Just A Landlord

Fellow landlords

What services, tools, resource, supplies, innovations, changes in laws, grants, education, support from fellow owners etc. do you find lacking, unavailable, too expensive, too difficult to obtain, change etc.?

You get the idea…what do you see as the three, four or twenty things that would make your business more successful? Skies the limit. If it has to do with landlording or real estate investing throw it on the list.

Don’t worry if you think it is “doable” or not, Wild Ideas welcome and encouraged. But also don’t put off posting the more pedestrian needs and wants either.

You can leave comments, here or via private email to me at Tim [at] JustAlandord.com (makes sending the truly wild and innovative stuff easier for shy folks like me.)  I’ll compile the list for all to see.

Some will have readily available solutions that will be posted and shared, I’m sure.  Others are things our industry should be working on finding, changing, designing etc.

Some rather thought provocative comments below. Many of these were sent via email or posted on one of the list serves and reposted here as a central collection place. Please throw yours into the mix — Thanks Tim

It appears that the Wisconsin Legislature snuck their version of the SAFE Mortgage Licensing Act into the 2009 budget, effectively making seller financing illegal for 1-4 family buildings.  Exceptions to this rule are sellers who are owner occupants, people who hold an expensive mortgage broker license and a few other limited exceptions that will not effect most of us.

The effective date of the law was 1/1/2010.  Yet nearly seven months into it none of the real estate pros I spoke to knew about it.

I accidentally stubbled upon the  WI law while researching the HUD proposal to prohibit seller financing.  Low and behold on one of the HUD pages WI and TX were listed as states that had enacted their own version of the Safe Mortgage Act.

.
Read the rest of this entry »

I was preparing to write an in depth article about additional risk the training requirement delay presents for unwary contractors and property owners. Then I came across an article by Craig Webb at ProSales that covers the subject matter well.  I will simply  add:

While many are applauding the delayed implementation of the training rule as a win, it is not.  In fact it exposes those who are not trained to greater risks.  You still must comply with all other portions of the rule, but without benefit of learning what is required of you.

I have this vision of drunk football fans high fiving each as their team scores. Yet, their team is still down by 21 with two minutes and ten seconds remaining in the fourth.  Likewise, as some are claiming a victory with the delayed training, they may not want to face the cold hard fact that instead of better, the EPA Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule may just become a whole lot worse due to the pending dust clearance rule.

Also note that the delayed enforcement of the training rules does not affect WI as our program is not run by the EPA.  Same applies to IA, KS, MS, NC, OR, RI, UT.

So instead of celebrating – go get trained.

A valid question asked in response to the AASEW’s EPA comments:

Thanks for these comments. You devote a lot of energy to criticizing the rule. Given the health problems caused by lead-based paint, what kind of rule should the EPA write? Let me know, and thanks.

My reply (edited to remove at least a few of my many typos):

The very short version

Everyone who works on older housing should receive lead safe training.  Such training could be accomplished in four hours and should be provided at no or low cost to anyone desiring it.

Our association provided this type of training to our members until our state health department required that only lead training course certified by them could be provided in WI.

A more detail explanation with support documents:

Read the rest of this entry »

Yes, folks, as we our industry and contracting community are barely getting a grasp on the two month old EPA Renovation, Repair and Painting [RRP] lead paint training and certification rule they want to up the stakes.

The real game changer is the proposal to require laboratory testing for dust clearance at a cost of at least $160 per job, but more realistically $480 for most jobs.  This includes jobs as small as fixing a single window frame or broken door jamb.

Comment period to the EPA ends July 6th, 2010.

You can get a copy of the proposed rule, where to submit comments and read the Apartment Association of Southeastern WI, Inc.’s comments to the EPA at:

www.RenovatorRules.com