- Find a Real Estate Professional
- Realtors®
- Mortgage Lenders
- Home Improvement Pros
- Other Real Estate Services
- Review an Agent, Lender or Pro
- Marketing on Zillow
- Real Estate Agent Advertising
- Join the Professional Directory
- Popular
- Real Estate Market Reports
- More
Answers (7)
- coreyalderin
- Contributions:12
Thnaks for all the responses. Unfortonately the association is not going to move forward with this because there are too many people that do not want it.
This would have been very helpful to me and my wife because we are trying to move to a larger house but we do not have the option of selling right now (we owe way more than its worth).
Does anyone have any other options we can consider (except for short sale or forclosure)?
Thanks again
This would have been very helpful to me and my wife because we are trying to move to a larger house but we do not have the option of selling right now (we owe way more than its worth).
Does anyone have any other options we can consider (except for short sale or forclosure)?
Thanks again
- sunnyview
- Contributions:25139
I think there is a small downside to allowing some rentals as long as you stay well below the lender required occupancy requirements to allow people to easily qualify for units that go up for sale. 20% would not be too bad from what I have seen in other buildings.
You also need to consider putting a system in place to deal with problem tenants in the complex and possibly consider adopting set fines for owners who's tenants violate the complex policies (number of occupants, noise, damage to common areas, etc).
An attorney could help you set those up, but optimally you would want to be able to notice and fine condo owners directly for violations of their tenants like car owners are cited for parking tickets even if they were not the one who parked illegally.
You also need to consider putting a system in place to deal with problem tenants in the complex and possibly consider adopting set fines for owners who's tenants violate the complex policies (number of occupants, noise, damage to common areas, etc).
An attorney could help you set those up, but optimally you would want to be able to notice and fine condo owners directly for violations of their tenants like car owners are cited for parking tickets even if they were not the one who parked illegally.
- Mack McCoy
- Contributions:1117
CE, a HOA can assess a move-in / move-out fee, but I think it cannot have a special tax on non-owner-occupants. Attempting this might require the consent of the underlying mortgagees.
Also - condominiums are allowed to - expected to - have reserve funds, but they're not allowed to have "surplus" funds. At least in Washington State, any "surplus" funds are to be returned to the homeowners.
And, Dan, entering into a HOA is a voluntary act.
Also - condominiums are allowed to - expected to - have reserve funds, but they're not allowed to have "surplus" funds. At least in Washington State, any "surplus" funds are to be returned to the homeowners.
And, Dan, entering into a HOA is a voluntary act.
- Dan, "the_country_hick"
- Contributions:4699
One point to make is that a rental unit will not cause a lower condo price for everyone else like a foreclosure or short sale would. A rented property would also be making the payments to the HOA where the foreclosed unit or the one the person can not afford may not.
A simple question to ask is "Which is worse, a rented unit or a foreclosed one?".
Would you rather I be able to rent this out or have it foreclosed on?
I would also suggest that ownership equals the freedom to do with your property what you wish but a HOA is all about the opposite. They control and do not like to grant freedoms.
A simple question to ask is "Which is worse, a rented unit or a foreclosed one?".
Would you rather I be able to rent this out or have it foreclosed on?
I would also suggest that ownership equals the freedom to do with your property what you wish but a HOA is all about the opposite. They control and do not like to grant freedoms.
- Caveat Emptor
- Contributions:500
I would pitch it differently. I would suggest non-owner occupied units have to pay higher dues. this would generate revenue for the association and could reduce the burden on everyone else. Its more likely to pass, but I'm guessing you would be opposed to it anyway, even if it could bring an extra 10k plus to the general fund per year.
1) This discourages people from buying the property with the intention of renting it out, but still allows people to retain their property when circumstances change.
this is a tough sell because it appeals to people to "give up" a rule about rentals and really offers them little incentive. in my experience, the busybodies on the boards and who vote in these things really want as much control as possible(hence the 3/4 majority rule. I bet the board could do it with a simple majority)
2) this isn't really appealing to me as balance would be an issue. if I were going to propose this, I would pick a number closer to 5% and throw it in with 1 on the principal of "trying to keep out Investors" and making this change "just for us"
3.) Require certain items to be included in the contract and the contract would need to be approved by the association.
maybe a standard contract pre-approved by the association would be easier to manage? Pets yes/no, lease 6 months water/sewer provided, swimming in the drainage ditch grounds for tenant fines and eviction. Background check and application fee, no criminal record... I don't think the board wants to review every rental agreement individually.
you want to make the rule change small easy to implement. 0.02
1) This discourages people from buying the property with the intention of renting it out, but still allows people to retain their property when circumstances change.
this is a tough sell because it appeals to people to "give up" a rule about rentals and really offers them little incentive. in my experience, the busybodies on the boards and who vote in these things really want as much control as possible(hence the 3/4 majority rule. I bet the board could do it with a simple majority)
2) this isn't really appealing to me as balance would be an issue. if I were going to propose this, I would pick a number closer to 5% and throw it in with 1 on the principal of "trying to keep out Investors" and making this change "just for us"
3.) Require certain items to be included in the contract and the contract would need to be approved by the association.
maybe a standard contract pre-approved by the association would be easier to manage? Pets yes/no, lease 6 months water/sewer provided, swimming in the drainage ditch grounds for tenant fines and eviction. Background check and application fee, no criminal record... I don't think the board wants to review every rental agreement individually.
you want to make the rule change small easy to implement. 0.02
- Mack McCoy
- Contributions:1117
So, of course you're doing this with the guidance of an attorney.
The first idea is something I've never run across. The second makes a lot of sense, and the third puts an incredible burden and responsibility on the Board - does your Board or Management Company really want to take on reviewing leases?
Here's the problem with rentals in a condo:
80% owner-occupants, 4 owners per renter
75%, 3 owners per renter
67%, 2 owners per renter
60%, 3 owners per two renters
50%, even up.
There's a point where renters affect the quality of life for owners, not because of anything they do, but because the renters are not a part of the community, they don't have an ownership stake, and the remaining owners are resentful for having to pick up the slack on behalf of absentee owners.
These are tough economic times, and I certainly understand that a lot of condo owners just can't sell their places. I don't know of a really good solution, and I do think that condos should have rental caps.
All the best,
The first idea is something I've never run across. The second makes a lot of sense, and the third puts an incredible burden and responsibility on the Board - does your Board or Management Company really want to take on reviewing leases?
Here's the problem with rentals in a condo:
80% owner-occupants, 4 owners per renter
75%, 3 owners per renter
67%, 2 owners per renter
60%, 3 owners per two renters
50%, even up.
There's a point where renters affect the quality of life for owners, not because of anything they do, but because the renters are not a part of the community, they don't have an ownership stake, and the remaining owners are resentful for having to pick up the slack on behalf of absentee owners.
These are tough economic times, and I certainly understand that a lot of condo owners just can't sell their places. I don't know of a really good solution, and I do think that condos should have rental caps.
All the best,
- Matt Laricy, "Matt Laricy"
- Contributions:1620
I think its a great idea, but you HAVE to cap it. Allow rentals but only 20% of them to be rented out at any given time. This way you can have some units rented, but it prevents the rentals from getting out of control. This is my personal favorite one. Many others will tell you to keep it under 51%, or allow as many as you want. But I think the strongest buildings in the city have 20% or under rentals.
Opinion on allowing rental units in a condo building
My association is soon going to have a meeting to vote on a declaration change that would allow renting in our building. This requires a unit owner vote and at least 75% of voters wanting it. I anticipate this being very hard to get 75% of voters to agree with. I was hoping anyone could share any advice or experience they have this this. Do you think this is a good idea, or bad idea?
I would really like renting to be allowed because I want to move but the current market makes it pretty much impossible without me renting my unit.
Here is what I have proposed to include in the declaration that may ease some concerns among unit owners. Can anyone add to this?
1.) Only allow renting to unit owners that have lived there for at least a year
2.) Only allow renting in x% of the total units. I think lenders do not like to see 20% (or something similar) so we would not want to go over that
3.) Require certain items to be included in the contract and the contract would need to be approved by the association.
Stating a discriminatory preference in an advertisement for housing is illegal. If you think this content is discriminatory or otherwise inappropriate and feel it should be removed from Zillow, please let us know by completing the information above.
We will review this content. Thanks for helping make the site more useful to everyone. To learn more, read Zillow's Good Neighbor Policy.