If you have a question about your teeth, would you rather ask the dentist or the butcher?

I had an S8 tenant, and she had no fear whatsoever about moving extra people in, getting a pit bull, calling the city when she wanted something I refused to provide and wasn't obligated to, etc.

It’s similar to us SF landlords that self-managed to cut our teeth and held on to the properties until the market allowed better deals to be found where we could cover property management costs.

It might reduce the impact when someone rear ends you, but it doesnt keep the bugs out of your teeth as you drive along.

This is what we call "teeth" and we've never had a problem since this clause has been in our lease. 2) You won't be able to control human behavior, in terms of the condition the departing tenants keep the home in. 

R-3 is good zoning, although COLA is big and bureacratic, the city's zoning code is not afraid of density whatsoever compared to many other cities with very weak efforts to provide by-right zones that achieve density. 

@Wayne Brooks  I think Assumable went the way of the dodo bird years ago.. at least I have not seen one in for ever.I acutally did one in Napa CA when I moved there from Palo Alto.. but it was like pulling teeth.. but were else was I going to get into a Napa valley home for 5k down  LOL.. best move I ever made

That being the case, there would be no redemption period whatsoever. 

Had to pull teeth with the PM at the end of November to find out what was going on, and he finally ended up posting a 72 hour notice on 12/2.  

Sounds like a problem tenant, but if this is a hard to rent area or your lease doesn’t have teeth for that then you might want to work something out.