🚀 go-pugleaf

Mark Anderson <mea@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
> In article kmz@lavabit.com says...
>> > My place isn't a condo or HOA and there are no private covenants.  The 
>> > only reason I remembered this is because the lawyer read the passage  
>> > like a priest reading me a prayer -- as if he was required by law to 
>> > read this.  I suspect it was either a city of Chicago or Cook county 
>> > thing -- I can't remember since it was a very very long time ago.  
>> 
>> Are you sure it wasn't a condition of your mortgage? Mine is very clear 
>> that it's a residential mortgage, not for rental or income-generating 
>> property.
>
> It could have been a condition of the mortgage -- I never thought of it 
> that way.  My place does do rentals but the passage made it clear in so 
> many words that the tenants had to live a minimum of one month blah blah 
> blah.  It took me awhile to put two and two together -- that they didn't 
> want me to hotel it. 
>
> Now that you got me thinking in that direction I might have an answer.  
> At the time my neighborhood was considered a blight zone, so much so I 
> got special deals on loans for moving here.  Even got a free (really 
> free) refi because of this.  There might have been a rule to hammer this 
> point to all new owners of rental property in "blight zones" so they 
> don't turn their apartments into SROs.   That would make sense.

yeah, special programs like that tend to have such restrictions in exchange
for the subsidy you were getting on the fees and possibly the rate as well.