What do you think of this idea?

[ufcrusher]

They announced that the Hard rock Hotel in San Diego would have condiniums for sale. My immediate thought was, hey, that would probably be a cool place to own in. Figure its near a bunch of night spots, would theoretically have good views, and with the connection shouldnt depreciate at all.

So in todays paper they have an article on that and a House of Blues version. I am reading it, somewhat interested but at the same time thinking what a rip off it is, and come across this little sentence which made me stop and say WTF?

Owners can only stay in their condo for 30 consecutive days! The units are then rented out (or can be) when you arent there.

So my immediate thought was, why would anyone want to own a place where they are preculded from using their property as much as they wish. What is the difference if they have you chosing NOT to rent out your place (thus no "facilitator" share for them) and you living in your own place all the time.

What do other people think? Crazy idea or something that sounds interesting and you would consider if money were not a concern.

[attgig]

seems like it's a timeshare more than a condo

[hapoo]

but you do get paid a percentage for renting out right?

My uncle owns a flat in london with quite the same setup. He can use it whenever he wants, and while he's not there they rent it out and give him a percentage. And if he wants to use the appartment and its taken, they'll give him another one to use.

[speedracer120]

Yeah, I was watching one of the fruitier shows on HGTV and I guess they do this a lot in Europe. Free towels and sheet service. Everything comes furnished and you get a little private closet with lock and the rest is all open to whoever may end up staying in the room while you're gone. If you travel back and forth a lot and don't need to use the space on a permanent basis, why not? But as a primary place? Heck naw. Great substitute for a home on the shore, but I think it would create a big headache for whoever's doing your taxes.

[ufcrusher]

Yeah, the units are fully furnished include plasma tv's or LCD's. They also get paid for the use. I know with most similar rental situations, the owner gets the majority of the money, but the company who rents out the place and deals with everything with the renter gets a nice cut for basically doing administrative work.

They had an example of another location in SD, where the person was shelling out somewhere near $3500/mo and would only receive $3000/mo IF the unit was rented out 20 days per month, so it was a net loss.

[ShawnLee]

An idea like this might be a possible moneymaker with people whose jobs take them away for long periods. Like, a soldier who knew he was going to deploy for a year might make bank on something like this.

[ufcrusher]

I think its more aimed at the jet set. Those people who head east for the season in the hamptons, hits the french riveria for the shows, and then west when they feel the need for some good mexican food. Or just people who have vacation homes all around the country.

I guess I just have a problem with the fact that they have a maximum amount of time you can live in a place that you own. Seems completely backwards to me. If you chose NOT to rent out your place, it would be the same lack of extra money to the management, so what difference does it make that you are living there.

i guess a few things could make a difference - such as if all the utilities are included since its a hotel. Would be unfair to the other owners if they abide by the rules and you dont, thus using 24/7/365 vs renters who wouldnt be close to that amount.

[Butch]

I think its more aimed at the jet set. Those people who head east for the season in the hamptons, hits the french riveria for the shows, and then west when they feel the need for some good mexican food. Or just people who have vacation homes all around the country.

I guess I just have a problem with the fact that they have a maximum amount of time you can live in a place that you own. Seems completely backwards to me. If you chose NOT to rent out your place, it would be the same lack of extra money to the management, so what difference does it make that you are living there.

i guess a few things could make a difference - such as if all the utilities are included since its a hotel. Would be unfair to the other owners if they abide by the rules and you dont, thus using 24/7/365 vs renters who wouldnt be close to that amount.

Keep in mind that the implications of the policy are built into the cost of the condo. People who are buying something like this know what they are getting into. They are willing to pay the stated price with the understanding that they cannot occupy the condo all the time. They also understand that if they WERE able to stay in the condo the entire time and there were no risk on rented occupancy for compensation, then the price most likely would have been higher. The value seems to be sufficient for them.

It's not unfair to the owners . . . they know what they are getting into when they buy the place . . . and the price they are willing to pay reflects this.

[Mommypooh]

what is the point of that. I think if you buy to own you should be able to live there as long as you want.