All Forum Posts by: Bradley Bogdan

@Gary Dezoysa The answer, as usual, is: It Depends!

Section 8 vouchers are always in demand in a locality, and therefore rentals that accept them always are, to a degree. As some other folks have pointed out, whether market rent prices make Section 8 a good strategy for an area are just as important as whether anyone wants to live in that neighborhood. If market rents are far above the limits Section 8 imposes, then you might be in high demand, but you might also be leaving plenty of money on the table. If market rents are comparable to the Section 8 limits, you'll still have demand as not all landlords are willing to work with the program which constricts supply, but it will be lower. If market rents are far below the Section 8 limits, you might be looking to invest in an area that's too rough even for folks with vouchers, and you should make sure you'd have demand from any segment of the market. Remember, just as any other REI strategy doesn't work in all areas, not all areas are cut out for focusing on Section 8 rentals.

Despite the many horror stories here on BP, most areas don't require much of a landlord beyond what we all should be striving to provide at a minimum, safe, clean, functional and legal rentals. That said, there are a couple areas where the local PHA is not a good partner. Ask a few different landlords what their experience has been and you should have a good idea. 

There is a minimum size requirement, as well as a window. The closet requirement isn't universal, though it is common. Definitions of what constitutes a closet can vary widely from place to place as well. Definitely lean on other local investors to get your local requirements. It sounds like you've already got one who is ready to point you in the right direction! Part of why I love BP.

Hi all,

While I have no experience in Michigan, I do have extensive experience in group living and program based housing. If you'd like another opinion, feel free to email me at [email protected].

@Rob Anderson Please let us know how this turns out. I don't have any previous experience with such a situation for something like a water softener, but a client of mine did get in the middle of a similar instance when they moved into a unit with a stove that was apparently RTO from the previous tenant. The previous tenant was evicted and apparently forgot to take the thing with him, and the landlord had purchased the property recently in a bundle deal and assumed the stove was part of the purchase. It worked out that while the landlord was perfectly willing to just buy a new stove, my client was feeling his oats and refused to let the RTO folks in to repossess it. As this wasn't a contract with a lien clause, as it was with the renter, not owner, they gave up after a week and just went after the old evicted tenant for the remaining balance on the stove. No clue if that was all legal, nor is it advice, but I wonder if, assuming there's no ability for them to impose a lien, if you could just do the same?

Haha @Marcia Maynard , totally have seen the extension cord trick too. The HUD inspector who was in the process of flunking the gentleman was even less impressed than I was.

@James Wise totally have watched that happen before. Super frustrating. 

Aaaand now seeing that you're in Santa Rosa, I can vouch that, provided your tenant isn't doing anything outlandish and abiding by your lease, being by the HS shouldn't be an issue. It just makes it more important that they do abide by those terms, as it would be an area of greater scrutiny from the community (parents, kids, etc.).

@Marcia Maynard is spot on, as usual. In California, you would be very hard pressed to find a judge that would allow you to enforce a "no marijuana/no drug" clause in your lease for pot (though I've seen it happen, once). The things you should definitely include, and be aware of, are smoking and growing, which you can definitely include in your lease and enforce. Obviously, smoking indoors is tough to hide with its residual effects, but with growing you should take special note of covered windows, excessive electricity use, lots of traffic to/from the unit, lots of warmth rising off the unit (if you're in a colder area where you can notice), etc. 

The legal grey areas come up with when actual medicinal users in California have a large amount of marijuana with them (sometimes a year's worth just after harvest), are growing it, or are suspected of trafficking in it. Good policies on limiting visitors, nixing growing, and nixing smoking should eliminate the last 2, and if the first one crops up, its much less likely to happen at your unit because of your policies. 

 You can definitely evict for non-payment for the portion of rent owed before the inspection. Whether there's additional rent owed will depend on what kind of answer you get from your PHA regarding the tenant's portion of rent, what day the payments should have started, etc. But either way, they signed a lease with you for x per month, it's still binding whether the voucher helps out or not. 

@BOB CRANEY The process for the lease addendum varies place to place, but otherwise you're spot on. Good checklist. 

@Rick C. I would DEFINITELY go down in person. While it may be you've got a pretty lazy PHA locally and months long waits for communication/payment are common locally, that's not the norm, nor should it be. As for the money you will actually receive, it will be from the date of inspection, that's non-negotiable. They can not pay rent for time before the unit passed inspection, ever, even if you let the tenant move in. Now, your tenant is still legally on the hook for that roughly 1.5 mo. of rent to you, but obviously it might be a bit hard trying to collect on that, especially if they have a low enough income where they're paying 0 rent.

My guess is the PHA is probably under the impression everything is fine regarding the unit, as the communication they've received from you has just been to ask about backdating the rent, which isn't possible. Definitely follow up in person ASAP to make sure this is the case and that they indeed do owe you rent from the inspection date, as well as to get a copy of the letter you should have received stating the tenant's portion of rent v. the PHAs.