short vs long term rentals

If your view really is that the market will remain soft or become even softer 1-year from now, just go ahead and sign a 1-year lease. When renewal time comes and if your view is correct, the landlord will be eager to have you stay and you'll have negotiating leverage for an even more attractive lease. What if you sign a 3 or 4 year lease and the market gets weaker after 1-year? You would have effectively locked yourself in at a higher rent.

I agree... though the move cost and aggravation is significant.

I am really seeking a 3-4 year lease, with tenant option to leave at any time after a year with significant written notice in advance.

I would pay extra (above the offers received) for this optionality/benefit.

think about from the owners point of view---you're not even willing to commit beyond the first year but they should? would you agree to that?

There is certainly a tradeoff... but an above-market rent would seem to be pretty attractive... especially for apartments that, in many cases, has been sitting empty since last year.

The reality is that I would likely stay in the apartment for the term of the lease... after spending significant money to furnish it.

then don't ask for the out unless you are willing to make it mutual. either way...even $500 a month extra wouldn't be enough to persuade me to go long on a rental for a property that I fundamentally want to sell.

Columbia - It has nothing to do with reciprocal commitments between owner and tenant. It's all a matter of where you think the market will go in the future. If the owner believes the market will continue to be soft, then it would totally make sense to sign a tenant for a 3-4 year lease at today's prices. By only allowing a tenant to stay for 1-year, owners are implicitly saying that they feel the market will be higher 1-year in the future.

In rough terms, the tradeoff is as follows: The owners will generally do 10-20% off of a stale ask for a one year rental... versus my offer of ask under the terms above. Much, much more than $500 per month.

In general, there seems to be an unwillingness to go beyond one year.

i guess because if you don't think the market will improve in a year, you'll sell now...not rent and wait for it to get worse. plus, human nature, a year seems "reasonable." more seems like forever.

10105,

I was in a similar situation, and we ended up just doing the 1-year thing & buying the furniture anyways, and all has worked out fine. It's important to understand what's behind the reluctance on the 1-year lease. If it's because they really want to sell, it's not a great situation because even though they probably won't get the price they want next year, they may be forced to sell financially, you might have people seeing the place while you're living there, etc. I.e., you don't want the hassle. On the other hand, to many owners, the apt is a huge part of their net worth, and they are just generally worried by having it tied up in the hands of a complete stranger for years. In this case, all will probably be fine.

Another idea is to propose a long-term lease with a significant early-termination option available to either side to reluctant owners (e.g., 3 months rent or whatever). If they don't go for it, it probably isn't a match. Personally, I wouldn't go down that route at all. Between understanding the owner's position between feedback from the broker and acris, I am willing to bear the risk of the random owner not wanting to rent any more.

I have seen a lot of landlords who will only give one year leases at first (to make sure you aren't batty) and then they give 2 year leases readily after the first one.

I see this with a *lot* of the medium-size property owners (say 25-50 apartments)