Thinking about moving two market rentals onto vouchers to stop the turnover bleeding

ember, the payment standard is the maximum the authority will use in calculating the subsidy for that bedroom size and area. The contract rent also has to pass the authority's rent reasonableness test against comparable unassisted units, so the approved rent can land below the standard. Confirm both figures with the authority for the specific unit rather than working from the published sheet.

keystone, your comparison is the right one and it's the reason the program exists for landlords. You're trading rent maximization for payment reliability, and at 20% annual loss to vacancy and turn the trade is heavily in your favor on that unit. Two costs your math hasn't priced yet.

First, time to first payment. Between finding a voucher holder, the authority's inspection, and contract execution, the unit can sit longer than a market listing before money arrives, and the assistance payment generally begins after the unit passes and the contract is signed. Some authorities move in two weeks and some take six. Ask yours for their current average and get it in writing if they'll give it.

Second, the recurring inspection. It's a condition standard applied on a schedule rather than a one-time hurdle. Budget for small annual items and for the possibility that the housing portion is abated until a failed item is corrected and re-verified. Landlords who operate well in the program treat that as a maintenance calendar rather than a surprise.

On your listing question, the two paths differ in preparation. Getting the unit to a condition that passes inspection is work you'd want done anyway for a market tenant, so doing it before you list costs you little optionality.

Your 20% loss figure is the whole argument and I'd stress it before I acted on it. Four tenants in 26 months at $1,240 in a market where the payment standard is $1,150 suggests the unit or the block is at the bottom of that submarket, and unit quality drives both your turnover and your inspection risk.

So I'd underwrite it two ways. Voucher case: rent $1,120 approved, six weeks to first payment this time, then five years of near-full occupancy with $800 a year of inspection-driven maintenance. Market case: keep $1,240, assume the turnover pattern continues because nothing about the unit changed, and repeat the $3,000.

On those the voucher case wins by a wide margin over five years, and it wins mostly on the vacancy line rather than on rent. The number that could flip it is time to first payment, because a ten week gap on the front end eats the first year of the gain. Get that answer from your authority before you decide, and ask a couple of local landlords who already participate what they actually experienced rather than what the office quotes.