Quote:
Originally Posted by rb233541
It's an interesting concept--more interesting to me than the current Sonder expansion that seems to be happening in the city. Sonder feels like a bubble to me. What happens in the event that Sonder goes under, is the apartment market suddenly flooded with a ton of apartment units that were previously essentially "hotel rooms"?
The whole thing is about who is carrying the risk--with Natiivo, I'd be curious what happens if your unit doesn't rent out. Does everyone in the building get a share of all income from rentals or is it on a per unit basis? With Sonder, I assume the apartment building is directly leasing a block of units to Sonder and Sonder bears the risk of a unit going unrented on any given evening.
|
Looks like in the current Natiivo's, owners can live there 100% of the time, rent it out 100% of the time or anywhere in between:
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/bus...231650118.html
"In contrast to the Niido rentals, which allowed renters to profit from short-term homesharing up to 180 days a year, Natiivo owners won’t have a cap for how long they can host guests.
“Our buyers have the flexibility and opportunity to live 100 percent of the time ... or have that investment and have that investment work for them,” Hernandez said."
If this came to DC, I would 100% do it. I am at my DC office enough that I have been flirting with buying a place. But can't really stand the idea of throwing down all that cash for it to sit idle 75% of the time. I can't/shouldn't afford a single family home in DC that I could more easily Airbnb, and I really don't like the idea of illegally Airbnbing a one-bedroom condo in violation of board rules. This would be perfect.