Again, Brickeye offers irrelevant straw man arguments to support his untenable positions. He said: "I put those examples forward to show exactly how hard it can be to enforce codes." The reality is that once a new construction or remodeling project has passed an existing code inspection, it does not need to be brought up to future code levels. Code compliance that was required at the time of the inspection is all that is required. No one is debating that. No one suggested otherwise. So your reasoning here is baseless. Brickeye further stated: "I do know of jurisdictions that revoke COs at sale of the property and require a new inspection to grant a new CO each time ownership changes." Then Brickeye does not understand the authority under construction and existing building codes that gives the code official just that power. In fact, it happens more often than you would think. It is VERY common for private home inspectors to spot code violations that were missed after the issuance of a CO on, for example, new construction homes, only to have the CO revoked when a code violation has been found that may have been missed in a previous inspection or when the CO was issued based on fradulent information provided by the owner.. In fact, the building codes require rescining a CO in such circumstances. The current owner is made aware of the problem and required to come into compliance. Happens more often that you think. But all this completely irrelevant to the issue. The issue is, that buildings with previously valid COs can fall into a state of disrepair to the point that they become a hazard to the public well being. When that happens, maintenance codes apply, which can a do allow the government to force owners to take actions to correct them. This can be done with or without the permission of the property owner or by getting an adminstrative "search" warrant to enter the property to make inspection when probable casue has been shown to a presiding judge. Properties can be permanently condemned, temporarily condemned until repairs are made, or civil judgements sought against the building's owner. Commercial Builidng and Fire Codes do not require a warrant to search a privately owned commercial building if they are open to use by the public and are inspected during normal business hours, and Codes mandate that commercial building owners must make their buildings accessible for annual maintenance inspections. So maintenance inspections on private structures are not without precedent nor basis in law. Brickeye further commented: "Last time I looked insurance comanies are private enterprises and seem to look out for themselves pretty well." Insurance companies DO look out for themselves when they insure a property or are made aware of existing maintenance problems....but insurers do not routinely make safety inspections of private homes nor are they made aware of hazardous conditions which violate the terms of the insurance agreement by fradulent homeowners, and that is where the problem lies. If the insurer knows that a property is in a state of disrepair, they will insist that repairs be made or one's insurance coverage revoked. If the homeowner doesn't tell the insurance he is violating the terms of the insurance agreement, how does the insurer know? He doesn't, which is why insurance companies FULLY SUPPORT the use of routine maintenance inspections by Code Departments for private rental and other units. It saves them and their majority policy and stockholders money and protects them from paying out on fradulent claims. Deliquent owners who have no mortgages also are likely not to carry insurance on their structures. This becomes a public problem when, for example, there is a fire or building collpase and it is up to the taxpayer to pay for the cleanup. The cry and clamor that government has no business protecting it's citizens from irresponsible property owners is without merit. Government inspections protect the public, protect insurers, and protect other private owners who properties can be devalued by delapidated and dangerous properties. The anarchy that Brickeye suggests is pie-in-the sky and actually the most irresponsible and absurd position, and why Codes were developed in the first place: to protect the public from those who simply just don't care about anyone else but themselves.

I recently sold all my rental property, and then more recently bought more. I believe that the success or failure of income property is determined by the owner. First, and most importantly, despite what the IRS says, being a landlord is not passive income. Owning rental property is about turning your extra time or your skills into income. These skills can be something as simple as persistent attention to detail, or hard skills like being a licensed contractor, or they can be a lot of extra time. Second, it is tempting to look at income properties as cash flows, that is not a good idea. Rental property should not be an effort to collect money in excess of payments + taxes + insurance + maintenance. You should always keep an eye on your net position, if it helps you can think of this as the excess rental payments plus equity increases. My general attitude on tenants is to be the best landlord possible and good renters will find their way to you. On a couple of occasions I have rented to friends for one reason or another. I will not collect money from friends ever, so I contracted out to a property management company on those occasions. While I too am generally against mixing friends and money, if you end up going through with this idea, protect your friendship and your investment by considering all the ways it can go bad and counter as many of them as possible in the beginning. Every ambiguity is a potential problem so eliminate them all before you start.

Just my 2 cents... Anyone who should be answering this question can't with the information provided. Your area defines your renter and your house shifts the quality of that renter. The answer to what you need to do to attract a better renter depends on the demographics for that specific area. I have recently been very successful developing Bobo rentals (they are low maintenance high cap rate properties), but trying to do a Bobo rental in a family rental area will be disastrous, as would a family rental in a student rental area, or an executive rental in a family rental area. Once you have defined your renter then you can start working to attract that person. One of the biggest mistakes I see in real estate is not thinking about marginal cost and marginal benefit. For example, if you are meeting the 2% rule (2% of selling value in monthly rent) then all improvement dollars need to see a rent increase greater than 2%. However, if you are in a 1% rule then all improvement dollars only need to see better than a 1% rent increase. I would be very hesitant to go below the 1% rule for improvements.

You put a shower in this tub without better wall covering? I once used a plastic coated wall board and it clearly said it would not hold up to being in a shower. Your Corain is great in a shower, but not with all those seams. You also have a ledge that is just waiting to have water pool there so it can leak into the (almost guaranteed) walls that have no waterproofing. If you are going to be a landlord, you need to make things idiot-proof. Not saying that all renters are idiots, but the majority of renters are going to be looking out for your interests and call you as soon as they suspect mold build up on that ledge part that is not Corian. Corian will stand up to anything, but for you to switch this to a shower, you needed any ledges to be slanted downward to drain. Be happy about the Corian portions. Paint everything to match that. But don’t expect a tub surround that is level to work like a shower that is made to drain away shower water. Mold and mildew shall ensue.