Tenant is at-fault Failure to pay rent Failure to cure a violation of the rental agreement Creating a nuisance or causing damage to the property Using the rental unit for an illegal purpose Failure to renew a similar rental agreement Failure to provide the landlord with reasonable access to the rental unit The person at the end of the lease term is a subtenant not approved by the landlordTenant is not at-fault The owner or immediate family member will move into the rental unit Resident manager will move into the rental unit when required by law or by an affordable housing covenant or regulatory agreement Demolition, substantial remodel, permanent removal from the rental market, or conversion to non-residential Government order to vacate HUD owns and is selling the property Residential Hotel being converted or demolished Conversion to affordable housing

It seems like a giant movie Octopus eating a grain of sand.All of this rigamoarol just to buy 3 or 4 SFH's.Wouldn't it just be simpler to own them yourself with your own money.Without all of the regulatory and financial overhead eating into the profits?

The regulatory environment is way better.

It is frustrating going through all this trouble; however, I have seen so many hack-job handyman home repairs over the years it is understandable to want regulatory oversight.  

So a $1M home could actually be less risky than a $300k home depending on your margins, whether it’s a tourism-only market vs somewhere you could also rent long term if the tourism market takes a nose dive, how favorable the regulatory environment will be over the next decades, etc.I personally would be hesitant to buy a home in a tourism-only market where my acquisition price implies razor thin profit margins - what happens if we hit a recession, people pull back on discretionary spending (vacations), and I can’t afford to lower prices bc I need to pay my mortgage?

But, as others have mentioned, the entire Poconos is in regulatory flux right now since that Pa supreme court decision this summer.

The following is from the MIchigan.gov Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs.  

Governments and, the courts, and the well meaning; seem to always fall victim to the law of unforeseen consequences that result from social engineering and regulatory overreach.

I think in some fashion you are implying the action or function is geocentric and that is not true for commercial banks from a regulatory standpoint outside of having the capacity to lend in a given market.  

It is a constantly evolving regulatory landscape and I've seen a few in real estate get in a bit of trouble with the FAA.