Look, just because you can't, which in truth is you don't or won't, has zero bearings on other persons ability to put in the work and make things happen. 

Overall, I think this is a good deal.Obviously, you’ll need to do your own due diligence as well—considering things like the area, tenant profiles, community growth, etc. 

I cannot go back and change it, it has zero impact on my decision making ability for real estate deals. 

And I feel the ideal portfolio can benefit from the diversification of both.I feel directly owned properties are great because they give me maximum control and the ability to tweak them exactly how I want.

Their ability to financially carry projects is incredibly important.

The location is prime—adjacent to a college that has experienced 37% population growth over the past five years.

It's awesome you are considering where you want to be and flexible with that.I'd look at your high growth markets, where there is a diversified economy, job growth, income growth, population growth, business friendly environment. 

They typically have a strong understanding of what their property is worth and how to market it to other investors with the ability to close the deal.

If your income exceeds $150,000, your ability to deduct passive losses from rental properties is limited, and any disallowed losses carry forward to future years under the passive activity loss rules.Yes, the deductions can accumulate and roll over year after year.

A win for you, is a win for them, because your growth is theirs as well.