Oregon, first state wide rent control
Most Popular Reply
Rental Property Investor · Littleton, CO · Member since 2014 · 150 posts · 114 votes
7yI think it will be interesting to see how this plays out. I looked up the one year increase in 2017 in Seattle and Portland, one was 3% and one was 4%. The newly allowed 7% plus inflation (2018 was 1.9%) is higher than rent has risen over the past year.
As a landlord in I currently haven't raised the rent on good tenants for the first renew, and if I do after the second it isn't for 7% year. Turnover is more expensive than the extra money from a rent increase. However, if I was in OR I would automatically raise the max allowable per year. I wouldn't want to get stuck after 4 years with the same tenant and modest increases without the option to raise to market rent for a new tenant, especially after incurring make-ready costs and vacancy associated with finding a great tenant. In my mind year over year of 7% increases (without inflation added) is hefty, $105 per year on $1500 rent. I'm guessing rents end up skyrocketing over time in OR, historically rents have risen about 4% nationally. Landlords have a good anchor for raising the max allowable - it is allowed by law. I'm not sure this law will help tenants keep rents low. Eviction seems like a thornier issue for landlords with the new regulations.
50 Replies
- 7yJay HinrichsBusiness MemberReal Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
@Johann Jells and as a matter of fact and not germane to rent control but I wonder as a matter of course.
But Napa finally put its foot down about 15 years or so ago.. you cant rip out forest land on the hillsides anymore for vineyards. very very tough.
that is why prime vineyard land on the Rutherford bench will sell for 700 to 1mil an acre.. talk about son very wealthy old farmers that bought this dirt for nothing as late as the mid 70s.. 100 acre vineyard can be for 50 to 100 million in the right location.
Oregon vineyard land is a fraction of that.. but then again.. in Napa 4 to 8 tons to the acre.. in Oregon lucky to get 1 to 1.5 tonnes.. and oregon is prone to having bad years ( much more weather) So thats why Napa Sonoma cental cal are world class consistent vintages.. some better than others..
- 7yJay HinrichsBusiness MemberReal Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
Originally posted by @Robert M.:
There will be excise tax on ALL new homes in Newberg Oregon, to help fund affordable housing. There are so many changes being proposed I dont want to list them all, but it sound like the state/government is going after the builders as well. I can only assume other city planners will follow suit. The next couple years could get interesting. There are several landlords that plan on selling(as per a large property management company in Salem Oregon) due to all the new regulations.
you know when govmit pushes this stuff on the private sector be it landlords or us builders.. its the public that pays for it.. or you will have no building and no rentals.. and your homeless situation will get worse .. prices of exiting homes will go up since there is more work and population than there is houses for them.. this is not Ohio or MI or other parts of the country were there are more existing homes than people to live in them.
- Rental Property Investor · Jersey City, NJ · Member since 2011 · 1k+ posts · 876 votes7y
@Jay Hinrichs it's not clear to me who you're disagreeing with, me or the Gov I quoted! I think her reasoning is nonsense, a city doesn't need vineyards close enough to have to choose them over housing. The greenline plus density limits plus high demand inevitably leads to high prices. All high priced cities should be doing dense transit oriented midrise development, but the leafy suburban style neighborhoods say no, even as they complain about affordability.
- 7yJay HinrichsBusiness MemberReal Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
Originally posted by @Johann Jells:
@Jay Hinrichs it's not clear to me who you're disagreeing with, me or the Gov I quoted! I think her reasoning is nonsense, a city doesn't need vineyards close enough to have to choose them over housing. The greenline plus density limits plus high demand inevitably leads to high prices. All high priced cities should be doing dense transit oriented midrise development, but the leafy suburban style neighborhoods say no, even as they complain about affordability.
Just saying the gubernator is full of you know what.. Keep in mind vineyards in Oregon many times are on pretty steep slopes that are not appropriate for housing that's why she says south facing slopes... and the state land use laws area exactly as you denoted. they encourage Hi density and in the ag areas you need 160 acres for one home.. some of it can be zoned for 20s etc.. but by and large this all passed in the late 70s. So to bring it up now is disingenuous on her part..
- Rental Property Investor · Jersey City, NJ · Member since 2011 · 1k+ posts · 876 votes7y
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
Are you saying that hi density is allowed and encouraged? Though I only visit the west coast, everything I've heard and seen is that nimby rules and no one wants any density, never mind midrise 5 or 6 floor apartment buildings in their neighborhood. Even in my city, in the 6th densest county in the US, midrise is controversial, especially if they don't provide at least 1:1 parking spots.
- 7yJay HinrichsBusiness MemberReal Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
Originally posted by @Johann Jells:
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
Are you saying that hi density is allowed and encouraged? Though I only visit the west coast, everything I've heard and seen is that nimby rules and no one wants any density, never mind midrise 5 or 6 floor apartment buildings in their neighborhood. Even in my city, in the 6th densest county in the US, midrise is controversial, especially if they don't provide at least 1:1 parking spots.
Oregon is Very rural as a state there is less than 4 million people and 2 million live within 30 miles of downtown Portlandia. and so yes Portlandia encourage high density and so do other cities..
- Rental Property Investor · Jersey City, NJ · Member since 2011 · 1k+ posts · 876 votes7y
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
Originally posted by @Johann Jells:
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
Are you saying that hi density is allowed and encouraged? Though I only visit the west coast, everything I've heard and seen is that nimby rules and no one wants any density, never mind midrise 5 or 6 floor apartment buildings in their neighborhood. Even in my city, in the 6th densest county in the US, midrise is controversial, especially if they don't provide at least 1:1 parking spots.
Oregon is Very rural as a state there is less than 4 million people and 2 million live within 30 miles of downtown Portlandia. and so yes Portlandia encourage high density and so do other cities..
Then why has supply not caught up to to demand, where's the friction for developers of dense affordable housing?
- 7yJay HinrichsBusiness MemberReal Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
Originally posted by @Johann Jells:
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
Originally posted by @Johann Jells:
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
Are you saying that hi density is allowed and encouraged? Though I only visit the west coast, everything I've heard and seen is that nimby rules and no one wants any density, never mind midrise 5 or 6 floor apartment buildings in their neighborhood. Even in my city, in the 6th densest county in the US, midrise is controversial, especially if they don't provide at least 1:1 parking spots.
Oregon is Very rural as a state there is less than 4 million people and 2 million live within 30 miles of downtown Portlandia. and so yes Portlandia encourage high density and so do other cities..
Then why has supply not caught up to to demand, where's the friction for developers of dense affordable housing?
Great question.. has to do with urban growth boundries and available lands.. the state says a city has to have a 20 year supply.. well they count anything that can be built on as supply. but maybe that farmer does not want to sell.
or a perfect example of were I used to live.. Acre estate lots.. 4 to 10k sq ft houses.. all 1.5 to 5 mil.. but zoned for 5k lots.. so who is going to bull doze there big estate house to put lots in.
Or when they brought in 25,000 acres in the east Portland metro area called Damascus.. big hub bub .. but no utls and there is no method in OR to move utls for private developers. So the long runs of sewer water roads not 2k of those 22k acres have been developed.. but it counts as available land. IN California when I built subdivisions there we used Public money through bonds Mello Roos 15 act 11 act etc..
Plus you have very strong lobby in the thousand Friends of Oregon.. who watch every land use application usually will appeal to LUBA..
- Rental Property Investor · Jersey City, NJ · Member since 2011 · 1k+ posts · 876 votes7y
Well, I knew there was an answer in the supply end. These places have an identity crisis, they want to be major cities for prestige but want to look like suburbs. Around here the low density is a 35' high duplex on a 25'x100' lot. The prewar places can be a 10U 5 floor walkup on that same lot.
- 7yJay HinrichsBusiness MemberReal Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
Originally posted by @Robert M.:
There will be excise tax on ALL new homes in Newberg Oregon, to help fund affordable housing. There are so many changes being proposed I dont want to list them all, but it sound like the state/government is going after the builders as well. I can only assume other city planners will follow suit. The next couple years could get interesting. There are several landlords that plan on selling(as per a large property management company in Salem Oregon) due to all the new regulations.
you know when govmit pushes this stuff on the private sector be it landlords or us builders.. its the public that pays for it.. or you will have no building and no rentals.. and your homeless situation will get worse .. prices of exiting homes will go up since there is more work and population than there is houses for them.. this is not Ohio or MI or other parts of the country were there are more existing homes than people to live in them.
Update Newberg city council talking about it nothing passed yet though
- Investor · Dundee, OR · Member since 2016 · 104 posts · 162 votes7y
Originally posted by @Dan Latta:
7% plus "cost of living" increases is a decent number to work with in my book. Before rent control in the years that I did do a rent raise it was always 2-4% or nothing at all. Having been a tenant and an owner under rent control (Santa Monica, CA where the city dictated the amount of increase on a yearly basis) the culture around renting turns into expecting that rents will raise each year no matter what even if a nominal amount. So for most properties around the city I think it will be an overall positive for the building owners and speculators. Working within a 7-10% margin should be very doable and if it's not owners will charge a separate premium for parking/laundry/water/etc... to make up any difference.
Im not too worried about the rent control cap of around 10%. Its the fine print that is being ignored. I lost and continue to loose my tools/options as a landlord. Just some of the things I worry about are, no cause evictions, restricted back ground checks, year long lease that will auto convert to a month to month(tenant decides and is in control), service animal abuse and the gag order that comes with it, relocation fees(min one month rent), one year statue for tenant to sue landlord of which requires a min of three month rent paid to tenant along with any fees or actual damages, free legal aid and counsel for renters paid by taxpayers, and a list of existing red tape. Death by 1000 cuts.
- Investor · Dundee, OR · Member since 2016 · 104 posts · 162 votes7y
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
Originally posted by @Robert M.:
There will be excise tax on ALL new homes in Newberg Oregon, to help fund affordable housing. There are so many changes being proposed I dont want to list them all, but it sound like the state/government is going after the builders as well. I can only assume other city planners will follow suit. The next couple years could get interesting. There are several landlords that plan on selling(as per a large property management company in Salem Oregon) due to all the new regulations.
you know when govmit pushes this stuff on the private sector be it landlords or us builders.. its the public that pays for it.. or you will have no building and no rentals.. and your homeless situation will get worse .. prices of exiting homes will go up since there is more work and population than there is houses for them.. this is not Ohio or MI or other parts of the country were there are more existing homes than people to live in them.
Update Newberg city council talking about it nothing passed yet though
We bought our first Yamhill county SFH from Matt, great family. I would be VERY surprised if it didn't pass.
- 7yJay HinrichsBusiness MemberReal Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
Originally posted by @Robert M.:
Originally posted by @Dan Latta:
7% plus "cost of living" increases is a decent number to work with in my book. Before rent control in the years that I did do a rent raise it was always 2-4% or nothing at all. Having been a tenant and an owner under rent control (Santa Monica, CA where the city dictated the amount of increase on a yearly basis) the culture around renting turns into expecting that rents will raise each year no matter what even if a nominal amount. So for most properties around the city I think it will be an overall positive for the building owners and speculators. Working within a 7-10% margin should be very doable and if it's not owners will charge a separate premium for parking/laundry/water/etc... to make up any difference.
Im not too worried about the rent control cap of around 10%. Its the fine print that is being ignored. I lost and continue to loose my tools/options as a landlord. Just some of the things I worry about are, no cause evictions, restricted back ground checks, year long lease that will auto convert to a month to month(tenant decides and is in control), service animal abuse and the gag order that comes with it, relocation fees(min one month rent), one year statue for tenant to sue landlord of which requires a min of three month rent paid to tenant along with any fees or actual damages, free legal aid and counsel for renters paid by taxpayers, and a list of existing red tape. Death by 1000 cuts.
in all of that I think the not being able to run criminal is very strange.. and if I was a landlord I would do it anyway.. let them sue me
- Investor · Dundee, OR · Member since 2016 · 104 posts · 162 votes7y
Originally posted by @Johann Jells:
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
Originally posted by @Johann Jells:
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
Are you saying that hi density is allowed and encouraged? Though I only visit the west coast, everything I've heard and seen is that nimby rules and no one wants any density, never mind midrise 5 or 6 floor apartment buildings in their neighborhood. Even in my city, in the 6th densest county in the US, midrise is controversial, especially if they don't provide at least 1:1 parking spots.
Oregon is Very rural as a state there is less than 4 million people and 2 million live within 30 miles of downtown Portlandia. and so yes Portlandia encourage high density and so do other cities..
Then why has supply not caught up to to demand, where's the friction for developers of dense affordable housing?
The zoning laws continue to disincentivize construction of multi family housing. A good example would be that current zoning laws require a min lot size of 20k sq foot to build a duplex. Why would a builder use private money to build a duplex on a lot that can have three or four single family homes built instead? Who's going to buy a 650k dollar duplex from the local builder? Does anyone wonder why I can build a SFH on a 5k lot but a Duplex requires a 20k lot? Things that make ya go, DOH! lol
- Rental Property Investor · Jersey City, NJ · Member since 2011 · 1k+ posts · 876 votes7y
Originally posted by @Robert M.:
This zoning stuff is precisely why there's no housing, and no one wants to focus on it and make it their election issue since the people who would move in aren't their voting constituents yet.
As for the automatic MtM renewal and no eviction without cause, I've lived with that here in NJ 22 years, and it's never been an issue with well chosen tenants. NJ also has a renewal clause that is effectively the same as the recent OR law, no "reprehensible" rent raise, which in practice means under 10%. Again, not an issue. My only real issues ever were with lowlife legacy tenants when we bought. The no criminal check thing is weird, not that it would be an issue for me, my tenant base is above that class.
- 7yBrandon SturgillBusiness MemberReal Estate Broker · Columbus, OH · Member since 2013 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes
@Jay Hinrichs Have you ever considered retiring into politics ;) I'd vote for you for sure. Governor, maybe??
- 7yJay HinrichsBusiness MemberReal Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
Originally posted by @Robert M.:
Originally posted by @Johann Jells:
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
Originally posted by @Johann Jells:
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
Are you saying that hi density is allowed and encouraged? Though I only visit the west coast, everything I've heard and seen is that nimby rules and no one wants any density, never mind midrise 5 or 6 floor apartment buildings in their neighborhood. Even in my city, in the 6th densest county in the US, midrise is controversial, especially if they don't provide at least 1:1 parking spots.
Oregon is Very rural as a state there is less than 4 million people and 2 million live within 30 miles of downtown Portlandia. and so yes Portlandia encourage high density and so do other cities..
Then why has supply not caught up to to demand, where's the friction for developers of dense affordable housing?
The zoning laws continue to disincentivize construction of multi family housing. A good example would be that current zoning laws require a min lot size of 20k sq foot to build a duplex. Why would a builder use private money to build a duplex on a lot that can have three or four single family homes built instead? Who's going to buy a 650k dollar duplex from the local builder? Does anyone wonder why I can build a SFH on a 5k lot but a Duplex requires a 20k lot? Things that make ya go, DOH! lol
20k sq ft must be a Newberg Dundee Mac Lafeyette rule.. its certainly not a city of Portland.
- Investor · Dundee, OR · Member since 2016 · 104 posts · 162 votes7y
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
Originally posted by @Robert M.:
Originally posted by @Johann Jells:
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
Originally posted by @Johann Jells:
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
Are you saying that hi density is allowed and encouraged? Though I only visit the west coast, everything I've heard and seen is that nimby rules and no one wants any density, never mind midrise 5 or 6 floor apartment buildings in their neighborhood. Even in my city, in the 6th densest county in the US, midrise is controversial, especially if they don't provide at least 1:1 parking spots.
Oregon is Very rural as a state there is less than 4 million people and 2 million live within 30 miles of downtown Portlandia. and so yes Portlandia encourage high density and so do other cities..
Then why has supply not caught up to to demand, where's the friction for developers of dense affordable housing?
The zoning laws continue to disincentivize construction of multi family housing. A good example would be that current zoning laws require a min lot size of 20k sq foot to build a duplex. Why would a builder use private money to build a duplex on a lot that can have three or four single family homes built instead? Who's going to buy a 650k dollar duplex from the local builder? Does anyone wonder why I can build a SFH on a 5k lot but a Duplex requires a 20k lot? Things that make ya go, DOH! lol
20k sq ft must be a Newberg Dundee Mac Lafeyette rule.. its certainly not a city of Portland.
Newberg for sure.
Dundee has over 100 acres of flat buildable farm land in the city limits. The owners wants to sell, the builders want to build. The city planner keeps messing with the two land owners by changing the zoning and lot sizes, so nothing gets sold to developers. The city planner wants builders to put in mobile home parks and very high density housing. The landowners/builders want what was agreed upon several years ago. So im not sure exactly what the hell is going on with zoning in Dundee, other than gridlock.
Its a tough deal all around. Ask the Wilcuts about scrapping an entire subdivision because the officials at the state level told them no permits unless you build low income housing in that 500k to 650k dollar a house subdivision.
- 7yJay HinrichsBusiness MemberReal Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
Originally posted by @Robert M.:
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
Originally posted by @Robert M.:
Originally posted by @Johann Jells:
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
Originally posted by @Johann Jells:
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
Are you saying that hi density is allowed and encouraged? Though I only visit the west coast, everything I've heard and seen is that nimby rules and no one wants any density, never mind midrise 5 or 6 floor apartment buildings in their neighborhood. Even in my city, in the 6th densest county in the US, midrise is controversial, especially if they don't provide at least 1:1 parking spots.
Oregon is Very rural as a state there is less than 4 million people and 2 million live within 30 miles of downtown Portlandia. and so yes Portlandia encourage high density and so do other cities..
Then why has supply not caught up to to demand, where's the friction for developers of dense affordable housing?
The zoning laws continue to disincentivize construction of multi family housing. A good example would be that current zoning laws require a min lot size of 20k sq foot to build a duplex. Why would a builder use private money to build a duplex on a lot that can have three or four single family homes built instead? Who's going to buy a 650k dollar duplex from the local builder? Does anyone wonder why I can build a SFH on a 5k lot but a Duplex requires a 20k lot? Things that make ya go, DOH! lol
20k sq ft must be a Newberg Dundee Mac Lafeyette rule.. its certainly not a city of Portland.
Newberg for sure.
Dundee has over 100 acres of flat buildable farm land in the city limits. The owners wants to sell, the builders want to build. The city planner keeps messing with the two land owners by changing the zoning and lot sizes, so nothing gets sold to developers. The city planner wants builders to put in mobile home parks and very high density housing. The landowners/builders want what was agreed upon several years ago. So im not sure exactly what the hell is going on with zoning in Dundee, other than gridlock.
Its a tough deal all around. Ask the Wilcuts about scrapping an entire subdivision because the officials at the state level told them no permits unless you build low income housing in that 500k to 650k dollar a house subdivision.
Not to get into the tulles on this but I would find a city mandating a MHP pretty hard to believe. I will ask Marc about what your talking about. I was in escrow on a property for 7 or 8 lots corner of 7th and Alder.. I see its finally going.. the city mandated improvements were always more than we can pencil and the church owned it and they had some old appraisal showing a value of 2X what was reality so you just have to wait them out.
- Investor · Dundee, OR · Member since 2016 · 104 posts · 162 votes7y
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
Originally posted by @Robert M.:
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
Originally posted by @Robert M.:
Originally posted by @Johann Jells:
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
Originally posted by @Johann Jells:
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
Are you saying that hi density is allowed and encouraged? Though I only visit the west coast, everything I've heard and seen is that nimby rules and no one wants any density, never mind midrise 5 or 6 floor apartment buildings in their neighborhood. Even in my city, in the 6th densest county in the US, midrise is controversial, especially if they don't provide at least 1:1 parking spots.
Oregon is Very rural as a state there is less than 4 million people and 2 million live within 30 miles of downtown Portlandia. and so yes Portlandia encourage high density and so do other cities..
Then why has supply not caught up to to demand, where's the friction for developers of dense affordable housing?
The zoning laws continue to disincentivize construction of multi family housing. A good example would be that current zoning laws require a min lot size of 20k sq foot to build a duplex. Why would a builder use private money to build a duplex on a lot that can have three or four single family homes built instead? Who's going to buy a 650k dollar duplex from the local builder? Does anyone wonder why I can build a SFH on a 5k lot but a Duplex requires a 20k lot? Things that make ya go, DOH! lol
20k sq ft must be a Newberg Dundee Mac Lafeyette rule.. its certainly not a city of Portland.
Newberg for sure.
Dundee has over 100 acres of flat buildable farm land in the city limits. The owners wants to sell, the builders want to build. The city planner keeps messing with the two land owners by changing the zoning and lot sizes, so nothing gets sold to developers. The city planner wants builders to put in mobile home parks and very high density housing. The landowners/builders want what was agreed upon several years ago. So im not sure exactly what the hell is going on with zoning in Dundee, other than gridlock.
Its a tough deal all around. Ask the Wilcuts about scrapping an entire subdivision because the officials at the state level told them no permits unless you build low income housing in that 500k to 650k dollar a house subdivision.
Not to get into the tulles on this but I would find a city mandating a MHP pretty hard to believe. I will ask Marc about what your talking about. I was in escrow on a property for 7 or 8 lots corner of 7th and Alder.. I see its finally going.. the city mandated improvements were always more than we can pencil and the church owned it and they had some old appraisal showing a value of 2X what was reality so you just have to wait them out.
Im very very familiar with that 7th street development. I spent quite a bit of time there this summer with D&T. I wanted one of those lots badly, but way too much for any kind of ROI. That is one of the hottest area's in our town. I believe its 12 lots(I think) and they are selling very fast due to location.You did very well with that project, im happy for you. There is no city mandate on that site that I know of.
- 7yJay HinrichsBusiness MemberReal Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
Originally posted by @Robert M.:
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
Originally posted by @Robert M.:
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
Originally posted by @Robert M.:
Originally posted by @Johann Jells:
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
Originally posted by @Johann Jells:
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
Are you saying that hi density is allowed and encouraged? Though I only visit the west coast, everything I've heard and seen is that nimby rules and no one wants any density, never mind midrise 5 or 6 floor apartment buildings in their neighborhood. Even in my city, in the 6th densest county in the US, midrise is controversial, especially if they don't provide at least 1:1 parking spots.
Oregon is Very rural as a state there is less than 4 million people and 2 million live within 30 miles of downtown Portlandia. and so yes Portlandia encourage high density and so do other cities..
Then why has supply not caught up to to demand, where's the friction for developers of dense affordable housing?
The zoning laws continue to disincentivize construction of multi family housing. A good example would be that current zoning laws require a min lot size of 20k sq foot to build a duplex. Why would a builder use private money to build a duplex on a lot that can have three or four single family homes built instead? Who's going to buy a 650k dollar duplex from the local builder? Does anyone wonder why I can build a SFH on a 5k lot but a Duplex requires a 20k lot? Things that make ya go, DOH! lol
20k sq ft must be a Newberg Dundee Mac Lafeyette rule.. its certainly not a city of Portland.
Newberg for sure.
Dundee has over 100 acres of flat buildable farm land in the city limits. The owners wants to sell, the builders want to build. The city planner keeps messing with the two land owners by changing the zoning and lot sizes, so nothing gets sold to developers. The city planner wants builders to put in mobile home parks and very high density housing. The landowners/builders want what was agreed upon several years ago. So im not sure exactly what the hell is going on with zoning in Dundee, other than gridlock.
Its a tough deal all around. Ask the Wilcuts about scrapping an entire subdivision because the officials at the state level told them no permits unless you build low income housing in that 500k to 650k dollar a house subdivision.
Not to get into the tulles on this but I would find a city mandating a MHP pretty hard to believe. I will ask Marc about what your talking about. I was in escrow on a property for 7 or 8 lots corner of 7th and Alder.. I see its finally going.. the city mandated improvements were always more than we can pencil and the church owned it and they had some old appraisal showing a value of 2X what was reality so you just have to wait them out.
Im very very familiar with that 7th street development. I spent quite a bit of time there this summer with D&T. I wanted one of those lots badly, but way too much for any kind of ROI. That is one of the hottest area's in our town. I believe its 12 lots(I think) and they are selling very fast due to location.You did very well with that project, im happy for you. There is no city mandate on that site that I know of.
its not my project I tried to buy it 7 or 8 years ago.. did not pencil. we just bought 89 lots in Canby that's were I will be hanging my hat next 3 years..
- Investor · Dundee, OR · Member since 2016 · 104 posts · 162 votes7y
Originally posted by @Steve B.:
@Richard Sherman it's not my understanding that rent raise limits are carried over between tenants for the same unit. Is that codified for apartments Nd SFR's?
Once a tenant moves out of a unit there is no set rent price carried over to the new tenant. For example, tenant A moves out of a $1000.00 dollar a month property. The new tenant(B) is charged whatever the landlord wants, 2k month for example, but that new tenant now falls under all the new and current rent control laws. You will have up to the first year of occupancy to decide if you want the tenant, as no cause evictions still apply the first year. The new law applies to all rental properties except owner occupied and buildings newer than 15 years. I hope I answered that correctly as its the way I understand the new law. The new law is very confusing if you read all the fine print, many are going to have a tough time and will wind up being sued. There are a couple attorneys hanging out at the local courthouse during evictions in hopes to monetarily capitalize on the landlord mistakes, and they definitely do. Make sure you dot your eyes and cross them T's.
- Rental Property Investor · Littleton, CO · Member since 2014 · 150 posts · 114 votes7y
@Jay Hinrichs I agree it may lead to more buyers, but they will be buyers with low money down, and some, not all will be people who shouldn't buy a home due to the costs of improvements, repairs and the need to be mobile due to job changes.
Interestingly, Colorado Springs, which is not in synch with Denver politically is considering making it easier to add an additional unit to SFH that aren't zoned R2. It is a smart move to increase supply for lower income renters.
Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.