Honestly ill pretend for a minute that the Director (excise and license) sits upon the Supreme Court Artifice of STR and was duly elected to interpret city regulations as law.

Can you interpret please.

Not to sound like I'm piling on, but here's my interpretation of what's been said so far @Jordan Williamson:- Tenant was probably marginal to begin with, but we've all looked over red flags in the past about tenants.

If you're shelling out $100K for a degree in interpretive dance... then I get your point.

I interpreted as a program for those new to the home buying process but now that you mentioned it I do recall them saying you can use their services if you've owned before as long as you don't own anything currently.

That means that you are in essence handing  your property to a 3rd property to manage or sell as they choose or your contract specifies and  you only receive interest payments for the entire term.In one interpretation those interest payments cover the interest payments  you make to another 3rd party who graciously loans you the funds you would have generated from the sale of the property.So I guess my doomsday thought is that if the one 3rd party didn't manage the property well or got sketchy with the property, or lost the property  in a down turn (we all know that will never happen right???) 

And if you hire professional help, then the cost is much higher, too.There is some room for interpretation on whether you must indeed take this route or can get away with simpler filing.

This clause alone is back door rent control because rent is a term of the lease so it could be interpreted by the courts that rent and length of time should be the same.  

@Mark Cruse, You interpret that as sensitive?

Since we've moved beyond the broker/bank selected appraiser times into the flip-a-coin-and-see-who-we-get stage, my interpretation of your article was to give notice that the buyer can indeed take some control of the situation.