View Single Post
Old 01-22-2022, 05:22 PM   #16
FlyingScot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Tuftonboro and Sudbury, MA
Posts: 1,940
Thanks: 976
Thanked 825 Times in 508 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkxingu View Post
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?
FlyingScot is offline   Reply With Quote