However the permitting costs, time involved, and (this being in seattle) the extreme anti-landlord policies in place there means I have little incentive to do so.   

It was just no credit history because they were anti-debt kind of people. 

If the politics at the location where you want to invest in has a pro-tenant/anti-landlord political leaning, then you should think very hard about investing there as such locations only get harder and harder for landlords as these type of laws usually get worse, not better over time. 

(You confirmed something that has been floating in my mind for sometime now.)I often read about all these "creative" options and hustler-approaches to finding a "deal" but often times the things I find are in such poor quality that any sort of rehab (something I too am not eager to do as I have a job) would make it more expensive to buy.I do wonder though, maybe it's just our market, at least in Northern California, comprised of a bunch of angry, anti-government, VC-money-dreaming techies (looks in mirror, haha) so perhaps the midwest reacts better to those letters. 

I'm not trying to get into a pissing contest with you because I know you're very passionate in your anti-California views since you've sold everything here and relocated to Arizona (or maybe it's the other way around).

Really good anti-pick, 10000+ codes but are expensive. 

They also passed an "anti mansion" rule limiting the size of new SFR homes to 2500sf, less ADU unit square footage, a small garage, and below grade space.   

But with the politics and anti-landlord policies such as rent control not going anywhere, I, too, decided to leave and purchase in the heart of Silicon Valley.

That's not an option here in NJ, lease renewal is mandatory per our "anti-eviction" statute.

Was there a financial interest paying bribes to make the lead ordinance so politicized and anti-landlord?