[deleted] t1_irefwda wrote
Reply to comment by traeVT in Advice on long-distance renting by traeVT
Are you saying your intention is to rent your house as “affordable housing”?
There are some other comments about property management companies, but I wonder whether they would actually work with you on renting your house as “affordable housing” (like, for lower-than-median income people).
I wonder if you could work through an organization like the Champlain Housing Trust or some other organization who has a mission to provide “affordable housing.”
I put the phrase in quotes because housing stock is limited across the board, and it’s driven rents up for everyone from a 30-something MBA-holding yuppie that’s several years into her career to a 20-something highschool dropout on disability.
Like, I’m not sure what you mean by “affordable housing.” I take your comment to mean you want to do something about it—you could always sell at lower than market rate! That would make housing affordable! Just kidding. (But no, really, if you want to…)
traeVT OP t1_irei5id wrote
You make great points!! One of the reason I bought in the first place was because of the high price of renting. I would love to provide afforadable disability or low income housing. My mother has dealt woth this and put system in vermont infuriates me however, I've never rented before and not entirely sure what the legal process is but I will talk to a housing manager about it.
What I did mean by affordable was not having rent only affordable for 6 figure salaries. I don't really care to make a profit right now. I just need someone there to cover my bills while I stay in the CA. I don't want to sell yet. Plus that's just one less rental unit in this town
[deleted] t1_ireuhjt wrote
If you want to rent to provide housing for people making less than six figures, what’s the difference between renting and selling to them?
Something worth considering is that in terms of “not being sure if you like California,” it may not make much difference whether you rent or sell. Let’s say you rent out your place on a year-long lease, but decide after a few months to come back to VT from CA. In all likelihood, you won’t be able to displace (i.e. evict) your tenants without great difficulty and cost before the lease is up, even if it’s so you can move back into your own house.
And have you really done them a favor if their tenancy is entirely dependent on your decision to remain in CA? It’s almost cruel: “Here, low-income/disabled person, come pay an affordable rate to live in my house while I figure things out in CA. Surprise! I’m back sooner than we thought! Now GTFO out of my home.”
I only mention that because while you might have good intentions about providing housing, it also sounds like you’re trying to hedge your bets in case you want to come back, and it may not be as straightforward as just keeping a house to move back into on a whim if CA doesn’t work out. That’s something to bring up with whomever you speak to about managing a rental.
The other thing about “affordable housing” is that there are probably plenty of renters who would love to buy, but can’t bridge the gap from renting to owning. In some sense, you’re still providing “affordable housing” if you sell to someone in the position, someone who currently rents. It still could open up a rental unit in town, if the buyer is a local renter, because they’d be vacating the rental unit they were previously in. The vacancy rate (i.e. supply of rentals) goes up, demand should therefore go down, hopefully lowering rental rates across the board.
I’m not saying you should. This is all back-of-envelope thinking, and I’m no economist or real estate person.
ETA: It looks like I’ve got a downvote or two. Would someone care to explain the problem in my reasoning? I’m not saying it’s airtight. I’d love to be educated about housing policy and am genuinely interested in an informative discussion.
slightlyrottensalmon t1_irfpp8u wrote
I read OPs intent as committing to California for the length their home was rented but having the option to move back after that commitment was up.
I see nothing cruel about OP signing a one year lease, then deciding six months in that they will not renew that one year lease on their property.
OP, if I’m putting words in your mouth please correct me.
[deleted] t1_irgrh69 wrote
One could read it that way. I don’t think anyone is actually being cruel. I’m just talking about the most extreme scenario of OP moving away, and then deciding to move back immediately. Either OP has to figure out what to do for the remainder of the lease term and kick the tenants later out by not renewing, or kick the tenants out immediately.
Otherwise, I’m just thinking from a tenant’s perspective about getting into a situation with zero certainty as to whether it is stable. Even if it’s the way you read it, it’s still crappy to be told you’re going to have to find new housing. Personally, as a renter, I am still looking for a modicum of permanence, or at least stability. That’s not on offer, here, no matter which way you read it.
Maybe it’s a perfect fit for someone who doesn’t plan to stay long term, like a student. But that doesn’t seem to be what OP is talking about.
slightlyrottensalmon t1_irgs2b0 wrote
Fair. I’m fortunate to have never been a renter. Having to possibly move every year is terrifying to be honest. I don’t envy the lack of permanence.
And I do appreciate the irony of your statement and username:-)
[deleted] t1_irgtopw wrote
What OP could do is AirBnB their place until they know whether they’re coming back, and then either move back or switch over to long-term renting. But that doesn’t provide the kind of affordable housing that OP is talking about, unless they decide not to come back.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments