The Plaza

[downtowninvestor]

I'm both. I am not sure if I am going to keep the Solaire unit for myself or my 55W unit. The other unit will be rented out. I own other property downtown too.

I plan on renting my unit as well....how do you find tennents if you dont mind me asking?

[FrigginGr8est]

I plan on renting my unit as well....how do you find tennents if you dont mind me asking?

I havent had to find a tenant yet (my other unit in TPC was already rented and I kept the current tenant). I plan on advertising in The Sentinel and Orlando Weekly. My friend owns many properties in Orlando and that what he does. He also has connections with a company that does background checks on potential tenants. I find the convention in Flordia where the landlord pays real estate agents to find tenants distastful and I refuse to do it. Here in New York the tenant pays the fee and therfore you get listed with all of them for free.

[sunshine]

why wouldnt people close on their units, isnt this supposed to be an instant money maker like the Metropolitan?

[MAntoniazzi]

I find the convention in Flordia where the landlord pays real estate agents to find tenants distastful and I refuse to do it. Here in New York the tenant pays the fee and therfore you get listed with all of them for free.

I guess it would be like wise for anybody moving up to New York, however, since you are buying here in FL start getting use to the rules!

[bulldogger]

Oh yeah, and thanks for buying more than you need in a market in which you don't reside. Thanks for jacking up the prices for all the residents here. Much appreciated.

[Go Gators]

Oh yeah, and thanks for buying more than you need in a market in which you don't reside. Thanks for jacking up the prices for all the residents here. Much appreciated.

What he said. Thanks.

[FrigginGr8est]

Oh yeah, and thanks for buying more than you need in a market in which you don't reside. Thanks for jacking up the prices for all the residents here. Much appreciated.

You hurt my feelings. That's it, I'm leaving the forum never to return.

[Javalady1]

What he said. Thanks.

Investors are entreprenuers. They are visionary and foward thinking. The growth of the nation has been driven by entreprenuers for ages. Not to mention, we are a democracy based on free enterprise. Without investors, many many projects would never get out of the ground in the first place. Growth is contagious. Investors are a big part of the reason why you have the great city that you have today.

[bulldogger]

Investors are entreprenuers. They are visionary and foward thinking. The growth of the nation has been driven by entreprenuers for ages. Not to mention, we are a democracy based on free enterprise. Without investors, many many projects would never get out of the ground in the first place. Growth is contagious. Investors are a big part of the reason why you have the great city that you have today.

Investors are entreprenuers? In this case, I would say the developers are the entreprenuers.

What does a democracy have to do with glutony? Besides, we also live in a partially socialist country anyway. And free enterprise system? Somewhat. Monopolies are part of a free enterprise system. They are usually stopped by our government. We have a 'modified' free enterprise system.

The personal investor buying up condos are not the big investment banks that put these projects up. If there are waits to get into the reasonably priced condos, then someone else could have bought a home for themselves and lived in it. Instead, we have a lot of condos in downtown that are owned by people that will never live there and will not care for the buildings. I hope the condo fees keep these buildings clean, because we all know that neighborhoods with high rental rates are not kept up. Look at Parramore as a prime example. The investor in this scenario has also driven the price up because it has created a false demand. It is what has helped inflate the bubble that Bush seems to think is done deflating.

Pop.

[Javalady1]

Investors are entreprenuers? In this case, I would say the developers are the entreprenuers.

What does a democracy have to do with glutony? Besides, we also live in a partially socialist country anyway. And free enterprise system? Somewhat. Monopolies are part of a free enterprise system. They are usually stopped by our government. We have a 'modified' free enterprise system.

The personal investor buying up condos are not the big investment banks that put these projects up. If there are waits to get into the reasonably priced condos, then someone else could have bought a home for themselves and lived in it. Instead, we have a lot of condos in downtown that are owned by people that will never live there and will not care for the buildings. I hope the condo fees keep these buildings clean, because we all know that neighborhoods with high rental rates are not kept up. Look at Parramore as a prime example. The investor in this scenario has also driven the price up because it has created a false demand. It is what has helped inflate the bubble that Bush seems to think is done deflating.

Pop.

Although I agree with some of what you've said, without the demand (some of which comes from investors), growth would be much slower or non-existent in some cases.

I'm glad this is a forum where many can share many thoughts and opinions.

[Go Gators]

Investors are entreprenuers. They are visionary and foward thinking. The growth of the nation has been driven by entreprenuers for ages. Not to mention, we are a democracy based on free enterprise. Without investors, many many projects would never get out of the ground in the first place. Growth is contagious. Investors are a big part of the reason why you have the great city that you have today.

Investors or speculators?

[MAntoniazzi]

Investors or speculators?

Thank You.

If these people are indeed investors we would not be seeing all the units in UPTOWN, Park North, Metropolitan and soon to be Solaire up for sale. These are flippers/speculators. The past few years negated what every real estate investment school teaches, people were day trading real estate.

Now I do think developers are also at fault by not truly controlling the amount of investors that they let buy into these units.

BTW, this message does not pertain to the true investor out there, you know who you are.

[FrigginGr8est]

Investors are entreprenuers? In this case, I would say the developers are the entreprenuers.

What does a democracy have to do with glutony? Besides, we also live in a partially socialist country anyway. And free enterprise system? Somewhat. Monopolies are part of a free enterprise system. They are usually stopped by our government. We have a 'modified' free enterprise system.

The personal investor buying up condos are not the big investment banks that put these projects up. If there are waits to get into the reasonably priced condos, then someone else could have bought a home for themselves and lived in it. Instead, we have a lot of condos in downtown that are owned by people that will never live there and will not care for the buildings. I hope the condo fees keep these buildings clean, because we all know that neighborhoods with high rental rates are not kept up. Look at Parramore as a prime example. The investor in this scenario has also driven the price up because it has created a false demand. It is what has helped inflate the bubble that Bush seems to think is done deflating.

Pop.

I thought you were kidding around, but I guess you werent. My condos are MY business, not yours. You could have bought one just like I did, and guess what, someone will be living in my condo, a renter who deserves to live downtown like anyone else. Because of developers turning rental buildings into condos, there is a huge shortage of rentals downtown. I do not buy my condos to flip. I never sold a single unit to this day. To say that someone that invests does not care about the building is insane. If the building goes down the tubes, so does your investment. I also bought with the intention of keeping one for myself. But, why do I have to expain myself to you or anyone. Cry your sour grapes socialist BS on someone elses shoulders.

[neon9]

I thought you were kidding around, but I guess you werent. My condos are MY business, not yours. You could have bought one just like I did, and guess what, someone will be living in my condo, a renter who deserves to live downtown like anyone else. Because of developers turning rental buildings into condos, there is a huge shortage of rentals downtown. I do not buy my condos to flip. I never sold a single unit to this day. To say that someone that invests does not care about the building is insane. If the building goes down the tubes, so does your investment. I also bought with the intention of keeping one for myself. But, why do I have to expain myself to you or anyone. Cry your sour grapes socialist BS on someone elses shoulders.

I understand where you and the 'other side' are coming from. For anyone who doubts the forces behind our economy, I suggest you read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. It's a bit much at times for a generally liberal person such as myself, but there are many good points made in it.

If the government regulates sales of condos and otherwise private property too much, then what you have is public housing. Which currently is not supported by the majority of the population (on a widescale basis), much less do they want to live there. If it wasn't for people with money (investors) most of the projects we talk about here would not happen, unless the government builds them. Do you want to live in government provided housing?

Per the recent article in the Orlando Weekly, there are people paying 500-600 dollars a month to live in condemned trailers on OBT. If a middle class person can not get together the money nor provide the credit score for a condo or home mortgage, then maybe they would be better served at this time by renting a downtown condo, provided by what is basically a small business owner?

All that being said I totally understand the uneasiness with the 'flipper',. However, I think the huge homebuilder who constructs thousands of new homes miles from any services is the worse of the 2.

(and as you mentioned, you're the one taking the risk. if it doesn't work out, are you going to go running to the government for help? is anyone else going to help you out since you performed a service for the community?)

Edited December 22, 2006 by neon9

[JFW657]

Investors are entreprenuers? In this case, I would say the developers are the entreprenuers.

Why can't they both be? Who's to say one is an entrepeneur and the other isn't? They both fit the definition.

What does a democracy have to do with glutony?

Hate to pop your balloon, but America was buit on and thrives upon gluttony. And greed. And materialism. And self interest. And a lust for money. Etc. Etc. Etc. That's what capitalism is all about.

....we have a lot of condos in downtown that are owned by people that will never live there and will not care for the buildings. I hope the condo fees keep these buildings clean, because we all know that neighborhoods with high rental rates are not kept up. Look at Parramore as a prime example.

Comparing the center of downtown to Parramore is a bit of a stretch. That area has always been a blighted slum and the landlords in that area let their property remain run down because they don't make much in rent to begin with, and even if they did put money into repairs, it would just get trashed again.

The luxury condos going up east of I4 are a completely different story, and the risk of them becomming blighted eye sores is next to zero. Unless of course something disastrous happened to the entire economy, then that problem would be everywhere.

As far as a poster boasting about how many condos he owns is concerned, it sounds to me like a case of a braggart who needs to pump himself up by trying to making people envy him. Who cares?

Edited December 22, 2006 by JFW657

[Boomer136]

Its easy to define the middle ground here. Its the space between 'forward thinking' and 'unrealistic expectations.' Its that hard to pin down area between 'positioning for a positive return on investment' and 'greed'. Easy to define, hard to see, at least until it all goes pear shaped.

If one is a socialist who believes that there is a bubble, one could think s/he would be happy. Many more condos than needed are built and bought, the bubble bursts, prices plummet, but only the average. Prices drop downtown so outliers move in with the price point they can handle, freeing up their old place and everyone moves up like hand me downs in a big family. Apartments that went condo, start going back to apartments, increasing the desire for owners to get out, etc. etc. All financed by the mistake of vanity, greed, and unrealistic expectations.

Some investors are better off not getting into the details of running a business, just because one is successful in one area doesn't mean one will do well in another. Don't fault the ones who check in but leave the real work to folks who know what they are about, they may have a better self-concept than the ones sticking their noses in the soup everyday.

We all have our parts to play. There is not one system that best does the job, except flexibility. Where does socialism have a place I faintly hear from the back of the room? Commuter Rail going through Winter Park perhaps?

[Boomer136]

Why can't they both be? Who's to say one is an entrepeneur and the other isn't? They both fit the definition.

oh I love etymology! I am such the nerd.

While an investor certainly takes on risk associated with an enterprise, the entrepreneur has the additional burdens of organizing and managing, making the terms not synonymous.

[spenser1058]

I always get back to Justice Potter Stewart's definition of porn: "I know it when I see it." That will probably be true here - if the units fill up relatively quickly, they were investors; however, if they sit empty, maybe they were speculators. In our relatively market-based economy, too much of a good thing is part of our history (from railroads to dotcoms). Politics came along to fix those excesses after the Gilded Age and the Roaring '20s and then had to undo overregulation in the 70s and 80s (both Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan had a hand in that, so it's hardly a party-line situation).

Locally, downtown condos have often been ill-fated. Park Lake Towers, 530 E. Central, Reeves House and The Renaissance (Lake Ivanhoe) all had problems making a go of it during their original development (530 required a workout specialist to get it going again, as I recall). It will be interesting to see if things go differently this time around with a whole lot more product coming on line at once.

Edited December 22, 2006 by spenser1058

[JFW657]

oh I love etymology! I am such the nerd.

While an investor certainly takes on risk associated with an enterprise, the entrepreneur has the additional burdens of organizing and managing, making the terms not synonymous.

So, investors don't engage in organizing and managing their investments?

[Boomer136]

JFW657,

Your argument is not with me, but I'll bite. You may use equivocation if you like, but thats all this discussion is about.

Investors may or may not "organize and manage" their investments, which simply put is committing money in order to earn a financial return. Yes "manage" means both to achieve one's purpose or to work upon or try to alter for a purpose. In this sense "manage" can be applied to both, however for the heck of it neither manage if you mean the action and paces of a trained riding horse. The word organize is meant as to arrange elements into a whole of interdependent parts, an investor is one of those elements that an entrepreneur organizes. I suppose an investor can have a card file of where his/her money is, but that's not what is meant. Again for poohs and giggles, chances are neither entrepreurs nor investors are out forming labor unions.

In short, entrepreneurs are different from investors. I think most people recognize this, with terms such as "managing partner" and "line producer" seperating the folks who do both the day to day affairs of the business they are expecting a ROI from and putting money into a project, and the "silent partners" and "suckers", er... sorry using insider entertainment terms... eh.... "below the line producers".

I in no way wish to denegrate the role of investor. The two roles are simply different, neither more inherently moral or prestigious in my way of thinking. I, for one, do not think investors have anything to be ashamed of, and have no need of cloaking themselves as something they are not.

Other nerds may find this interesting:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/equivoqu.html

[jack]

Okay. I always saw investors and speculators as two different groups. Speculators/flippers seem to care lees about the property because they are in it to make as much as possible as fast as possible. The investor sees their inventory as long term solutions. Speculators buy property, slap some paint on it and sell it for 20% more. They tend to not rent out their units. But in downtown, I think that there are less speculators then it seems.

It does suck that it seems that investors and speculators drove up the price of real estate but so did families relocating fron NY and California, so did the sucesss of our business community, and you can blame our damn nice weather and proximity to the beaches.

More government controls. That gives me the shivers.

[Go Gators]

Cry your sour grapes socialist BS on someone elses shoulders.

Im probably one of the most conservative, free market supporters you will ever meet. Were not crying "socialist BS," were crying artificial inflation by people who buy a unit, and automatically put it back on the market for 100's of thousand dollars more. Or others will charge outrageous rents that definitely are not determined by sheer supply and demand. But, if thats not what you are doing, then dont defend it.

More government controls. That gives me the shivers.

I completely agree, and thats not the point Im trying to make by any means.

Edited December 22, 2006 by Go Gators

[neon9]

I always get back to Justice Potter Stewart's definition of porn: "I know it when I see it." That will probably be true here - if the units fill up relatively quickly, they were investors; however, if they sit empty, maybe they were speculators. In our relatively market-based economy, too much of a good thing is part of our history (from railroads to dotcoms). Politics came along to fix those excesses after the Gilded Age and the Roaring '20s and then had to undo overregulation in the 70s and 80s (both Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan had a hand in that, so it's hardly a party-line situation).

I like the more recent example of the overbuilding of gas stations. Now we've got underground tanks and huge paved corners at every major intersection. I always there was a public safety/health reason to regulate those.

But I don't see how someone can say they are for the 'free market', BUT they think people don't have the right to invest or 'charge too much' for whatever they own/produce. If they don't have that right, what is the point? The market should correct that.

[Go Gators]

But I don't see how someone can say they are for the 'free market', BUT they think people don't have the right to invest or 'charge too much' for whatever they own/produce. If they don't have that right, what is the point? The market should correct that.

Inflation.

Edited December 22, 2006 by Go Gators

[Javalady1]

The market should correct that.

Exactly. People can set the list price to whatever they want to sell or rent, but unless someone engages in that contract, it really doesn't matter.