View Single Post
Old 01-22-2022, 04:22 PM   #16
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Tuftonboro and Sudbury, MA
Posts: 1,969
Thanks: 987
Thanked 839 Times in 515 Posts

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