Put some nice landscaping around them to up the environment, then as other pads turn over you have set a new standard of quality.What you are experiencing is, in my opinion, a fundamental flaw in the RTA.

A good PM can trump any flawed business process but there are good PMs where that misalignment does not exist; so, there is no reason to test it.  

@Ben Leybovich, I intended my comments to draw out their obvious flaw - because Daniel gave us NO reference point when coming up with his "is $600/m capex right?"

What you are describing as a "flaw" isn't a flaw...it's a restriction or limitation based on the market you are investing in.  

Due diligence uncovers something that most everyone agrees makes this a bad investment.I have invested in “3”, “4” and “5” deals.

But I wanted to see if my logic is flawed.

The contract is tainted, not enforceable, not valid.Then you go promote this lame contract as being a good and enforceable asset to sell, your product is flawed, but your buyer pays good money expecting a good contract. 

They don't even have an eviction order at the time of that writing so it could be another 9k as she plays the system.When i read the link that Roy N. posted, the name she gave the landlords was not "NINA WILLIS", so they were given fraudulent identity by Nina; had they done the proper due diligence in performing background checks / screening, that is something that should have become uncovered and thus they would have been able to decline that tenant application regardless of the name used.  

Unless there's some underlying flaw with the property or the price, 50% of list price is a waste of time in 99.9% of cases and will probably not even get a response.

I'm not going to address the mechanics of the problem.The primary concern here is a flaw, that you are willing to remedy.