More over due to fact it's just appreciation/equity play's, adding an amplification to that risk, and now with threats to active income, yet another amplification to risk factor. 

We did one smart thing--we financed with long-term debt and we used low leverage (60% +/-) so we have a wide margin of safety and no threat of a loan maturity until 2031, so we have plenty of time to ride this out until the next market cycle. 

My take is that predatory practices and threats must be controlled, and housing quality must be enforced.

If tenant B is leaving at the end of the month, then that threat is gone. 

Artificial limits that aren't based in reality have the negative unintended consequences that end up doing the opposite of what the "advocates" and politicians claim will happen.Third, and this has been the crux of the whole issue for me, let's just look at real examples of what has happened when "rent control" (which can take many forms not just the threat of using tax breaks) measures have been implemented. 

However, if the nearby high-risk area poses too great a threat to perceived safety and could potentially deter quality tenants or future buyers, it's probably too close for comfort.

Not a threat, I have tasked my lawyer with this and they are scanning the net for stolen content.

It'll calm any nerve China has about attacking Taiwan, and may even lead any notion of that threat falling adrift.

It’s unclear what percentage of Scoutpads business went through MBD, but the disruption was an existential threat to the startup.

I consider the triple threat to be money, time, and experience.