There is an implied threat that, if you don't use their repair service, you will have to pay again for an inspection after the repairs.

Normally the threat of destroying their credit is enough to change their mind assuming you are not dealing with C/D class tenants.

Although it was only a stones throw from the ocean,  it was the marsh-land to the south that was a threat and seemed to come alive in past winter months.Now this property was NOT in the flood zone, not yet. 

- As far as requiring renters insurance, it mitigates the threat of a lawsuit. 

I have in the past set up my own LlC's so that's not a problem, but I do not know how to organize a structure to have the managing LlC's be the one that has no assets and would be the one under threat of a lawsuit etc.

Is it not negligent for them to provide inadequate shielding or conduit on the power wires to protect against basic and well known threats from the environment?

Gotterdammerung: A Very Serious Legal Threat.It alleges that cooperation and compensation is an anti-trust violation that results in consumer harm, and seeks an injunction against forcing home sellers to pay the commissions of the buyer agent.https://notorious-rob.com/2019/03/gotterdammerung-a-very-serious-legal-threat/

Is that agent being extra cautious or is this a viable threat to walk away from a wholesale deal with a lot of meat on the bone?

It's a good question for an attorney (which I am not).You could try to institute a late fee policy after the fact, before the lease is up, by notifying the tenant, but until you can actually change the lease (when it's up for renewal) it will be an empty threat - I don't believe you'd be able to evict if the tenant didn't pay the late fees.Further, I've been told in the past, and it seemed to be corroborated in the few evictions I've done, that in Rhode Island you normally cannot evict for unpaid late fees anyway - you can only evict for unpaid rent.So it's important that, should you decide to use late fees, you specify in the lease that any funds received get applied FIRST to unpaid late fees, bounced check fees, etc. and only LASTLY to rent.

Because they put in the necessary investments, the park was saved and those people whose homes were threatened where saved.That investment followed the typical path of raised rents and then a sale in less then three years for a 19.2% annual return.But.. the buyers (and current owners) are going to shut down the park and convert it to mixed family homes, so the threat is back.