The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Two-year or five-month apartment lease
Grid System
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I'm trying to decide between two apartments and one of the main areas of uncertainty is their respective lease agreements. I think I prefer the one place over the other, but it has a two-year lease I'd have to sign. That seems like a long time. Should I be concerned about it?
The other option has a five-month sublease, renewable for a year.
The other option has a five-month sublease, renewable for a year.
Grid System on
0
Posts
Depends really. What are the penalties for breaking the lease early?
Would you see yourself even moving within that 2 year time? Is your job stable enough to warrant a lease of that time?
What are the conditions of the lease? Will your rent be "locked in" for the 2 year time frame, or can they still increase it.
Is the 2 year apartment cheaper or enough of an improvement from the other place to warrant whatever the early release penalty is if you need/want to look for a new place?
That said, 2 years isn't that long of a time if you have a stable job and are not going to be hunting for another place to live shortly. Likewise, if there is an early release clause somewhere that isn't too terrible, it's not all that bad.
The other catch is that w/ the 5 month place, you'll probably have to re-up for the coming year 2 months before the current lease is up, so you'd have to decide in 3 months, not 5.
Remember, too, that a sublease means that you're taking over someone else's apt. That means that they only did 7 months on their lease (in the most recent year). if something did come up on the 2 year lease place, you could probably sublease yourself in order to move.
If you haven't lived there before that could be a bad idea. Sure it looks nice on a visit, but for the most part they ALL look nice when you visit. I've never even seen a lease longer than like 16 months, and rarely longer than 12 >_>
Mind you that by and large, in general, if you wanna leave before your lease is up you're most likely screwed unless you wanna live somewhere else and still pay rent at the place you no longer lease. Some places will let you get someone else to pick up the lease but they usually have harsh criteria and you can't count on that
For example, I had a one year lease for $700 for a two bedroom apartment here in Seattle (where a two bedroom anywhere near the quality of mine will usually run for around $1200). As soon as the lease was up, my rent grew by about 5% a month, and if you rent month-to-month (no lease agreement) the landlord can increase the rent every single month if they choose to do so.
You can't count on this though. Even if it's in the contract that you have a locked-in rent, the landlord can choose to raise rent, send out a flyer telling people this, and give them the option to break the lease without consequense. In which case you've got two choices: Finish out the lease at a higher rate or immediately find somewhere else to live.
That might depend on your state law. I can tell you that in California, what you describe is illegal.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
It often says in the lease whether or not they can raise the rent mid lease.
I know in western australia they are limited to once every six months, if it is written into the contract, and the amount they can raise it is limited also.
Satans..... hints.....
Honestly, assuming the place is problem-light and in a decent area, I'd go for the long-term lease unless expecting to shift cities soonish, because I hate change :P the only advantage apart from protection from being booted out early is the possible rent savings, though so definitely call your local tenants' association and get info on local laws. They usually have websites nowadays too.
Satans..... hints.....
I have to tell you that this has been the exact opposite of my experience. The most flagrant, money-grubbing behavior I've experienced from landlords were from property management agencies. I don't think it's right to generalize.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
That's weird. I've never had a problem with my agency, and the people I know who use them are equally trouble-free. On the flipside, my house-hunting mates were faced with dealing with people who on more than one occasion wanted something like twice the going rate for a property like theirs in that location. One dude wanted 700 a week for an elderly 2-bedroom flat in freakin' New Farm. For perspective, you can get one twice the size in a brand new building and a considerably nicer suburb for about a hundred a week less. There's just this perception that New Farm is rather more hip and happenin' than it actually is. I guess it could be a regional thing, or related to your local regulatory framework - also, Brisbane and Perth are going through major boom periods and there's a lot of hype floating around about the lack of rental vacancies. It seems to trigger mass stupidity among landlords, but I've only seen one bad agency story - about a suburban independent agent who won't rent to anyone under 30 or with children, in flagrant violation of anti-discrimination laws.
Private owners can be hit and miss, it really depends on the private owner. Some are more than happy about the money that they are getting on the property, others prefer to gouge the living daylights out of tennants (or try to). One of my friends got a four bedroom place two roads down from me for 350 a week. In comparison I'm living in a tiny 2 bedroom apartment for 200 a week. My friends down the road have a private landlord.
Satans..... hints.....