Welcome...we didn't create this forum and most of the functions are very out of date. Garden web is one of the hardest ones to use, especially for posting pics. Anyway... sounds like you did a lot 'right', I would loosen the soil mix up a lot more by adding at least 40% pine bark mulch (screened to 1/4 and 1/2 inch pieces) or at least get the fines and big chunks out. I've never seen Superthrive kill a tree but have never noticed any benefit from using it. If you didn't put any holes in the tub now would be a good time. The time of year you collected the tree wasn't the best but it's done. You can make any changes in the soil now without causing problems: don't feed it now and I would suggest just taking care of it till next spring. For this winter I'd suggest just leaving it under the porch buried to the top of the tub in mulch. It was growing in the wild so winter shouldnt be any problem at all. As for becoming a master...that takes many years, a lot of work and a lot of dead trees. good luck Bob

The Arguments Against Sprinklers Myth Fact "Water damage from a sprinkler system will be more extensive than fire damage." Water damage from a sprinkler system will be much less severe than the damage caused by water from firefighting hoselines or smoke and fire damage if the fire goes unabated. Quick response sprinklers release 8 to 24 gallons of water per minute compared to 50 to 125 gallons per minute released by a firehose. Sprinklers are highly reliable devices that are activated by heat. They will only go off if there is a fire which increases the heat beyond the sprinkler trigger point (typically 135 to 165°F (57.2 to 73.9°C)). Preaction systems employ additional safety features. Research has demonstrated that only 1 in 16 million heads ever activates by accident. Sprinkler systems can be connected to an alarm monitoring company or an external alarm that will notify neighbors or passersby of a water flow. This will facilitate the prompt notification of the fire department and will minimize that amount of water damage. "When a fire occurs, every sprinkler head goes off." Sprinkler heads are individually activated by fire. Residential fires are usually controlled with one sprinkler head, and 90 percent of all fires are controlled with six or fewer heads. A study conducted in Australia and New Zealand covering 82 years of automatic sprinkler use found that 82 percent of the fires that occurred were controlled by two or fewer sprinklers. "Sprinklers steal water from the fire department hoselines." A properly designed sprinkler system (for commercial structures) includes water supplies for the system and fire department hose streams. "A smoke alarm provides enough protection." Smoke alarms save lives by providing a warning system but can do nothing to extinguish a growing fire or protect those physically unable to escape on their own, such as the elderly or small children. Too often, battery-operated smoke alarms fail to function because the batteries are dead or have been removed. As the percent of homes in America that were "protected" with smoke alarms increased from zero to more than 70 percent, the number of fire deaths in homes did not significantly decrease. "Sprinklers are designed to protect property, but are not effective for life safety." Sprinklers provide a high level of life safety. Statistics demonstrate that there has never been any multiple loss of life in a fully sprinklered building. Property losses are 85 percent less in residences with fire sprinklers compared to those without sprinklers. The combination of automatic sprinklers and early warning systems in all buildings and residences could reduce overall injuries, loss of life, and property damage by at least 50 percent. "The added cost of sprinklers will make housing unaffordable to first-time buyers." A sprinkler system costs one to two percent of the total construction costs. The cost of a sprinkler system is comparable to what many people pay for carpet upgrades, a paving stone driveway, or a whirlpool bath. In many U.S. communities where sprinkler systems are available, consumers are requesting this feature and houses with sprinkler systems are selling faster than those without. "It is unfair to target new construction because new buildings are safer than older buildings." There are more fires in older buildings because older buildings comprise a larger portion of the country's structural inventory. There are more deaths and injuries in older dwellings because demographically identifiable groups who are more susceptible to fire, such as the elderly and people of low socioeconomic status, tend to live in older homes. Modern construction techniques such as webbed truss construction, vented soffits, and human-made composite materials, make newer houses far more susceptible to serious damage from fire. New structures built today will be older structures tomorrow; it makes sense to start now and use the technology that is available in order to build safer communities. Fire is the leading threat to seriously damage or destroy structures; earthquakes, flooding, and other natural disasters lag far behind. "Sprinklers are ugly, I don't want them in my space." Residential and commercial sprinkler heads come in a variety of unobtrusive styles and models and in designer colors. Some can be mounted flush with the ceiling line, and concealed behind protective covers. "Sprinkler systems are not practical in cold climates, the pipes will freeze and cause water damage." In commercial applications, dry pipe and preaction sprinklers provide an alternative to water-filled pipes. Anchorage, Alaska, has had a residential sprinkler ordinance in place for more than 10 years and residents have not experienced a single sprinkler system freeze-up. Specially molded insulation is available to ensure that piping in unheated attics is properly insulated and protected from freezing. A variety of sidewall sprinkler heads are available. Sidewall sprinkler piping is placed in the interior walls to prevent exposure to cold attics, and eliminating the concern for freezing. Residential sprinkler systems use plastic and copper piping similar to that used for domestic water systems. If the heat in a house drops to a level where the sprinkler system will freeze, it is likely that the domestic system will also freeze. There is no unique danger of freezing with sprinkler systems that does not already exist with domestic water systems. "Smoke alarms set fire sprinklers off." Fire sprinklers and smoke alarm systems are designed to activate according to different conditions. Sprinkler heads are individually heat activated, usually at 165°F. Smoke alarms, when activated, give only an audible warning sound; they do not cause fire sprinklers to flow water. In commercial applications where flooding volumes are needed to control hazardous areas, preaction and deluge systems may use smoke detection for early notification and operation. "Smoke alarms will put the fire out!" This is a dangerous and misleading statement that is many times made on the basis that smoke alarms will alert the occupants who will then get a fire extinguisher to put out the fire. Untrained persons should only use fire extinguishers to fight small incipient fires. The number-one priority when you hear a smoke alarm or a fire alarm is to get everyone out of the building. "Fire sprinkler systems are not reliable." Laboratory testing and a 50-year installation/activation history clearly show that fire sprinkler systems exceed a 95 percent "fail-safe" status. "Property will have to pay an expensive yearly testing fee." Like any piece of mechanical equipment, sprinkler systems must be inspected, tested, and maintained to ensure a high degree of reliability. No one would buy a car and then never bother to change the oil, tires, or get a tune-up. Testing fees will be directly related to the market demand. "Insurance costs will go up due to fire sprinkler system ruptures and leaks." Consider these facts: Sprinkler head failure rate is one in 16 million. Domestic plumbing ruptures and leaks are over a 1000 to 1 ratio compared to sprinkler system ruptures and leaks. If an insurance company wants to place a surcharge on your policy because you have a sprinkler system, there are other insurance companies that value the reliability and effectiveness of fire sprinkler systems and will reduce your policy premiums if you have fire sprinkler protection, especially in rural or "unprotected areas" in our country. Some insurance companies are the leading advocates for fire sprinkler systems to protect the risks they must underwrite. "Fire sprinkler systems cause taxes to go up." Not when local government practices fiscal diligence. While the overall property value increases in sprinklered buildings, the fire protection costs may go down, especially in communities that can maximize all the benefits afforded by using fire sprinkler protection. Reductions in water service sizes, hydrant spacing, fire service costs, and damage repair can be reduced. Some progressive local governments offer tax incentives to encourage homeowners to install fire sprinkler systems in their dwellings. "People will install fire sprinkler systems on a non-mandatory basis." A 200-year history clearly shows that safety equipment and safety systems are rarely installed when left to good intentions. Getting fire sprinklers installed in a community so that all of the "trade-up" advantages can be maximized usually requires mandated legislation or local ordinances. A spotty, hit-and-miss application of fire sprinkler system installation is not the most cost-effective way of achieving all of the benefits afforded from fire sprinklers. From a life safety, property conservation point of view, there will be no significant change in these horrendous statistics until fire sprinklers are required by law to protect those who cannot adequately protect themselves.

Hi Loralee, There are worthy realtors who'll be around soon, so I'll leave the agent questions to them. In the meanwhile, as an investments lender as well as an income real estate portfolio owner myself, I'll cover the top 3 questions; - Is it a good idea to incorporate a business for this activity to protect our personal assets in the event of any kind of tenant lawsuit? It depends. There are costs to create and maintain a corporation, and its prudent to weigh out & compare these costs versus alternative protective means. For a first-time investor (especially if your vulnerable net worth is still modest,) a good umbrella insurance policy will often suffice just fine. Insurance does also have its limitations though (including not addressing tax planning or cashflow management and defense...) so as you grow your vulnerable net worth, the incremental costs of a business entity (corporations, trusts, limited partnerships, and the like) begin making more and more sense. - If we subbed the management service to a professional management service, generally what kind of fee would we be looking at? For individual single family home rentals, management fees are generally; A) 1st month's rent from the new tenant, plus, B) 10% of the ongoing gross rental revenues. Usually this will get you the services of; Marketing & screening for new tenants, Collection, bookkeeping, and deposits to your account of monthly rents, Periodic maintenance inspections, Notification to you of physically viewable problems, late payments, defaults, Management of service providers for repairs, or cleaning/turnovers between tenants. (Of course, more or less may be offered in competitive environments.) - What kind of rental profit % should there be after mortgage, taxes, insurance, repairs. (I would like to know so I can compare current rentals in the area to see if we could offer comparable in order to know if this is feasible.) What kind of profit SHOULD there be??? Sweetheart, the answer is always; "AS MUCH AS YOU CAN POSSIBLY COLLECT!!!!" ;~) In reality, in most North American real estate markets, the rental revenue markets have not increased enough in the past 10-15 years to keep up with the crazy property appreciation prices that were driven by the easy credit available. The collapse of the credit markets has BEGUN to reverse this (with property flat to dropping, but rents beginning to awaken & grow again,) however its still going to take a while to really make sense on an easy basis. Most single family homes "bought at retail" cannot be fully supported by the local rental rates available, and most landlords of such homes need to accumulate a significant amount of equity in the home (or said inversely; need to reduce the loan balance to reduce the interest costs) enough so that the net real rental revenues are more than the out of pocket cash costs of ownership (i.e. "positive cashflows.") Prudent investors, however, donot consider a property TRULY cashflow positive unless its rental revenues are more than not just the interest paid for the loans... but ALSO the interest NOT EARNED (or lost) from the cash value of the equity that is trapped in the real estate itself (since, if that real estate were sold, the equity value could be earning interest elsewhere... and thus is a real cost, albeit merely 'on the books.') GENERALLY SPEAKING; anytime you can acquire a rental property in a market where the rents are climbing, and you can hope to have real rental revenues grow to be more than your total real costs of ownerhip (including equity value opportunity loss) within 2-3 years... you are doing very well. Hope this is helpful. Dave Donhoff Leverage Planner

We have a rental property at a ski resort in Colorado (townhome 1/2 duplex with a nice yard) that our DD manages for us. We bought it because we sold some timber land here and did a tax free exchange. It made sense for us because DD has experience in property management and her DH can fix anything. It's 2 blocks from our ski house where DD and her husband live full time and is in a relatively high end area and that commands pretty high rent. Although the neighborhood zoning allows short term vacation rentals, we prefer long-term, and DD checks out prospective tenants thoroughly. Our last tenants were just for 10 months while they were building a home, but we knew that coming in and we were immediately able to re-lease. We are not planning on selling anytime soon, but a recent sale of a slightly smaller place across the street, indicates that it's worth about $100,000 more than we bought it for 3 years ago and the rent account has a healty balance, despite having done some significant updates (new kitchen appliances and granite last year and new deck this year). We hire out lawn work and snow plowing. No HOA dues or mortgag, so those only ongoing costs other than property taxes and insurance. So far so good. For the first eight years we owned the ski house, we also rented out its basement apartment, but when we lost the 'best tenant ever' who stayed for six years, we decided to take over basement ourselves rather than risk a bad tenant in our own house. We just redid it completly and use it for extra guests. We will probably sell this house in the next year or so, so the new owner can decide whether to rent it out or not, but it will be a bonus because at current rentals even this 600 sq. ft. apt, would rent very quickly at about $1,000 - 1,200 per month. We did have a bad experience with a tenant in a rental condo we once had and grew frustrated for a while. Luckily prices skyrocketed by 50% in the year we owned it, so it turned out to be a really nice investment nonetheless.