At least in Silicon Valley, where I managed apts.  

@Joe Villeneuve  my comments are more directed towards the camp who's motto is" I just want cash flow and appreciation is icing on the Cake"  but its all a personal preference and risk tolerance and historic movement in RE values.And when your born and Raised in the Silicon Valley like myself and started in RE in 1975 I have seen the huge run ups.. so of course I just can't have anything but an appreciation bias for sure..   1975 home in Cupertino were I was raised my parents paid 25k for it.. today its worth close to 2 million and its just a Valley track house nothing special 3/ and 2 with a bonus room and 2 car garage on a 6k sq ft lot...and what you don't have in the bay area is with the very very tiny exception you have NO area that devalued at all...

When I was managing apts in Silicon Valley, we raised rents once a year - except the year the market crashed.  

As long as the college/university is going strong, there will be tenants who need housing.When I was managing a 26 unit building in Silicon Valley, and the market crashed, almost overnight we lost around 6 or 7 tenants. 

Sounds like your tenants have their priorities straight - pay the rent first :-)When the BF gets a job, they'll probably start using it.We had the opposite problem in the units I managed in Silicon Valley. 

$100 didn't sound "significant" to me, but I rented out units in Silicon Valley.  

Jessica, I rented apartments including utilities in Silicon Valley in CA.  

I was managing a 25 unit building in Silicon Valley when the market crashed.  

I rented to a lot of people from other countries when I managed a building in Silicon Valley. 

Granted this is in Silicon Valley where the rents are through the roof, and he does include utilities, but I don't think you need to pay any of the utilities for your manager.So, your manager costs you $525 in lost rent vs. $420 = only $125 more.It's my experience that property managers, in reality, cost much more than their 10% monthly fee.