I think what Matt Mason referred to was not the Article of the CA constitution limiting property taxes to 1%, but Proposition 13 -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1978), which limits the ability of the assessor to reassess the value of your property for property tax purposes... so if you purchased something in 1980 for $100,000 and its now worth $2,000,000 in 2013, your property taxes will be based on the $100,000 purchase price, plus limited annual increases -- they cannot just reassess your property based on its fair market value.

It is a very attractive proposition and I am looking how to best structure the partnership / equity buy out.

Maybe towhomes are simply a bad proposition to invest in by you. 

If other houses don't have fences and yours does, you have value proposition that just might help you rent the house faster and to a better quality tenant.

So with the cigarette smell it's an all or nothing proposition getting It out to lease to a non-smoker.In warmer climates the smoker will go outside.

That is the point that Jay was making.Some people always leave it to last minute, others need that wake-up call they are on the verge of losing their house before taking action, others have had other pressing issues to deals with in their personal life(divorce, death, etc) before dealing with their tax affairs, others simply don't have the money to pay for the tax liability (but there'd still be  the option of selling the house, if it is worth something)In my opinion, I am not convinced your proposition (at 10% of the house value) would be compelling enough for homeowners to hand you their keys.

“the Robinhood/Acorns/Betterment of residential real estate”.Our value proposition to landlords is mainly:i) You can liquidate part of your property at any time, thus accessing capital otherwise ‘trapped’ in your property which you can then spend however you like, including rolling into purchasing your next investment propertyFor example: sell 10% of 400k property for 40k cashii) Not only can you get liquidity, you can proportionately liquidate your property for an equivalent above market rates, as investors are willing to pay a premium for access and liquidity.For example: sell 10% of your 400k property for 45k (not 40k)This obviously creates complications - especially around rental yields and expenses, so we are looking for opinions and feedback from landlords like yourselves on the below: If you retained full rental income but also fully covered all expenses as if you were 100% owner, is the option to partially liquidate your property generally appealing (point i above)?

And with proposition 13 his taxes are very low.You can view it any way you want but I would say guy number two has a great investment.

This has been one of the most informative books on rental properties in my opinion.What do you think about the proposition of the landlord registration? 

If it won't sell, it's a mismatched value proposition.