I'm wondering if you can help advise on this situation.My mother currently resides in a property located in Los Angeles County.

Quote from @Ven Bud: After hearing to lot of bp episodes on negative cash flow, I have a question.I am currently living in my primary residence and planning to purchase an investment property, and obviously it is going to be a negative cashflow (bay area), but I am of the opinion that as long as the rent on the investment property is atleast going to be greater than my current primary residence mortgage it can still considered as positive cash flow investment.The investment property is going to be in a much better location (for office commute, bay area proximity) than my primary residence.

They get a higher return since they are covering housing cost, have the $250k per spouse primary residence deduction in gains, is a savings account, higher leverage position, lower interest rate possible, will pay more premium for location, etc.House might be overpriced for REITs but not for home owners.  

For the son to qualify for the $250k exclusion, I believe he would most likely need to meet the ownership and use test, meaning he needs to own and live in the home as his primary residence for at least two of the last five years before the sale.

As a KS resident, KS will tax 100% of your income, no matter where it is sourced to. 

My current asset allocation based on age and risk tolerance not counting my primary residence is 70% stocks, 20% RE, 10% cash/bond type vehicles. 

FHA loans require living in the home as your primary residence for 1 year after purchase.

Investment Info:Single-family residence buy & hold investment.

Never force the numbers—if they don’t add up, the property isn’t a good fit.

Avail sends this to the resident, collects rent and deposits it into our account.