“New” development north of Broad on Staples Mill
Posted: December 19, 2011 | Author: Nathan Hughes | Filed under: Commercial Leasing, Henrico County, Multi-family Housing, New Development, Office Buildings, Redevelopment, Residential, Retail | Tags: commercial real estate, Henrico County, real estate development, Redevelopment, Richmond, Virginia | Leave a comment »About once a month I get a question about the large, vacant property that borders Staples Mill Road that is just north of West Broad Street, right over the Henrico Count line. My answer is always that it was an old, rundown neighborhood that was purchased and cleared with the intention of rebuilding, and that the developer is the same group that is doing the project at Monument Avenue and Willow Lawn Drive – Gumenick Properties. As to why it hasn’t been started, well just look around at new building all around the country. The developer was obviously waiting until the economy turns around.
But, I always have to give that answer with the caveat that the last official word I had heard about it was a few years ago. I couldn’t even be sure that the same plans were in place. Thankfully I can point to this article on Richmond.com that gives us the lowdown on the current situation — which is pretty much as described as above. It sounds as though things are just on hold, but the same big plans are still on the books. In fact, this project is expected to take 10 years even once they finally get underway.
You need to go read the article to see all of the reported details, but I thought I would share a couple of details of the plans here:
What: Staples Mill Centre, proposed to include 1,096 apartments, 571 condominiums, 391 townhouses, 32 single-family homes, 60,000 square feet of offices, and 100,000 square feet of stores.
Where: About 80 acres between Staples Mill Road, Libbie Avenue and Bethlehem Road, near Interstate 64.
What to do if your landlord doesn’t respond to repair requests?
Posted: September 23, 2011 | Author: Nathan Hughes | Filed under: Legal, Multi-family Housing, Residential, Tenants' Rights | Tags: Bandazian & Holden, legal, property management, tenants rights | Leave a comment »So you’ve had a roof leak for a while, making the drywall from the ceiling cave in..and who knows, maybe there is mold in there?! You called the landlord or property manager about the problem when you first noticed it, which was 2 months ago, and maybe they sounded like they were going to take care of it (and maybe they didn’t) — but you haven’t heard from them since. What do you do?
This is important. Do not stop paying rent. There is no advantage to be gained legally by withholding rent, even if the place becomes untenable. The courts do not look kindly on a tenant taking that kind of decision into their own hands.
Instead, listen to the advice given in this recent article by Richmond.com, “Don’t Let The Walls (Or Ceiling) Cave In On You“:
- Be current in your rent
- Give your landlord written notice of the problem
- Wait a reasonable amount of time
After a reasonable amount of time has passes, take a copy of the written notice, along with the next months rent, down to the John Marshall general district court at 400 N. Ninth Street. A clerk will help you file a legal assertion.
…
There is a small filing fee of $56 to file assertion. We’ve even tracked down the onlinie form, DC-429, available through Virginia courts here.
If you stop paying rent, you may still be liable for late fees and other repercussions for being late (i.e., bad marks on your credit or even eviction). You are not alone or powerless against a landlord, but you have to play by the rules that have been set up to protect everyone involved.
Have you been through this process with the courts? I would be grateful if you share your experience below in the comments, so that everyone can learn from it!
Don’t try to fool the insurance company
Posted: May 12, 2011 | Author: Nathan Hughes | Filed under: Commercial Leasing, Investing, Multi-family Housing, Residential | Tags: apartments, Bandazian & Holden, insurance, property management, real estate development | Leave a comment »Understanding Landlord Insurance
By: Dona DeZube
Published: September 1, 2010
Turning your home into a rental or buying an investment property? Expect to pay up to 20% more for the right insurance policy to protect your property.
Rental properties require their own type of coverage–landlord insurance, which is different than the homeowners policy you buy when you live in a house yourself. Landlord insurance protects you against losses from fire, lighting, falling trees, wind and hail, water damage, and injury to your tenants and their guests.
But it doesn’t cover the renters’ household goods. So encourage tenants to buy a renters policy to cover their stuff. You can even include a clause in your lease saying they have to buy renters insurance, so everyone is clear about what’s insured and what’s not.
Landlord insurance is expensive
You’ll pay 15% to 20% more for a landlord insurance policy than you will for a homeowners policy on the same house–and even more if you offer short-term rentals. Start your policy shopping by calling the company that sold you your homeowners insurance, then check with an independent insurance agent selling commercial and business policies.
Ask how you can get discounts if you have fire prevention devices, burglar alarms, or multiple properties.
What a landlord insurance policy probably will cover:
- Lightning, windstorm, hail, explosion, riot and civil commotion, smoke, falling objects, snow, ice, sleet, vandalism, sonic boom, sprinkler leakage, frozen pipes, water damage, burglary, volcanoes, and sinkholes.
- Things that belong to you that stay at the property, like appliances, furniture, or lawn care equipment. Keep an inventory of what’s on site.
- Outbuildings, like sheds or garages, although this coverage will have its own limit (probably 10% of the overall insurance policy amount).
- Costs to defend yourself against lawsuits filed by tenants or guests, as well as the costs awarded if you lose the case. Some policies cover medical bills for injuries; some don’t.
- Lost rental income if the property is damaged and you can’t rent it.
What a landlord insurance policy probably won’t cover:
- The tenants’ belongings.
- Your rental property if it’s vacant for more than 30 days. Seek an exemption in advance from your landlord insurance company as soon as you know the property is going to be vacant.
- War and nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attacks.
Optional coverage you might want to buy:
- Flood
- Earthquake
- Vandalism (if the policy you buy excludes it)
- Pool and tennis court insurance
- Liability for personal injury, wrongful eviction, wrongful entry, libel, and slander
Don’t forget liability coverage
To cover yourself in case you lose a big court case filed by an injured tenant, buy anumbrella insurance policy that gives you liability protection for $1 million to $5 million or more if you have a lot of assets to protect.
Don’t file a claim unless you absolutely have to
There’s a limit to how many claims you can file before insurance companies start charging you more or canceling your policies. Claims can quickly add up as you buy more rental properties.
One time you always want to file a claim is when someone says they’ve been injured on your property. One claim you’ll want to avoid filing: water damage for less than $10,000 because worries about mold growing in water-damaged properties will lead some insurers to immediately cancel your insurance policy.
More from HouseLogic
How to Correct Your Clue Insurance Report
Other web resources
Renters Insurance Brochure to Share with Your Tenants
Dona DeZube, HouseLogic’s News Editor, has been writing about real estate for over two decades. She lives in a suburban Baltimore 1970s rancher on a 3-acre lot shared with possums, raccoons, foxes, a herd of deer, and her blue-tick hound.
Visit houselogic.com for more articles like this.
Copyright 2011 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS®
Small rental property owners breathe a sigh of relief
Posted: April 13, 2011 | Author: Nathan Hughes | Filed under: Commercial Leasing, Government Institutions, Investing, Multi-family Housing, National News, Office Buildings, Residential, Retail | Tags: Bandazian & Holden, business environment, commercial real estate, government, legal, property management, real estate development | Leave a comment »There is always a lot of new legislation passed every year that sounds like a good idea at the time and generally goes unnoticed, and every once in a while the consequences of that legislation become horrifyingly apparent afterwards.
This past year, the legislation that was causing so much heartburn for small property owners was a new IRS requirement that anyone with rental property file a 1099 for any repairs that add up to $600+ over the course of the year. (see my post about it here, from December 2010)
Good news — the provision was repealed before it could take effect!! (here is the actual legislation that was passed to repeal the IRS provision, in case you would like to read it)
Hats off to the Realtor community for standing against this for the good of the mom-and-pop investors, who are the ones would be most affected by those proposed requirements — and for Realtor Magazine’s blog for bringing the repeal to my attention. From their description of how everything unfolded, it seems as though everyone understood that this was good to do:
When the provision was included in the small business bill, REALTORS® were among the first and firmest opponents of it, helping to ensure that Congress understood the provision was an example of over-reach that was never intended to burden mom and pop property owners. Members of Congress and President Obama got the message and, in a rare example of agreement between not only Republicans, Democrats, and independents, but also between House and Senate chambers and between the legislative and executive branches, lawmakers agreed the provision needed to come out.
Nice to know that we don’t have this provision coming up to haunt us over the next few years, isn’t it?
Pet deposits on residential leases
Posted: February 10, 2011 | Author: Nathan Hughes | Filed under: Legal, Multi-family Housing, Residential, Weblogs | Tags: Bandazian & Holden, legal, property management | Leave a comment »The issue of a residential tenant deciding to get a pet in the middle of a current lease term doesn’t come up nearly as much as you would expect, but every so often it does. In most cases we do require a pet deposit to cover any damages that the pet may do to the property.
Legal technicalities aside, the landlord has a good practical argument for retaining the whole deposit [until the end of the lease]. The increased deposit was intended to provide coverage for any damage the dog might do. The landlord may not know about any such damage until you move out, even though the dog is long gone.
The above quote is from a post on Inman News in a Q&A column that I thought was worth sharing here (click the link to see the rest of the article).
Not only is the post a good primer on the ins-and-outs of security deposits, but also on the general nature of leases and how changes to an existing lease should be handled. This is important information to understand for both landlords and tenants. Basically, lease terms can’t just be changed at the whim of one party (duh!) — while that seems like it should be taken for granted, you would be surprised how often we have to explain that in the normal course of business.
Exciting times for a local revitalization organization
Posted: January 24, 2011 | Author: Nathan Hughes | Filed under: Charity/Non-profit, City of Richmond, Multi-family Housing, Redevelopment, Residential | Tags: Church Hill, downtown Richmond, non-profit, Redevelopment, Richmond, Virginia | Leave a comment »
The Alliance to Conserve Old Richmond Neighborhoods (A.C.O.R.N.) has worked diligently for more than a decade to “promote the purchase and renovation of vacant and abandoned buildings in Richmond’s oldest neighborhoods.” This past Friday, ACORN announced some big news that will help them in that mission, and that’s exciting for all of Richmond. I’ll let their press release speak for itself:
|
Sexual orientation discrimination in housing? We won’t stand for it.
Posted: November 9, 2010 | Author: Nathan Hughes | Filed under: Multi-family Housing, National News, Residential | Tags: apartments, GLBT, NAR, property management, Realtors | Leave a comment »
We have come a long way in the fight for civil rights in this country, and we have a lot to be proud of. Unfortunately, in many states it is still absolutely legal to discriminate against someone for their sexual orientation when it comes to housing. This needs to be addressed legally, but the Realtors aren’t going to allow any of our members to get away with such practices anymore.
Read through this article at Agent Genius to see what’s changed: “Is sexual orientation discrimination in housing legal? Maybe.“ It’s great news!
According to the NAR, the Code of Ethics Article 10 has been amended:
Article 10: Equal Rights Amendment Passes:
The NAR Delegate Body approved an amendment to Article 10 of the Code of Ethics to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In a roll-call vote, more than 93 percent of the Delegate Body voted in favor of the amendment. The Delegate Body decision confirms a vote by the Board of Directors in May.As a personal note, AG strongly supports and applauds the measure taken that Realtors’ ethics supersede federal law so that no matter if it is legal or not locally, discrimination based on sexual orientation will not be tolerated from Realtors, a measure taken by Realtors.
Huzzah for the Realtor community for standing up for what’s right and making an amendment to the Code of Ethics to declare sexual orientation discrimination officially unacceptable!
Today is a day when I’m even more proud than usual to call myself a Realtor.
New chapter for a Church Hill institution
Posted: March 22, 2010 | Author: Nathan Hughes | Filed under: Company News, Multi-family Housing, Residential | Tags: apartments, Bandazian & Holden, Church Hill, property management, Richmond, St. John's Realty, Virginia | 3 Comments »
St. John’s Realty has been in the property management business almost as long as we have here at Bandazian & Holden. While I haven’t seen a record of what year they started, I’ve been told that they have been doing residential property management for somewhere between 20-30 years. (FYI – B&H was founded in 1974.)
With the passing last year of the founder and principal broker owner, Danny Athans [edited 3/23/10, per information from Church Hill People's News -- link to announcement here], the future of St. John’s Realty was unsure. I am proud to announce that we at Bandazian & Holden have stepped up to take over the accounts, and all of the years of hard work by St. John’s Realty will not go to waste.
There are a lot of other details that will be forthcoming, but there is a lot of work that we are doing right now to get in touch with the property owners and tenants to alert them to the change, and to get all of the files in order.
We are very excited for the opportunity to serve this new group of property owners and tenants, and to expand our presence in Church Hill!
Video from AngryRenter.com
Posted: April 17, 2008 | Author: Nathan Hughes | Filed under: Government Institutions, Residential, Web/Tech | Leave a comment »I forgot to add this to my post this morning about the government "bailout" of the mortgage industry, but it summarizes the points made by the opposition to the bailout very well (and especially well if you prefer video over text):
Enjoy!
Bailing out irresponsible investors?
Posted: April 17, 2008 | Author: Nathan Hughes | Filed under: Government Institutions, Residential | Leave a comment »I've been on the fence for a while about whether the proposed mortgage "bailout" is the right thing to do.
I believe very much in the free market economy and that what we do with our money is each individual's responsibility. The thought of using taxpayers' money to subsidize bad investments is horrifying to me, and only encourages unscrupulous behavior.
There is a large contingent of the general public that believes the same as my initial reaction, and some of them have gone public on a site called Angry Renter. There is a petition that you can sign that will be presented to Congress in opposition to what they are describing as, "
Congress is getting ready to pass a multi-billion dollar bailout of homeowners and their banks. That's right, Congress is going to use your tax dollars to bail out big banks and keep housing prices too high!"
A post on the Inman Blog echoed my doubts pretty much exactly:
No doubt, on the surface it does appear as if irresponsible investing
will be subsidized by taxpayers. But what angry renters may not realize
is that they will pay for these mistakes whether there is a government
bailout or not — in the form of depreciating home values, loss of city
revenues, and a dragging economy.
While I'm still on the fence, a little too able to see both sides, I'm curious to hear what you all think of the situation. Is this a tax on the responsible, to bail out the irresponsible? Or is it a necessary part of stabilizing our economy?