Since I can only get last minute time off from my job, We are looking for a one or two bedroom condo at the BELLA SIRENA for this weekend... as in day after tomorrow... Friday thru Sunday nights.
Hate like hell going through Seaside. Much rather rent direct.
i am looking to eat at a restaurant this weekend and I would like to avoid paying the establishment directly. if a cook our server is willing to take some cash under the table, please let me know- I would rather pay you guys direct and skip paying the restaurant.
i am looking to eat at a restaurant this weekend and I would like to avoid paying the establishment directly. if a cook our server is willing to take some cash under the table, please let me know- I would rather pay you guys direct and skip paying the restaurant.
Eh, I rent from owners directly each time I go to Rocky Point when I stay at a condo. Where supply is much higher than demand, why pay managment companies like Seaside and condo management companies when you can save a lot of money by renting directly through the owners?
i am looking to eat at a restaurant this weekend and I would like to avoid paying the establishment directly. if a cook our server is willing to take some cash under the table, please let me know- I would rather pay you guys direct and skip paying the restaurant.
Can't follow you analogy. Is it the case that all rental properties at Bella Sirena are under contract to Seaside?
i am looking to eat at a restaurant this weekend and I would like to avoid paying the establishment directly. if a cook our server is willing to take some cash under the table, please let me know- I would rather pay you guys direct and skip paying the restaurant.
I dont get it. Btw, I'm also gonna go fishing. Would you like to tag along? I have only one life vest, no radio and will go out far enough so no one will hear your screams.
I dont get it. Btw, I'm also gonna go fishing. Would you like to tag along? I have only one life vest, no radio and will go out far enough so no one will hear your screams.
ahhhh, you are such a sweetheart. my point was if the resort has an exclusive rental agreement that states an owner needs to rent their unit with such and such rental operator, you are either going around this arrangement or the owner who has an agreement with the rental company is violating their agreement (regarless if 1000000000 rooms are available). I don't know if Bella allows any owner to rent as they please, if so you may be able to get the place for $10 per night from some desperate owner or give 'favors' to the owner in exchange for the use of their unit.
I know you can come up with something more creative than "i'm going to go fishing and bring 1 life vest"... that was weak, you need more practice gum shoe
Your restaraunt analogy is stupid, because if I tried to coerce a server/waiter or cook to serve me a meal, and pay him under the table, then I am paying him/her to STEAL the food from the restaraunt's proprietor...
Now, If I should go to a restaraunt owner, and say "your menu says this costs $10, but I only have $8; will you take $8? ; and he says "yes, I will take $8, but you get no bread on the side", and I say "That's cool- I don't need bread" then that is a legitimate negotiation, yes?
So, why is it unacceptable to engage in the same type of direct negotiation with a condo owner, exactly...?
i am looking to eat at a restaurant this weekend and I would like to avoid paying the establishment directly. if a cook our server is willing to take some cash under the table, please let me know- I would rather pay you guys direct and skip paying the restaurant.
Still don't get it? You appear to be saying that NO ONE should be allowed to rent their property directly and should be required to use a rental company always. Clearly if there is an agreement a direct rental would be a violation of that agreement, then in that case maybe the rental company should refuse to manage that property. If one buys into a development that clearly states they buyer is required to use a specified management company, that's one thing, but I don't subscribe to the notion that otherwise owners are married to a rental company via some agreement with a management company.
Tell us why you are so concerned about this? Maybe I am being dumb (again).
Our friend here Benny, who calls himself dry heat is a bankruptcy lawyer among other things Joe, he's not supposed to make sense or be nice...It's not his job.
Your restaraunt analogy is stupid, because if I tried to coerce a server/waiter or cook to serve me a meal, and pay him under the table, then I am paying him/her to STEAL the food from the restaraunt's proprietor...
Now, If I should go to a restaraunt owner, and say "your menu says this costs $10, but I only have $8; will you take $8? ; and he says "yes, I will take $8, but you get no bread on the side", and I say "That's cool- I don't need bread" then that is a legitimate negotiation, yes?
So, why is it unacceptable to engage in the same type of direct negotiation with a condo owner, exactly...?
look dumb dumb, if an owner has an exclusive agreement that states they cannot rent their unit outside of the rental operator- they are stealing from someone (ie. the rental operator and the HOA since the rental operator collects impact fees for the paying guests of the resort). this is not reinventing the wheel. many condo developments have exclusive agreements with one or two rental operators- that is the way it is both in Mexico and in the states. If an owner does not want to use a rental operator when it comes to renting their unit, they should not purchase a property in a development that has such restrictions.
If you have a contract with someone or do business in an industry that requires you to use certain vendors, what do you think would happen if you looked for a loophole to make more money on the side by circumventing these restrictions and vendors?
if no restrictions exists then by all means go nutz with $5 offers. if restrictions exist that prevent the owner from renting on their own, then that is something they should have thought about prior to purchasing in that development.
Roberto said:
Still don't get it? You appear to be saying that NO ONE should be allowed to rent their property directly and should be required to use a rental company always. Clearly if there is an agreement a direct rental would be a violation of that agreement, then in that case maybe the rental company should refuse to manage that property. If one buys into a development that clearly states they buyer is required to use a specified management company, that's one thing, but I don't subscribe to the notion that otherwise owners are married to a rental company via some agreement with a management company.
Tell us why you are so concerned about this? Maybe I am being dumb (again).
Palomas HOA controls the property completely and the "owners" are just like timeshare owners for maintenance. Owners have agreed to be part of the HOA and thereby have contractually agreed to self inflict this statute on themselves. In return owners of the HOA agree to receive a stipend after expenses (maintenance fees) from the Income that is generate by this HOA.
Just a different form of ownership. I would call owners "share holders in a Hotel like property with direct liability" and as a shareholder of a hotel, you can not rent or profit of the hotels property but liabel for the upkeep. NICE!!
A different form of ownership...? I would retort that there is hardly any "ownership" in that arrangement at all... That is classic "fee simple tenant/ debtor in possession" title contract - Maybe one step above an outright timeshare.
I don't envy anyone who signed on THAT bottom line...
know what you buy before purchasing. nothing new here. countless condo developments in both countries have restrictions in place when it comes to who can rent and who cant.
often times restrictions are set in place to prevent owners from creating their own rental market (ie. if this development would normally call for a higher end clientelle, the restrictions would prevent an owner from renting their unit for $10 per night and thus create a new type of clientelle that would normally not stay at the development). restrictions also exists to help with security (who is there and who can be removed if a problem exists). restrictions also exist to help offset HOA expenses by having the paying guest pay an impact fee during their stay. countless reasons exists as to why many developments (most actually) have rental restrictions and thus will contract with only 1 or 2 operators to handle any rentals.
if you dont want rental restrictions, the solution is simple... purchase a property that does not restrict what you can and cant do (ex. privada- yet you can only have long term rentals or purchase a home- however make sure that the HOA allows you to rent your property).
Wahoo said:
Palomas HOA controls the property completely and the "owners" are just like timeshare owners for maintenance. Owners have agreed to be part of the HOA and thereby have contractually agreed to self inflict this statute on themselves. In return owners of the HOA agree to receive a stipend after expenses (maintenance fees) from the Income that is generate by this HOA.
Just a different form of ownership. I would call owners "share holders in a Hotel like property with direct liability" and as a shareholder of a hotel, you can not rent or profit of the hotels property but liabel for the upkeep. NICE!!
look dumb dumb, many condo developments have exclusive agreements with one or two rental operators- that is the way it is both in Mexico and in the states. If an owner does not want to use a rental operator when it comes to renting their unit, they should not purchase a property in a development that has such restrictions.
I have no argument with you on that point; and I am quite familiar with the foundational premise of contract law.
However, you yourself declared that you had no idea whether or not Bella Sirena had such contract stipulations in place before you went off the deep end and tried to elevate this into an ethical issue.
And then you pulled your gloves off in calling me a dumb dumb, so I guess I am therefore justified in declaring that if you really are an attorney, then the fundamental modus tollens logic gaffe you pulled with your lame restarant analogy should be a glaring red flag to anyone looking to retain your services...
You're the lawyer a## hole, what do you think will happen? A loop hole is just that!
I don't want my grandpa Kenny to have a heart attack, he is just a senile old man that does not understand law.
Pa, let me know when you need your diaper changed
I'm sorry I called you a dumb dumb. although you called my restaurant analogy stupid and it hurt my atheist feelings.
I will work on my "if then" statement my latin schoolar. I have no idea if Bella has restrictions (I assume they do). I am also workin on my modus ponens
moore_rb said:
I have no argument with you on that point; and I am quite familiar with the foundational premise of contract law.
However, you yourself declared that you had no idea whether or not Bella Sirena had such contract stipulations in place before you went off the deep end and tried to elevate this into an ethical issue.
And then you pulled your gloves off in calling me a dumb dumb, so I guess I am therefore justified in declaring that if you really are an attorney, then the fundamental modus tollens logic gaffe you pulled with your lame restarant analogy should be a glaring red flag to anyone looking to retain your services...
I'm sorry I called you a dumb dumb. although you called my restaurant analogy stupid and it hurt my atheist feelings.
I will work on my "if then" statement my latin schoolar. I have no idea if Bella has restrictions (I assume they do). I am also workin on my modus ponens
I don't want my grandpa Kenny to have a heart attack, he is just a senile old man that does not understand law.
Pa, let me know when you need your diaper changed
You post just like your picture looks on your web site, like a dumb a##.
That seem obvious. As before, mouth in gear before brain in gear. Guess you would have not made your initial post if you were actually informed.
No Bob, i would have made the same statement since many rent under the table from owners who have a contractual obligation to use the rental operator (including many who have a contract with the rental operator that does business at Bella). I also never said that Bella had restrictions on renting, I assumed they did but stated I was not sure.
I love the way Benny pulls his head out of his a## with such grace. He's gotten very good at it over the years, and I've almost become accustomed to that popping sound as he doe's it.
I love the way Benny pulls his head out of his a## with such grace. He's gotten very good at it over the years, and I've almost become accustomed to that popping sound as he doe's it.
Dry Heat, I hate to get involved but you are so wrong in your analogy. You must be the staff attorney for Palomas. Your reasoning makes no sense unless you are prejudiced by what they pay you to defend them. Other than Palomas, which other development you refer to have rental agreements with owners? Owners may have an agreement with a rental company, but other than Palomas, I am not aware of any developments that shoved this requirment down a purchaser's throat. Now you wonder why we have so many problems at Palomas?
dry heat said:
know what you buy before purchasing. nothing new here. countless condo developments in both countries have restrictions in place when it comes to who can rent and who cant.
often times restrictions are set in place to prevent owners from creating their own rental market (ie. if this development would normally call for a higher end clientelle, the restrictions would prevent an owner from renting their unit for $10 per night and thus create a new type of clientelle that would normally not stay at the development). restrictions also exists to help with security (who is there and who can be removed if a problem exists). restrictions also exist to help offset HOA expenses by having the paying guest pay an impact fee during their stay. countless reasons exists as to why many developments (most actually) have rental restrictions and thus will contract with only 1 or 2 operators to handle any rentals.
if you dont want rental restrictions, the solution is simple... purchase a property that does not restrict what you can and cant do (ex. privada- yet you can only have long term rentals or purchase a home- however make sure that the HOA allows you to rent your property).
Among HOA's that report the info..
148 condo developments in az and nv have rental restrictions. In sonora we have found 32. It is not the rental operator that is forcing an owner to subscribe to a contract, it is the hoa that has restrctions such as you may only use A or B operator or A only if you lease or rent your unit. Some hoa's do not allow any rentals whatsover. It is the assembly of owners or hoa that would need to change such restrictions. If the bylaws have restrictions on only one operator, then any who want to rent or lease have to subscribe to a contract with that operator.
Johnny said:
Dry Heat, I hate to get involved but you are so wrong in your analogy. You must be the staff attorney for Palomas. Your reasoning makes no sense unless you are prejudiced by what they pay you to defend them. Other than Palomas, which other development you refer to have rental agreements with owners? Owners may have an agreement with a rental company, but other than Palomas, I am not aware of any developments that shoved this requirment down a purchaser's throat. Now you wonder why we have so many problems at Palomas?
I have a condo at Bella. When I rent it, I must charge roomtax internet fee and HOA impact. People that rent their units on their own are required to pay the HOA the impact fee. What I am able to do is offer one night free. This make my rate better but I still collect all the fees required. We try to keep our HOA fees low and by collecting impact fee from renters we reduce the amt of the HOA. Of course there are owners that do no follow thee rules.