The condo board at The Chandler at 450 E. Waterside in Lake Shore East is attempting to pass a “Leasing Restrictions Amendment” also known as a rental cap. Over the weekend I was in the building on showings and ran into an owner who gave me the flyer below. Here are the sum of the details followed by my thoughts on the matter.
According to the letter I have, 135 units are leased at the Chandler which represents 44% of the units. The letter states that if this measure passes then unit owners would have less than a 50% chance to get a “leasing license” for the first 3 years and less than a 20% chance thereafter. The letter goes on to state that the writers are NOT in support of a rental cap and it is their belief that prices will decline in the building as those who cannot rent out their units will be forced to sell. Why then is the board trying to pass such a measure? The letter states that less rentals in the building (likely a cap around 20 to 25%) will ease financing for buyers and refinancing for current owners. For a quick explanation of the proposal which I have read please see the bold print below.
To keep this blog 100% fair below are the benefits as said by the Board of Directors of the Chandler Condominium Association in a letter sent to owners dated February 16 of 2012.
– The implementing of the amendment will allow current owners, as well as new owners, to easier refinance their mortgages or obtain premium lending rates with a lower rental percentage.
– Implementation of the amendment will help maintain property values, which is important whether you are a live in owner or use the unit as a 2nd home or currently rent.
– Implementation of the amendment will reduce the amount of move ins and outs causing less wear and tear on the building, elevators and staff (We average about 64 moves a year).
– Implementation of this amendment will also lead to our building being more secure. Less turnover means more owners living and staying in their units.
Here are my thoughts: It is true that rental rates at or less than 20% make it easier to obtain financing in the building. Furthermore, it does open up refinancing options for current owners who want to refi to a lower rate. However, there is a large problem here being overlook by the board trying to pass this regulation: Many people NEED to rent their units. The building currently has 44% of the units leased. If this number is decreased, to lets say a conservative 25%, this means that 19% of the building, which equates to 58 units will NOT be able to lease their units. What will these people then do? Use it as a weekend place? Or will they simply just list it for sale and cut their losses? Even if only 30% of those who could not lease their units listed them for sale it would still add 16 units to the market. Currently there are 6 units on the market in the Chandler that are not under contract or temporarily off market. This means this measure could easily triple the supply in the building. If every single unit that could not rent was placed on the market supply would increase by almost 1000% or more if the building limited the number of rentals to only 20%. Now as we know the 20% limitation will not be fully enforced until 2015, but in 2014 those owners who will not be able to rent their units will have a decision to make as their leases expire. Furthermore, what about the current owners who rent their units who will not be lucky and obtain a leasing license?
The Board also mentions that there is wear and tear on the building due to increased moves. This can easily be solved by increasing the move in fee for a tenant. If this is truly a major concern, increase the move in fee to pay for the wear a tear. A deposit is also held for the elevator as well as any hallway damage. Perhaps the association just starts to get much tougher on checking the hallways for damage after a move in/out.
On the surface limiting rentals may seem like a good idea. In some buildings this concept can work to sustain a healthy building. However in the case of The Chandler we see there is a need for unit owners to be able to rent their units out. Many owners would be negatively affected by the passing of such a measure. When almost 50% of the building depends on leasing their units such a measure WILL create a great OVER supply in the market place. What this will do is push the weak owners to the bottom. Those owners who cannot afford to hang on and wait for a buyer will need to lower their price in order to be the cheapest unit of their kind. Imagine if you have several owners in that position who all have similar units? They’ll compete against each other in price and drive the market down.
The fact of the matter is, this is not speculation! This is not just a hunch that I have. This is plain and simple economics. The numbers don’t lie. Why is it then that sometime rental caps work in buildings?
Rental caps work in buildings where there are only a few units going over the limit and messing it up for everyone else. Lets say that you have a building where just over 20%, lets say 21% of the units are rented. Because of this many people cannot refinance and some buyers cannot obtain financing. Passing a rental cap in this instance may make sense since only a couple units would be affected and the majority of the units renting their units will still be able to. In this instance you would also have a great net benefit to the majority of the building. You would in this case keep “fire sales” to a minimum and can probably build in exceptions into the ruling in order to accommodate extremely distressed owners. However, in the case of the Chandler we are talking about 44% of the building, 135 owners who have leased out their units. This shows a clear NEED of owners having the ability to rent out their units.
As an agent who has represented buyers and renters in the Chandler I oppose any rental cap that would greatly discourage buyers from buying and put owners in a position in which they would feel they need to sell their unit. I do not believe there will be a net benefit to the owners if the “Leasing Restrictions Amendment” is passed. Instead, I believe there will be grave negative consequences to the price sustainability of the Chandler for years.
Lastly, at the end of the day the market is just that, the market. The values of a unit are not dragged down because of renters in a building. They are dragged down because the market has dictated that unit owners have 1 or 2 choices: Sell their units or Rent. If the market place is such that unit owners choose to rent instead of sell then the renters are simply a symptom of the market. Implementing any kind of amendment which attempts to force the hand of the market will never work.
UPDATE: Since posting this blog additional information has come to my attention regarding the rental cap proposal for The Chandler. According to additional information I have received 135 Leasing Licenses will be distributed and will be good for 3 years. If there is any additional information you believe I should know about this proposal please feel free to share below. Given some of the responses I have received on this blog and via e-mail here are my additional thoughts and questions. Keep in mind I am not an attorney so my interpretation of the amendment is only that and is not meant to be taken as any legal advice.
1 – 135 Leasing Licenses will be given to owners on a lottery drawing basis. This will be a 3 year license.
Currently there are 135 units leased in the building. The obvious intention is to give everyone who is currently leasing their unit a leasing license. However, how will these licenses be distributed? Will other owner occupied units sit idly by and give up their right to lease their unit? If I owned in The Chandler and lived in my unit I would still want the right to lease mine out so I would want a license which brings me to my next question….
2 – Does the license need to be used right away? For instance if I am granted a 3 year leasing license must I rent my unit out for 3 years (in order to insure that only those who truly need it will get one) or can I keep it in my back pocket in case I have the need to move? This is a concern I’m sure many landlords may have in the building. It appears from what I have read that unit owners must apply for the leasing license lottery in writing. If they are chosen they will be granted the 3 year license but it does not appear they will be forced to lease their unit out.
3 – I’ve received several e-mails that have mentioned a 3 year license. This brings to light my next question: Can owners who have the lease license enter into 3 consecutive 1 year leases to different tenants? From what I have read the answer is Yes. The 3 Year Lease license allows the landlord to rent his or her unit out for normal duration during this 3 year period.
4 – It appears that a new round of lease licenses will be granted in coming years. This new round of licenses (drawn in 2014) for 2015 will apparently be less than the 135 currently proposed to be granted. If so, What will the new percentage be? It appears 20% will be the new percentage.
5 – What if, over the course of the next couple years, several owners need to move. If they cannot sell their unit and are in some sort of financial distress because they cannot rent their unit, will any exceptions to the rule be made? Can a temporary leasing license be granted? Those who have not received a leasing license may appeal and present their hardship situation which will be reviewed by the Board of Directors on a “Case by Case Basis.” The problem is there needs to be some guidelines put into place WITH the amendment which defines true “hardship.”
6 – 49% That is the magic number for tenant occupied units. When any building moves above that options such as FHA may go away and other serious buyer financing and re-fi issues may arise. Has this at all been discussed? I’m not sure if this has been discussed or not, but I would recommend it be brought up.
Many have said that it is wrong of me to assume the market conditions in 3 years when the number of leasing licenses will be granted. I do not know what the market will be like in 3 years; I have not a clue. But neither does anyone else. I always tell my clients to plan for the worst and hope for the best. Given that I have now read all the facts of the amendment I still do not agree with it. While I do not live in the building I must say, if I did live in the building I would vote against this proposal.
What I do know is that when I first started in the business clients would ask “What do you think I can sell this for in a few years if I get transferred or if we have a baby and need more space?” I haven’t heard that question in a while. The question I hear so many times now, is “What can I rent this for if I have to move?”
I understand that this is a hot button issue. This is an issue dealing with a very personal asset, the home where many of you live. For many others this is an issue because it threatens something that they thought would always be there no matter how bad the resale market would get; their ability to rent their home. If there is any information that I do not have or was mislead by please present it to me. My e-mail is below or you can comment directly on this blog. All facts for such an issue must be presented with complete transparency. Any guarantees made should always be in writing and in any proposal. There are many buildings going through this very same issue, including my very own. Each building is different but in most instances the basic economics of such a decision are the same.
Paul Blackburn is a licensed Illinois Realtor and Associate Broker with @ Properties. He can be reached anytime via e-mail at Paul@PKBlackburn.com
The Chicago Realty Blog 
Mr. Blackburn,
First of all, did you even read the proposed amendment or did you only read the self-serving propaganda being distributed by Mr. Burki? The proposal calls for granting 135 licenses for “3 year leases” this June 15, 2012. The next lottery, for another “3 year lease” won’t be until June 2014. Let’s make sure you mention the facts too. Somehow, I get the feeling that you’re just a friend of Jamal Burki.
elisa
Elisa – I have not read the proposed amendment, no. Since you have brought something to my attention can you explain it further? You mention the proposal calls for granting 135 lease licenses for “3 Year Leases.” Does this mean that the licenses are for only a 3 year lease, meaning this would both be a minimum and maximum lease term for the tenant or that the owner of the unit may rent his/her unit out for 3 years at a time (3 consecutive 1 year leases for example). During this time that all 135 licenses have been awarded, what if an owner without a license falls into a distress situation? Are there any exceptions for this? Any exceptions for a unit owner renting to a family member such as a child attending college? When the next lottery takes place in June 2014 will another 135 licenses be issued or will the amount of licenses be decreased?
To answer your question regarding being a friend of Jamal Burki; I did not meet Jamal until this Saturday afternoon. If there are any other facts you think I should know please kindly let me know and I would be happy to include and/or amend any of my writings if I have any sort of false information.
I would like to add that the proposed lottery of 135 licenses is open to all unit owners (not just to those who have units for rent). There is a false assumption being made that owners who currently reside in the units won’t participate and thus the 135 licenses will go to the current owners who are renting out their units at present. Vadim and I have met and also have received emails from current owners who reside in the units but will want to participate in the lottery (actually they do not want their right to rent taken away either) – any license that a current residing owner wins will translate into an owner renting out loosing the right to rent. The next lottery will be in 3 years with only 20% of total units eligible to win a license.
I have no relationship with Mr. Blackburn — I have contacted other realtors and received the same feedback that is posted above.
I am a renter and have been here for almost 3 yrs. If this proposal means I may be asked to leave in another 3yrs,I would start looking now and move when the right opportunity comes up.I am sure other renters will think that way too. I am not sure that is how the proposal reads but if it does, who would just wait and see if they have a home? If that is the senerio, I move out, the unit is empty, lets say it is not rented for 3 months ($9000 loss to owner and may anothe $3000 to pay an agency to rent) Assesments and taxes still have to be paid…costly for all…
Lets also say a owner who resides here wins the lottery and does not use it?Can they transfer to someone else? Does the owner have to sign up for the lottery or is every unit entered?If you have to sign up and you don’t… and you unexpectedly have to rent, that will stop you. If that is the case all should sign up,just in case. Is there any grandfathering for current renters?
Marge, please contact your landlord if you have not already. A restrictive amendment is not inevitable. Your landlord’s vote may be critical in preventing what many see as a misguided change. Regards, Chris
I am an owner and resident of the building and oppose to restricting the number of units and licenses that are allowed in the building. I appreciate the fact that we would like to get the number of leases down to the 20% level. I think a restricted number of leases hurt the current owners and foreclosures, short saless or mass exodus of units will have a worse impact on the value of the building. My previous building had a similar problem. They came up with a solution to grandfather all current owners the ability to rent their unit for life. As units got sold, the owner had to move in and understand the 20% rental threshold. There was a waiting list created for new owners as they understood the rules before purchase. This gradually got the building owner/renter ratio down over time. I am not sure how many units are sold in a year. But perhaps this will bring the ratio to where we need it in three years. The current proposal is a drastic reaction to go from 45% to 20% even in 3 years. I want to retain my right to rent my unit should. I choose.
Chandler Resident
As a unit owner and resident, I agree with Pauline. A major modification to Bi-Laws such as this should allow current owners to be grandfathered in and restrict new owners from renting. The new buyers would then be aware of the rule and be agreeing to terms at the time of purchase. Reducing the impact to owners who purchased their units hedging their financial situations with the option to potentially rent in the case of distress.
I had not problem to get finance from WellsFargo last Nov.
I am an owner who currently rents my condo. I also have a brother who owns a condo in the Chandler and had lived there since 2007 when the development opened. He recently was transfered with his job and now also rents out his condo. For those of you who were also owners pre-construction, you will recall that you were not allowed to sell or flip your units for the first year. This was written into the contracts that we signed. In other words, we HAD to rent or live there for the first year. For those of us from out of town, renting was our only option. The Real Estate Market then collapsed and, until it recovers, renting my condo is the only option I have as I would take a loss on a 7 year investment (money put down in 2005) if I was forced to sell.
To summarize, I was forced to rent my condo when I wanted to sell it in 2007, now I am being forced to sell my condo when I want to rent it.
Mr Blackburn, I read your blog with great interest and agree with all of your statements. Thank you for taking the time to give your views. This drastic reduction in rental units will cause hardship on many people, including myself, whose understanding was that they could reside or rent their units as they see fit. To change the rules after making this substantial investment is unfair. I also agree that by grandfathering in the current 135 owners who rent, this will cap any additional rental units and be fair to the people that depend on renting their units for the many assortment of reasons given. As Pauline states above, any NEW owners would be aware of these new policies PRIOR to purchase.
Lastly, if there are indeed renters who are not properly taking care of their units or the Chandler itself, because they are not owners (this was brought up at the Feb. 22nd. meeting), I would address it with the owner who is renting their unit out to them individually. To penalize all renters for a few bad apples is also not right. I know that I have had 3 renters in my 5+ years and all of them have been very respectful of the property and the condo itself. As an owner, I would also want to know if my tenant was causing any problems.
I do hope that this amendment get voted down for the reasons I have given and for the many reasons given in the well written blog above from Mr. Blackburn. Jamal, there are many of us that greatly appreciate your efforts and do not look at it as self-serving. Thank you.
Pat
I am a current renter and potential future buyer. I second the comments of Pauline and Pat. Any resident owner of the Chandler considering voting in favor of the proposed amendment should consider the fact that should it pass, they also stand to be negatively affected should they for any unforeseeable reason decide to sell their unit within the next 4 to 5 years, as the severely depressed pricing levels due to the inevitable oversupply and restricted demand WILL affect them as well. Moreover, I would hope that owners recognize that the Chandler, despite its well deserved charm, is only one of several current (and soon to be built) condo buildings in this development of arguably very similar ammenities, age, and likeness. This fact will only serve to reduce demand further for Chandler units. The concept proposed by the Board that only speculators will be turned off from purchasing is in my opinion severely off base. Many, many buyers of condos recognize that they may outgrow their unit or be relocated one day (even in a good economic state) and this large percentage of the demand market will be turned off from purchasing here, particularly with the abundance of similar units in our community without such a risk to their investment down the road. By the time the Chandler prices are just starting to make a recovery 5 years from now from the oversupply anticipated, newer condos next door will continue to haunt the owners in this building, crippled by the severe restrictions a 20% rental license will create. Last, since there is every reason for every owner to enter the lottery here in order to preserve their rights for down the road, aren’t we talking not about 45% and 20% rented units respectively, but in fact 20% now and 8% later effectively, given that one would assume the % of people wishing not to rent at is time will hold unused licenses that cannot be transferred in accordance with the proposed amendment? Correct me if I am wrong here…but I do not see this addressed. One final note: were I an owner here, I would NOT appreciate having to go before the board with a humiliating “hardship” case. Where is the respect of privacy for one’s own personal matters and consider the acrimonious environment created by such power granted to the board here. We are all neighbors, not financial planners sitting in judgment of the people we see everyday. The fact that one owner claimed the writer of this blog in its thoughtful dissent must be a friend of a renter in the building is testement to the acrimony this is already creating and perhaps to the power problems this will impose amongst neighbors.
Rose, please contact your landlord if you have not already. A restrictive amendment is not inevitable. Your landlord’s vote may be critical in preventing what many see as a misguided change. I hope that the Board is reaching out to all owner-landlords through tenants or other means for their votes. Regards, Chris
I am an owner and four-year resident of the Chandler and oppose any restrictive amendment that further limits options to maximize the value of my investment. I urge all owners to do the same.
Debate will go on about whether owner-landlords or owner-residents will lose value because of the actions of one another, but the fact is that it could go either way. No one knows. What is known is that if restrictions are put in place, there will be losers as a direct result. These losers may be (i) owner-landlords that can no longer rent their units and are forced to sell at a loss, (ii) owner-residents who face a hardship that isn’t deemed worthy by a future Board, or even (iii) heirs of a deceased owner that can’t act quickly in the best interest of the estate. Point being, we all have different housing, investment and financial situations, and all of our situations will likely change over time.
A post in the elevator from the Board thanks everyone for their feedback and participation and indicates that a final amendment will be drafted and emailed out to all owners shortly. This pre-supposes that owners want a restrictive amendment in any case. Please vote against any amendment that creates an artificial set of winners and losers, even a few. The best solution for all collectively, is to leave owners’ options open for their individual needs indefinitely. Winners and losers should be determined (without association intervention) by the real estate market as a result of their own decisions.
Postscript: Pauline’s experience noted in this blog sounds good on its face, but unfortunately with the ‘grandfather only current owners in rule’ everyone loses. At the time of sale, owners’ potential buyers will be reduced to exclude investing landlords – and depending on the market, they may be the ones that were prepared to pay a premium. Again, no one knows.
Post postscript: Financed with Chase two months ago – no issues whatsoever.
I’d like to start by thanking Jamal for his efforts, and Mr. Blackburn for bringing exposure to this issue to the broader Chicago real estate community.
Similar to others posting, I purchased my unit pre-construction in 2005 and closed in 2007. Our 1 bedroom unit served as the first home for my wife and I until November of last year. A new job and need for a bigger space to start a family brought on a move outside the Chicago area. While living in the Chandler, we always considered ourselves very fortunate knowing we had a rental option when the day came that we had to move, and wouldn’t have to lose the unit. A large number of people have invested a tremendous amount of love and equity into their homes at the Chandler – and to suddenly try and limit their options to “sell at current market condition,” “carry two mortgages,” or “try your luck at the license lottery, and then figure it all out again in 3 years” when a sudden life change occurs is incredibly unfair.
Additionally, it doesn’t take a talking head on CNBC to understand the disastrous Economic ramifications this proposal will not only have for the Chandlers unit values, but across the Lake Shore East community as well. It’s simple supply and demand. The finer points have already been made in the original blog post and comment thread, so I won’t reiterate them.
As an owner in the Chandler, I am against the rental cap proposal and truly hope it gets voted down for all the right reasons.
I am a pre-construction owner who bought, lived in the unit briefly and was transfered out of town. I plan on returning to the Chandler when I retire in a couple of years and have been renting it to a responsible individual ever since. However, I will not be able to hold on to it if I am not allowed to rent. Therefore, If this amendment goes through I will “firesale” the unit immediately as I know my renter will move out and because I can’t afford to carry the always rising assessments. I say firesale it because I know alot of people will be looking to do the same thing and I will want to get out as fast as possible. This will obviously not help the property values.
I agree with all the comments above that this amendment in its current form will be a disaster for all unit owners. What I have read on the web regarding implementing these type of restriction well after a condo building is established is they always turn out badly. Firesales occur dropping property values, potential buyers back away because of the increased restrictions, angry culture and the trending downward of values. And renters head for the door because they have no guarantee that if they abide by the rules, they can continue to rent…its luck that determines whether they have a home. How many people want to rely on luck!
So may I suggest that if you are interested in organizing to insure this amendment does not pass we figure out how to meet as a group and plan how to get the word out to the rest of the owners that this will be a disaster.
I am a pre-construction owner who bought and lived in the unit since 2007. I am not planning on renting my unit but i don’t want not to have the option to do so if i needed to.
I refinanced 2 years ago with no problems. When i was looking to buy a Condo such a restriction would let me think twice before i buy, or even not buy at all. There are a lot of building similar and even nicer than Chandler without this kind of restriction so why choosing it.
I am thankful to the main organizers of this so called protest or an effort so that our voices are heard. I own a unit in Chandler and live out of state, kids are in school (not even in college), cant retire and move to Chicago Down Town, cant sell as I lose well over $100,000, cant ask the board members to chip in and pay my mortgage until i win a lottery or retire to move to this condo which i really like. If this amendment really goes through, either I will let this unit go for foreclosure or sell at the market price, loose all equity and essentially go bankrupt. I am sure there are a lot of people like me who rely on rent income to feed the condo unit in Chandler and with out the rent it will be difficult to keep going. I strongly oppose this amendment and will do my best to help others try to put a stop to such an amendment.
kamal
As an owner, I appreciate the comments made above as well as by those who support the board proposal in the meeting that I attended. Let me say upfront that I would hate to see anyone endure hardship as a result of any action to restrict rentals.
At the same time, everyone that opposes the motion to restrict renters, should recognize also that they are forcing owners to carry higher interest rates on their mortgages. So if my rate is 3.5% when it could be 3.25%, my mortgage interest is 8% higher than it needs to be.
Hence, I propose that the tokens be issued as proposed by the board but with a charge for them. For example, tokens can be auctioned with a minimum bid of $500 for 60 days — meaning you have the right within that period to rent your apartment for up to 1 year. If at the end of 60 days you have not rented your apartment, you need to return the token and rebid for another 60 days. As expire, one in every two tokens can be retired so that over time there are fewer rentals in the building. As fewer tokens are available, the bid price for tokens will rise.
This systems will create $75-100,000 in revenues per year, which can be directed towards much needed improvements in the building such as the lobby and the hallways, and indirectly would represent compensation from renters to owners for imposing a higher mortgage cost and likely maintenance expense. It would avoid foreclosures as well.
If this debate is to be reasonable, I would like those that support rentals to also come up with alternate proposals that are fair to owners — versus saying the problem is non existent. By providing no such options in the comments above, the debate continues to be very divided and self-interested. I also encourage owners, other than me, to propose other solutions that are fair to renters and do not put people in financial hardship.
Maintaining the status quo with no new restrictions is not a matter of self interest, it is where we are today – the baseline is to do nothing. All owners, myself included, should accept the risks of owning real estate; the “do nothing” option is fair because every owner already accepted all current risks when they bought their unit(s). If someone wants to avoid real estate market risk such as ‘rent versus buy ratios’ or ‘interest rate risk’, they should rent in lieu of purchasing property.
As a response to Sandeep’s comments, let’s not forget that they have already raised the move in costs for renters/landlords from originally $250 to $1000 per move as a deterent to have so much transition in the building.
There are also additional costs involved with new tenants moving in that I do not have at my fingertips right now as I am away from my office.
If they are averaging 64 moves a year, as stated in the correspondence sent out on February 16th, 2012, this should be generating a minimum of $64,000 annually in revenue for the Chandler.
The purpose of having a fee for the token would also be to ensure that owners that do not intend to rent their apartments do not participate in the lottery thereby leaving the vast majority of tokens available for owners that truly do want to rent their units.
I am strongly opposed to such amendment since I consider this is an unacceptable limitation to the use of my property as well as a very efficient way to reduce the property value: many condos unable to be rented will be quickly offered for sale, and as it is internationally known the higher the offer the lower the price. Also, condos with a restriction to be rented are obviously cheaper than those without such restriction.
The points raised in the letter I received are very debatable and it is clear that the sender is very biased. I believe that this “social filter” the Board seems to be trying to implement will backfire when the condo price makes them affordable for certain individuals with lower income not good enough of thy standards.
Juan I. Montero
Owner of Unit 1106
Barcelona, Spain
As an owner, I state the following:
A proposal to limit the number of rentals would violate one’s common right of property ownership .
Many investors buy property for the purpose of renting.
Is there a risk of higher foreclosure if units can not be rented, and if this happens management revenues are decreased and building upkeep will suffer from lack of funds and staff
If renting is an option for owners, then there should be an additional fee and thus increased revenue for the the building upkeep.
An owner should responsible for renters and preform appropriate background checks.
If owners are limited by a percentage to rent, then upon a lease expiring and the orignal tenant not re-leasing then that owner can not rent to another without board approval??? Once again violation of a common right of property ownership .
Malgorzata (Maggie) Cudzich
Owner of Unit 605
Maggie, know that the “right” you speak of can legally be limited through an amendment. Case in point are the added costs and procedures already imposed on landlords for renting. That is precisely why many owners and owner/landlords are so passionate about defeating the proposal. Votes will matter as the board seems bent on proposing something…
We have also set up a conversation group on iKONVERSE for people to discuss issues more broadly related to Lakeshore East — positive, negative, tips, useful info, etc. Please sign up for free. Go to ikonverse.com and go to the Open Conversations.
Paul, in your position as a Chicago Real Estate professional have you seen or can you verify the Board’s original item 6 which states “49%, That is the magic number for tenant occupied units. When any building moves above that options such as FHA may go away and other serious buyer financing and re-fi issues may arise.” I’ve only been able to find this restriction for a “development” loan, not an individual unit refi. I’m also wondering if it is possible to get an understanding of how many current mortgages in the Chandler have FHA loans. Thoughts welcome.
Letter and Survey received today via US Mail.