Therefore we look out for their best interest as well as the help, safety and welfare of the public/anyone whom will utilize the space(s).  

Due to safety concerns, this often shows up in their report, but is "inexpensive" to repair. 

If it's not a safety hazard, I would be inclined to just remove it. 

A note buyer who overpays does not have the same type of safety net.5.

Personally I like the idea of having a few properties owned outright , simply for safety / risk reduction to keep the wheels turning in tough times and there will always be tough times or massive expenses if your in this game long enough .

My experience in Philly is that the exact law is not relevant and if you ever ended up in court a judge will find you at fault for not spending the $175 to ensure the safety of a child.

Unless it's a safety issue, hazardous condition, or a health risk, they should quit failing houses for silly stuff. 

You can’t screen it out, you can only build operating modes to streamline the cost of turnover.

The oxygen sensor will shut it down if the air gets too thin for safety and then the electric will kick on.

I guess Im just getting into that analysis-paralysis mode and am just iffy on starting.