(11 hours ago)rz Wrote: Remote managing was a pain, and local management was expensive. Found out I was basically paying them to do stuff the tenant should have been doing like changing light bulbs and programming the cable remotes.
Yea, if you're renting long distance, you really should go with a local management company because you probably don't want to deal with finding a local handyman/plumber/etc if/when something breaks, despite however much if might cost you (5-10%, with probably a monthly minimum). A management company will also deal with any required notices that need to be sent to the tenant if you don't want to keep up on that.
As a homeowner and DIY'er, when I was renting, I wouldn't bother the landlord unless it was something major, and even then, sometimes I would re-do the repair (or lack there of because I didn't want to deal with scheduling and having people in the unit, and the landlord didn't really want to pay the $150+ minimum to a plumber to replace a $6 part). But, as a landlord, I quickly discovered that having tenants like that is a rare situation, and yes, they will expect stupid things to be done for them.
We rent out my wife's house, with a management company (they charge 5% or $250/mo, whichever is more) and she has had a long term (older) tenant for 5+ years and it's been ok (covers the cost as the market hopefully appreciates).
But, we recently thought about selling and discovered what a PITA it is to evict a tenant here (Los Angeles) even though we have the right to do so (exiting the rental market). Basically, they can fight it and drag it out without much effort, until you have to go to court or do a "cash for keys". So, be sure to look into whatever laws exist in Seattle for evicting tenants for owner-occupy if you eventually plan to live in it. I also discovered that for my property, I can only use the "owner-occupy" eviction once per unit (per family member) for the LIFETIME that I own the property (and I already used it for myself when I bought it).
And, renters and the government (at least in "blue" states) all think that landlords are made of money and can take the hit when something happens (i.e. Covid, where renters didn't have to pay rent for YEARS... and our tenant didn't for several months, but luckily paid it back in a lump sum shortly thereafter, but she could have gone much longer without paying, and it could have been a nightmare to re-coup those costs). And when something else happens (i.e. ICE raids), suddenly people think they shouldn't have to pay rent again because they're afraid to go to work (luckily nothing passed approving that).
When we moved across town to be closer to my wife's work, we rented out my property (a duplex). My units ended up with much younger tenants (20's) which is when I discovered how ridiculous tenant requests can be. And I learned that younger tenants may not stick around long term. Both tenants ending up moving after about a year, so you also have to factor in potential lost rent when a tenant moves out and before a new one can move in. Luckily, it worked out for us, because we actually needed to move back to that property around that time anyway.
I'm sure you've run some preliminary numbers, but off the top of my head, it seems odd/unlikely, that you can buy a million dollar condo with 20% down and cover all the costs with a rental given the current interest rates, but I don't know what the Seattle rental market is like. Even with our high rents here (in L.A.), I haven't come across anything I think could work as a rental with 20-25% down (also many lenders may require 25%+ down for a rental).
