied to for cause and not for cause evictions alike, it would probably run afoul of Costa Hawkins. I also don’t think the Council would vote to double penalize a landlord who incurs attorney fees to evict for cause (after a period of non-payment of rent or for a reason that bothers other tenants, e.g. drug dealing) by requiring the landlord to accept below market rate to the next tenant. Other tenants probably wouldn’t like it either because it would give the landlord all the more reason to ignore complaints about the problem tenant.

    Comment by MP — February 2, 2016 @ 8:08 am

  3. What happens if the owner only has one house they are renting and a situation causes them to have to move back in and inhabit the house themselves? Do they still have to pay relocation costs? How about if they don’t need to move back in until the lease with the tenant is up?

    Comment by Denise Shelton — February 2, 2016 @ 8:11 am

  4. This is a regional housing crisis brought about by record job growth in the Bay Area. To place the full burden of the housing crisis on housing providers in my opinion is not fair.
    This needs to be a shared cost in my opinion by everyone in Alameda (homeowners, corporations, tenants, landlords, etc.) – not just the housing providers.

    Comment by Karen Bey — February 2, 2016 @ 8:12 am

  5. What happens if the owner only has one house they are renting and a situation causes them to have to move back in and inhabit the house themselves? Do they still have to pay relocation costs?

    If you watch the video the question is asked and answered.

    How about if they don’t need to move back in until the lease with the tenant is up?

    A non renewal of a lease is not an eviction. Relocation fees are only under consideration for certain types of evictions.

    Comment by Lauren Do — February 2, 2016 @ 8:14 am

  6. Denise, yes. And because rent on homes are much greater than rent on an apartment, we will be paying thousands of dollars to retrieve the use of our homes.

    Comment by Karen Bey — February 2, 2016 @ 8:18 am

  7. 5

    If a non-renewal of lease is not an eviction, does that mean the landlord can simply decide to not renew and get a new tenant at market rate when lease is up? If so, that isn’t particularly strong rent control. Am I reading that right?

    I happen to believe that is proper policy, ie honor a contract while in force, renew it or not as a mutual choice between both parties. But it’s not really much rent control. Please clarify if I misunderstand.

    Comment by dave — February 2, 2016 @ 8:29 am

  8. 3 & 6

    If by house/home, you mean a single family house, I thought Costa-Hawkins exempted SFH’s from RC. Am I incorrect?

    Comment by dave — February 2, 2016 @ 8:37 am

  9. Dave, I thought so too, but this ordinance includes single family residences as it relates to relocation assistance payments.

    Comment by Karen Bey — February 2, 2016 @ 8:42 am

  10. I didn’t see the SFR issue, and whether or not SFR is covered by relocation costs, discussed in the clip. Maybe I missed it. Time marker? It might be in the draft ordinances, but it does not jump out at you.

    Also not sure if SFR is exempted from relocation benefit ordinances by Costa Hawkins as, strictly speaking, it is not rent control.

    Comment by MP — February 2, 2016 @ 8:49 am

  11. does that mean the landlord can simply decide to not renew and get a new tenant at market rate when lease is up?

    Once a fixed term lease is up and a landlord decides to not renew it moves to a “month to month” tenancy. But the landlord would still have to give notice to evict. If the eviction is for “no cause” or “no fault” (like an owner move in) there will be relocation assistance paid. If the landlord has cause there will be no relocation assistance paid.

    Comment by Lauren Do — February 2, 2016 @ 8:58 am

  12. Unless there is an exemption for SFR for relocation benefits, the work around for the owner who needs to move back in to her SFR might be to increase the rent effective when the current lease period is up by an unpayable amount (SFR not being subject to rent control), serve a 3 day notice and and litigate if the tenant does not vacate. Not a happy outcome.

    Comment by MP — February 2, 2016 @ 9:00 am

  13. So what about the landlord who tells the tenant that she wants to move back into the single family house, because as they discussed before, the landlord’s job in Southern California is over and it is time to move back? Tenant says, fine, but you must pay relocation benefits. Then, the landlord says, OK, I’m raising your rent. Has the landlord “retaliated” against the tenant for exercising rights under the Ordinance? The language from the draft ordinances re retaliation is below. So should the single family house landlord who needs to move back into the house preemptively raise the rent, by a huge amount, for the next rental period before the tenant mentions relocation benefits in order to avoid a claim of retaliation?

    No housing provider shall take any action to terminate a tenancy, reduce any housing services or increase the rent where the housing provider’s intent is to retaliate against the tenant(i)for the tenant’s assertion or exercise of rights under this Article or under state or federal law, (ii) for the tenant’s request to initiate, or the tenant’s participation in, the rent review procedures under Article XIV or (iii) for the tenant’s participation in litigation arising out of this Article of Article XIV.

    Comment by MP — February 2, 2016 @ 10:03 am

  14. 4. “To place the full burden of the housing crisis on housing providers in my opinion is not fair.”

    What you are missing is that any number of academically oriented analyses have shown that due to land use policies (zoning, et al), housing providers have received the vast majority of the increase in economic production of the region’s economy. The good paying jobs require employees who need housing. If no new housing is available, they bid up and displace the residents in existing housing, and the landlord gets the lion’s share of the higher income and the well paid programmer has not much more discretionary income after rent than the Costco employee that had to move to Hayward.

    I would much rather achieve housing affordability and community stabilization by having the region build adequate supply of housing where the jobs are, but if incumbent landlords and homeowners prevent this in the name of preserving “neighborhood character” and property values and easy street parking, then regulating rents becomes preferable to the status quo. Newton’s 3rd law and all that.

    Comment by BMac — February 2, 2016 @ 12:00 pm

  15. 13. You are right. A landlord of a single family home or condo, exempt from Costa-Hawkins but not relocation assistance for no-cause evictions, will quickly learn that the less legally messy way to oust a tenant is via constructive eviction from large rent increases. On the other hand, they will have to participate in the RRAC to accomplish this and take the publicity that might entail. Perhaps they’ll prefer to just pay the relocation assistance instead, which would be a win for the tenant getting the boot.

    Comment by BMac — February 2, 2016 @ 12:05 pm

  16. # 14 – But in reality we’re not regulating rents with rent control – look at San Francisco and Oakland both considered to be two of the most expensive areas in the Bay Area to live – and both rent controlled cities.

    What’s really happening is that the newer tenants are subsidizing the tenants living in rent controlled apartments.

    Comment by Karen Bey — February 2, 2016 @ 12:25 pm

  17. 15

    If SFH’s are exempt from rent control, wouldn’t they also be exempt from the RRAC?

    Comment by dave — February 2, 2016 @ 1:00 pm

  18. 16. You just completely changed your argument. Are the landlords bearing the “full burden,” as you put it? Or are new tenants? We are regulating an aspect of the rental market. The amount that tenants’ rent can be increased once they are in their home.

    I will grant that rent control does likely increase asking rents of vacant units, some. But the notion that rent control is the reason those cities have high rents does not fly. Rent control is a symptom of high rents and housing shortages, not anywhere close to a primary cause.

    People like me are perfectly capable of understanding that rent stabilization policies can marginally exacerbate a shortage created in a poorly functioning marketplace AND think it is still worth it for the benefits it provides. Lots of prescription medications have side effects.

    Comment by BMac — February 2, 2016 @ 1:04 pm

  19. 17. RRAC is an administrative burden required of SFH landlords. Requiring participation in mediation that is non-binding (only rent controllable units would go to binding arbitration if both parties do not agree to RRAC recommendation) is not considered rent control.

    Comment by BMac — February 2, 2016 @ 1:06 pm

  20. 18

    Your argument that supply will fix the rent situation conflicts with your belief that rent control doesn’t send prices up. Rent control is well known to reduce supply, making it a primary cause of rising rents.

    Comment by dave — February 2, 2016 @ 1:09 pm

  21. 20. Marginal, nuance, questions of degree…

    Adding a glass of water to a swimming pool raises the water level. Does not mean the glass of water is the reason the swimming pool is full of water.

    Comment by BMac — February 2, 2016 @ 1:51 pm

  22. Even if it is understood at the start of the lease between the single family homeowner and tenant that the lease is for a short fixed term (say while the owner is a visiting professor or volunteers for charity work overseas), the owner is subject to paying 3 months rent for relocation costs at the pre-determined and expected end of the lease or appearing at a mandatory RRAC hearing?

    Comment by MP — February 2, 2016 @ 2:39 pm

  23. 22. The owner would be subject to paying $1500 plus one month’s rent per year of tenancy (up to four). Whether the contract could be written to explicitly specify an end date that would otherwise negate the obligations of the ordinance or if a carve out for owner move-ins would be required, I do not know.

    Comment by BMac — February 2, 2016 @ 2:56 pm

  24. For short fixed term wouldn’t it be better to lease out the house AirBnB style? Pretty sure that relocation fees are not required in those situations.

    Comment by Lauren Do — February 2, 2016 @ 2:58 pm

  25. Trying to draft a lease around the relocation fees in the ordinance would probably be considered a waiver

    From the draft ordinance:

    6-57.25 Waiver
    A. Any waiver or purported waiver of a tenant of rights granted under this Article prior to the time when such rights may be exercised shall be void as contrary to public policy.
    B. It shall be unlawful for a housing provider to attempt to waive or waive, in a rental agreement or lease, the rights granted a tenant under this Article prior to the time when such rights may be exercised.

    Comment by MP — February 2, 2016 @ 3:01 pm

  26. @24 Lauren under CA Law after 30 days you automatically become a Tennant and the only way you can be removed is through Eviction.

    Comment by frank m — February 2, 2016 @ 3:19 pm

  27. AirBnb (or not renting the house out at all) might be better for that owner. That might not reduce existing rental supply, but to some degree it discourages it.

    Comment by MP — February 2, 2016 @ 3:23 pm

  28. @26 thanks, I thought it was longer, but makes total sense.

    Comment by Lauren Do — February 2, 2016 @ 3:24 pm

  29. The sensible thing to do is pass a Rent Stabilization Ordinance that has stood up in other Cities. From there it can be find tuned to meet individual circumstances.

    Comment by frank m — February 2, 2016 @ 3:26 pm

  30. In the end it’s the small mom and pops (1-4 units) that will be impacted the most from this rent control ordinance – with rent caps and relocation assistance payments, etc. — taking from small property owners, money that they need to live on in the twilight of their years because the region lacks enough affordable housing — while everyone else that is not a housing provider gets a pass from sharing the cost.

    My preference is to see a higher rent cap, and either an exemption from relocation assistance fees for 1-4 units property owners. The argument of creating two separate classes of tenants – I don’t agree because we have already have different classes of homeowners, and as a society we are okay with that. We live where we can afford to live. I would love to live in Sausalito, but I can’t afford it, so I live in Alameda.

    Comment by Karen Bey — February 2, 2016 @ 3:28 pm

  31. 21

    We have increased demand due to a growing economy (income elasticity).

    At the same time supply is fairly inelastic. Even in a world without Measure A or other quality of life zoning. This current rent situation is about 2 years old, which in housing terms isn’t very long. It takes time to acquire land, permits, financing etc, plus builders typically wait until the price signal is sustained before building.

    Inelastic supply makes for volatile prices. Look at what happened to house prices from ’07 to ’09. Demand fell a bit, prices fell a lot. Rents fell too, though you energetically ignore that.

    Look at oil. Global oil demand is about 96MM barrels per day. Production in late 2015 rose to approx 97MM bpd, causing the price to plummet. A drop of a couple million bpd (which any number of events could trigger) would cause a sharp rally in prices. This is the nature of the beast.

    Reducing supply will cause prices to rise, ceterus paribus. Why is someone so concerned about rising prices in favor of that?

    Comment by dave — February 2, 2016 @ 3:30 pm

  32. The other thing that disturbs me is that I am seeing more and more elderly mom and pop owners that have serious health issues – and they need their income to live on to help pay their medical expenses.

    Are we going to make them pay relocation costs and cap their income too! I feel like there are so many things that hasn’t been considered.

    Comment by Karen Bey — February 2, 2016 @ 3:40 pm

  33. This being political season, I do remember former actor, Senator and GOP pre-candidate Fred Thompson doing ads for reverse mortgages. That would be a way to finance the fees for moving back in.

    Bad joke.

    Comment by MP — February 2, 2016 @ 3:53 pm

  34. Exactly, if you are in the business of being a landlord, even a small one, your ability to incorporate potential relocation fees (only if you evict w/ no cause!) is light years ahead of 99% of tenants’ ability to pay for the cost of moving and higher rents due to a hot market. If you are a senior with an “income property” that is paying for your cost of living in retirement, chances are you have lots of equity in that triplex as collateral to finance short term costs associated with evicting (sometimes another senior on only SSI) a tenant for no fault of their own. If you don’t even have that, you are in the wrong business.

    Karen, you keep pointing out that the mom and pop’s will have it so hard under this proposal. I promise you, the tenants still have it much harder, and they won’t be passing any accumulated wealth onto their children like the landlord, exacerbating the lack of social mobility we have developed in the last three decades.

    Comment by BMac — February 2, 2016 @ 4:27 pm

  35. Rent control will reduce the quantity and quality of units available for rent. Rent control is a dramatic, emotional reaction to a short-term economic cycle. When the tech jobs slow down — and they will — we’ll be left with a shitty rent control law to further damage Alameda for years to come. The only things that will help Alamedans get through this intact is if we add a lot of supply quickly (which seems to be happening) and if the rent control has a reasonable sunset clause to pull the mess off the books once the short term boom is over.

    Comment by AJ — February 2, 2016 @ 4:36 pm

  36. 36. Not all rent control/stabilization policies are created equally, and not all “unintended consequences” often attributed to rent stabilization policies are as bad as they are made out to be. The one City Council is considering is very mild and will allow landlords to raise rents at about twice the rate of inflation (as opposed to most rent control laws which cap rents below CPI). Combined with the fact that it does not have a true “just cause” policy, these two facts make it very clear that Alameda landlords would be able to make all the money they need to in the LONG RUN. When the economy slows and asking rents flatline for a while (they almost never go down in fully developed coastal communities), landlords w/ long term tenants will be able to continue getting 5% increases during the down years. The sky will not fall.

    Comment by BMac — February 2, 2016 @ 4:44 pm

  37. 35:

    You really don’t know the financial situation of landlords. They may be as liquid as you think. They also may be heavily indebted. I know for a fact that many local property owners are cash flow negative (Mark I has alluded to this many times). Cap rates on multi-family buildings are in the mid 5’s right now, which considering the cash expenses, lack of liquidity and significant operating risk is a most unimpressive return. You have a need to believe that all landlords are Warren Buffet, but they aren’t, and you can’t know which are.

    As for large corporate owners, who owns them? Pensions funds and mutual funds are the largest holders in most cases. Pensions for average folks. Mutual finds for individuals’ IRA’s and savings. These aren’t evil mustache twisting misers, they are your neighbors.

    I’ve asked this before, nobody answered but what the hell, I’ll ask again: When are you signing up for caps on your salary? When will you commit to paying several months salary to leave a job for a new one? When are you voluntarily cutting your own retirement? If some landlords must, why shouldn’t you?

    Comment by dave — February 2, 2016 @ 5:38 pm

  38. 38. out of an attempt to have an honest dialogue I know I have alluded to income property owners getting caught short, but at this moment I don’t know any. “many times”. I guess relatively speaking that is accurate. But your constant return to caps on income argument is tired refrain and ultimately a bit apples and oranges. There are no perfect solutions to anything, but over all I with BMac as I’m reading his responses to the rest of ya’ll.

    Comment by MI — February 2, 2016 @ 7:31 pm

  39. If it is OK for Bmac, et al, to demand that some have their incomes legally truncated, why must they not do same? Serious question.

    Comment by dave — February 2, 2016 @ 8:07 pm

  40. “If it is OK for Bmac, et al, to demand that some have their incomes legally truncated, why must they not do same? Serious question.”

    Serious answer – If you think you can get the votes to support your “Tenant Income Truncation Law”, you should go for it!

    It seems rent control laws benefiting tenants are the result of standard democratic processes, same as “quality of life” zoning laws that benefit landowners.

    Comment by brock — February 3, 2016 @ 10:19 am

  41. dave, given your affinity for the latin, I’ll say that your argument amounts to reductio ad absurdum.

    I have articulated before that I believe in something like a guaranteed basic standard of living or universal basic income. To that end, a significant share of renters do not have the basic level of stability and standard of living I would support and one way of funding that is to reduce property owner income to cover some of it. Given political realities, I am prepared to support policies that help a large number of vulnerable people on the backs of a number of less vulnerable people, even if some of them don’t feel the burden equally. Perfect cannot be the enemy of the good. If we had to make every new policy 100% fair before enacting something, progress would never be made.

    I also believe that property owners benefit from government policies that enable them to extract higher rents through monopolistic powers in the marketplace that need to be counteracted.

    I also believe in continuums. Space-time, the one Q from Next Generation was in, and policy decisions.

    Comment by BMac — February 3, 2016 @ 11:23 am

  42. You seem like a bright enough guy to grasp that the only beneficiaries will be current renters, that supply reductions and deferred maintenance will harm future renters, as has occurred virtually every place rent control has been enacted. You also seem bright enough to realize that a radical shift in response to a temporary situation is not sound policy (Exhibit A: Prop 13). You can probably even get how renters benefit from zoning ordinances that make this town a nicer place to live.

    There’s hope for you, Brian.

    Comment by dave — February 3, 2016 @ 11:49 am

  43. Tomorrow’s renters will benefit once they become yesterday’s renters.

    As for supply reductions and deferred maintenance, the ordinance Alameda is poised to pass is nowhere close to those in Oakland and SF. Alameda will have no just cause eviction control and rubber stamp rent increases of up to about 2x CPI, as opposed to 2/3 CPI in the stricter jurisdictions. The side effects on those fronts will be negligible, if measurable at all. Alameda’s proposal is a speed bump, not a wall.

    Comment by BMac — February 3, 2016 @ 12:16 pm

  44. Owning a rental property is a business. You want to make the most bang for your buck what is hard people get in the way. What is so stupid is why do you have to pay someone to move out of your property…that just isn’t right. What is supid is the renter didn’t make the investment the owner did
    .

    Comment by joelsf — February 3, 2016 @ 1:13 pm

  45. I have seen the supply and demand factor in action, having two recent college students in the family who went to school in different California communities. The first one went to college in a coastal community, not near tech, but with some anti-growth sentiment in town. Supply of apartments was tight and housing was expensive. The second one went to college in an inland location. There, the developers have built more than enough housing and so there are apartment fairs, where the landlords compete with amenities to see who can entice the students to rent apartments with them. The problem in Alameda is that there is no way that as a city we can build our way out of the Bay Area’s general housing shortage, although we can do our part to help. Meanwhile, we need to have something in place to help protect the vulnerable among us from price increases and evictions that threaten them.

    Comment by Kevis Brownson — February 4, 2016 @ 5:52 am

  46. I own a duplex in Alameda. When I purchased it, a duplex afforded me the ability to buy a residence for myself. I am presently out of state but we’ll be relocating back to Alameda as my spouses job dictates that we now live in the Bay Area. When I evict one of my tenants so that I can move back into my own (and only) home, will I be subject to paying the renters a fee? That part is not clear to me. I would love to be in a position where I could handover my tenants several months of rent, but I am not. Instead, I look out for them when possible, I charge well below today’s market rate for a very nice property, as I wasn’t looking at this as an income generator, simply to cover expenses while I am away. So, are all my efforts to be fair and upstanding with my tenants in vain and I’ll be penalized as a result? Not to mention, due to rent control, it will be years before I ever get near a market rate if I follow regular increases – apparently even when a tenant leaves. This makes me not want to rent it and turn it back into a single family home and sell it. I feel like I am being screwed and I was one of the nice guys!

    Comment by Brian Keith — February 8, 2016 @ 2:00 pm

  47. 47. I’m in the same boat. I had no plans to do rent increases as I was very happy with what I’ve been getting. Now that I have to save up to insure that if my husband gets a job back in the Bay Area and we can return, I can afford to to pay the relocation costs. Guess how I plan to save up for that?

    Comment by Denise Shelton — February 9, 2016 @ 2:49 pm

  48. 48. So, your tenant has benefitted from not getting rent increases while others received double digit increases for multiple years or just an outright eviction. In order to pay for an expected cost associated with possibly evicting your tenant, the tenant will pay a modest increase in rents over time to fund their future move. Sounds like a functioning ordinance and market to me! The tenant and you are likely to end up financially in about the same spot w/ or w/out the ordinance, but other tenants w/ less friendly landlords gain protections. Win-win. Or, at least, win-no lose.

    Comment by BMac — February 9, 2016 @ 3:05 pm

  49. I’m a bad listener or reader sometimes. The process of C.C. has also been confusing and not easy to follow. But I infer from 49. that there is or it is expected that there will soon be an ordinance for relocation fees. I was following that but didn’t think about or understand that it would apply to eviction from primary residence when landlord needs to re-occupy. I need to go back and re-read some of Lauren’s blogs to see if I can clarify. To me the length of notice is the most critical factor. In the case where it’s primary residence of landlord I’m not so sure I see relocation fee as justified, especially if the tenant gets lots of notice ( 90 days). Also seems crazy that an ordinance for stabilization would not have a % cap, but would include relocation fees. Maybe I’m not seeing the big picture.

    Total coincidence, but I was talking with a neighbor yesterday who moved away several years ago to live in foothills who is trying to secure a job in the bay and may need to move back to her digs. She has had one tenant and has hardly raised the rent. She recently ,made an increase which she said may have been “a little spiky” on account of being totally disorganized about regulating her house as an income stream. I have mixed feelings, but since she painted the place this year I get the increase. Then again, if she has to pay relocation, it’s a good thing she has increased the rent enough to cover it. Ultimately she is not likely to lose money no matter what, which would be the only truly bad outcome. Because she has been loosey goosey the relocation fees may be a set back in the short term. Property management fees would probably be just as steep if not more so it’s a wash.

    Comment by MI — February 9, 2016 @ 3:32 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Say what you want

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.