Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkxingu
Is it? I'm trying to figure out the math, and it would seem that the homeowner selling at a markup benefits once whereas the marina will benefit in perpetuity. I mean, sure, prices *might* come down a bit in the following years, but there's no way it'll ever be matched to the declines in value.
I mean, if my house was being rented, I wouldn't be doubling the rent just because the value of the home went up 50%, right? It might happen over a decade or so, but in two years?
That's like Dave Ramsey trying to justify tenants moving out after he raised the rents solely to match the *market*.
Just thinking out loud here, but it reeks of gouging.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
|
Also thinking out loud on a complicated topic. I agree 64% in a year is gouging for a returning slip renter. Just outrageous. But are you sure you would rent to a new renter at below market rates?
I also think there's a difference between renting a luxury good compared to an apartment housing somebody on a relatively fixed income. If I owned an apartment building, I would not increase a current tenant by more than the CPI or my costs. But if you're a lake local and your only asset is your dock space, what's your obligation to hold prices down for a guy with a $50-100K toy?