All Forum Posts by: Jon K.

Large apartment complexes with full-time staff, maybe.

Otherwise, I would say.... never.

Not worth it.

Issues:
- tenants not knowing how to connect their device and calling you for help
- tenants still not understanding how to connect, asking you to come do it
- tenants trying to connect some ridiculously old device that's not compatible
- tenant hogging bandwidth with streaming video or Skype or whatever
- tenant doing illegal non-sense
- tenants calling all the time whining that their internet is slow
- tenant whining that their signal isn't strong enough... on antique devices.
- tenant calling at some obscene hour saying their internet is down

With roommates, I've done/do it. I wouldn't do it again. I've had tenant roommates who hog bandwidth, then wonder why it's down or slow. I've had others who can't figure out how to connect to a wi-fi network. I've had others who try to download s***t. (I had to install a security app to block download sites. Still, tenants could try to bypass this security). I've had tenants stream Netflix and Pandora on a few devices full-stream HD at once, then whine that their internet goes down or is slow. Really, people? One even whined that if the internet kept acting up (largely because of them), they would probably have to move. Ok, good riddance. I offer dirt cheap rent in a great property.

Never again will I offer to share my internet after my current tenant / roommates move out. NEVER. They want internet, they can buy their own and deal with their internet issues on their own. It's not that we have internet issues very often, but a few times a month is more of a hassle than I want when I'm not making money on it.

If you share it, get a Wi-Fi router with Tomato or WW-DRT (whatever it's called) and limit bandwidth on each device so there's not one device hogging the network. Block torrents. Have good security. Expect tenants to whine.

I would be surprised if you could fill in the pool for under $5000.
You'll probably want to drill many holes in it, then fill it in.

If I bought it, I would get solid insurance, a solid lease (but mostly insurance), screen tenants very carefully, hire a pool guy to do routine cleaning, check local pool rules (fences, etc.), and enjoy the extra rent I could get with a swimming pool. I wouldn't fill it in.

If you fill it in:
- sometimes you have to disclose to future home buyers that a pool was there
- fairly expensive to fill in
- hard to ever build another one there

I have heard of decks that go over the pool. Never bought one- deckover.com. I'm guessing other companies offer something similar. The idea of a deck over an empty pool kind of creeps me out, but supposedly is cheaper than filling it in.

I don't even allow kiddie pools or hot tubs or small above ground pools or fire pits, but my place isn't a huge money maker. If this made me more money, I might allow those and be more willing to deal with the risk and hassle.

What kind of rent would you charge?

Would having the pool mean another few hundred in rent a month for you?

I would definitely check with your insurance.

I would definitely hire a pool boy to maintain it/clean it, and factor that into the price of rent. I would not allow a tenant to maintain/add chemicals to the pool. I haven't had many tenants/roommates who can even keep a kitchen clean, let alone a swimming pool. Assume you'll have to have it cleaned, and assume there might be a broken pool filter or some other hassle later.

I do love pools. I had one once and it was worth it as we used the pool all the time. Chemicals were maybe $50-100 a month and cleaning wasn't that big a deal. We didn't have any pipe or other problems. If your pool is 50+ years old, there could be more maintenance involved than a newer one. Have it inspected. Pools involve some cost and work, but are a great bonus to enjoy.

If it's a cheap rental, I probably wouldn't take the chance.

If it's an executive home that's a bigger money maker, maybe.

I'm sure a pool, just like a garbage disposal or dishwasher, can be an added hassle. I wouldn't offer those "premium" features unless they commanded $$.

Be sure to follow any local pool rules, like fences if required.

Have a good lease. And, good insurance.

Even some cheap apartments have swimming pools, so it couldn't be a complete deal breaker. There's liability of course, but I wonder if we overestimate the liability at all. If cheap apartments and ghetto hotels have pools, could they be sure a nightmare? Maybe, maybe not. There must be some profit from offering a pool. Research local insurance/pool guy costs.

I think a tenant could try to sue over anything-- swimming pools, stairs, bathtubs, stoves, hot tubs, ANYTHING. If your rent is enough to make you want to offer a pool as a bonus feature that gives you more rental income, maybe it's not as bad as it sounds. I wouldn't offer "premium" features in a cheap rental. I would be sure to research local costs of pool chemicals, cleaning, insurance, heating costs before taking the plunge.

Cool. I'm planning to run my home steamer over it to get it ideal. I don't want to fork over for professional cleaning just for a cheap roommate who will have a month-to-month lease. After utilities and professional carpet cleaning, that would eat most of the rent.

I think I set my roommate rent too low. How cheap it is kind of makes me think they should be thrilled with everything as is. I would be if I was them. The nearby rentals are about the same price in rent, but half the value and quality of my house in slightly less nice neighborhoods. My fault there. Maybe I should be equally thrilled with their rent income, small or not, it's a start. At least it pays my utilities, and sometimes a little of my insurance. Mortgage and property taxes and the rest of the insurance is on me. Next spring I can reevaluate roommate rent/utility rates. I pay most of the house costs and do all of the lawn care, but I do get more benefits than they do. And, some equity. I'm just hoping I get roommates who are easy to live with and appreciate the deal they're getting in such a nice area.

I've never asked a landlord to steam carpets. Never would've thought it was an option. I would've assumed anything I wanted done I would've had to do myself. But, I guess it's not unreasonable for a tenant to ask that. On second look, it could use a vacuuming this week-- hadn't vacuumed this week in there.

I'm glad it's not a sign of being a nit-picky tenant.

I do have a steam cleaner. I told them I could use my steam cleaner, but I'm not planning to have it professionally cleaned.
The carpet has no stains-- it's just the potential dust/dander. I can vacuum and use my steam cleaner and it should be top notch.

That's what I thought.

It's visibly clean. Not stained or gross-- looks good, just not new. I don't have a problem running over it with my steamer.

This is a roommate situation,.. that's the only reason I wonder if it's a picky request. They'll be living with a dog.

I have a prospective tenant/roommate wanting to move in. Prospective tenant asked that their bedroom be steam cleaned as pet dander.

I have a dog. (Yes... despite all my complaining about pets.)
[b]
Is this a reasonable tenant request, or a sign of a picky tenant?[/b]

I'm going month to month with this tenant. It seems like a reasonable request that just their room be cleaned. The carpets are older, and I do have a pet.

In this tenant's favor: they own their own house (but rent it out), they have a job, clean car, clean background, they love the location, decently dressed, polite, they got the house in a divorce, and want a place quick because they decided not to live with who they were dating so soon. I will require a money order since it's such a quick move in.

Michael B.

I haven't had people bounce checks on me yet, but the other night there was something curious with one of my deposits. I check my account in the middle of the night, and my balance showed less than expected. Then, an hour later I log back in and my balance was what it was supposed to be. I think it was a bank error during nightly maintenance when the system goes down and/or because I had another pending deposit. Still, it made me uncomfortable. For about an hour, I thought someone had gypped me. This past month I did a temporary month-long tenant. They could have easily given me a bounced check when they arrived or possibly stopped payment, and I wouldn't have known until just before they would have left. They didn't, but made me rethink this.

Good to know you didn't get many bounced checks. I, too, would be surprised if a tenant bounced the first rent/deposit check.

The potential tenant/roommate I've got this week is just looking for a place so quick that it makes me wonder why. They own a fairly nice house, but they rent that out. I suppose they could have been staying with someone they were dating or with family for a few months since they rented out their house. Still, wanting to rent and move in within a few days makes me suspicious and skeptical that they're going to screw me somehow or that they're a problem tenant who got kicked out or can't find someone else.

Steve Babiak

Ah, I forgot that they could have stopped payment on a cashier's check right after they got it, saying they could lose it. Wow.

I had heard that taking cash could mean they give wrong amount or say they paid by leaving the cash in an envelope when they didn't. But, I guess that's where receipts come in. I also wonder if saying "please pay in cash" makes me sound sketchy. I once had a landlord who requested cash-- I figured they were either creepy or avoiding taxes, so I always paid in check. (Yes, I'm a tax-loving jerk.) That was years ago when I was younger, and I didn't realize that they might have asked for cash so me/tenant's didn't bounce checks. I have had a few people give me cash before at their own suggestion, and didn't have problems. I should go with "money order or cash" for first rent.

I've been doing month to month leases.

Even if I get a 3 year tenant, couldn't they walk away anyway?

Isn't a long-term lease more binding on me than on them?

Unless it was a well-paid, collectable tenant... even then, seems messy and unsure whether I would collect rent if they walk away. I could sue for rent, but if tenants live check to check, would I ever really see the money if they walk away from a 3 year lease?

Perhaps I could counter with some perk. The way I see it with mine: they're paying such a trivial amount for this neighborhood that they can like it or move on. I should work on increasing rent.

The person who asked to lower it lowballed ridiculously ($250 ABP).

I do hate turnover.