In many markets there is no way you are going to get as high as 1%. Never mind hitting 1.5% as someone suggested.
Now, you can conclude that the market is not for you and look somewhere else. That would mean that many investors in CA could not consider anything in the state (at least not the coastal sections of the state).
In some markets break even cash flow is a dream. The way to reduce the risk it to put more cash into the property.
Most investors use debt because they have to. That said the debt also provides leverage so if the property goes up in value they obtain a better return on their equity. When you look at total return it means that the investment can do very well even if the rent was not so good.
Your raw land is an example. You paid property taxes each year is my guess. You also did not have any income from the land. Is that correct? Not even close to the 1% rule yet you appear to have made a very good return. With that sort of logic some people buy SFRs and expect to make up with appreciation what they are not getting in cash flow returns.
Should you compete with such investors? That is your call. If you are in a high priced market it is hard not to complete unless you do something different than what they are doing (rehab, commercial, very large down payments).
For many reasons I invest out of my area. That lets me pick locations where I can get the cash flow I want or where I believe there will be good appreciation. My style is not to be directly hands on for all of my investment properties. They happen to span 11 time zones so there is no way I could be directly hands on in all cases.
1% is something to look for. It is not a rule and it is not required. It is just a way to quickly decide if a property might be worth looking at. There are other factors that can be more important to investors.
John Corey