Just because some people have popularized an unethical, dangerous and marginally legal/illegal approach to using a certain strategy does NOT make that strategy itself unethical, dangerous or illegal when used correctly. 

Then it can be dangerous in regard to several factors.

Remember, the notion of amassing wealth without investing is a dangerous myth perpetuated by self-proclaimed experts.

The dangers of relying on getting your generic “what-if” questions answered here is that it has a high chance of being answered by someone (in another state) guessing what would occur.In CA (my state), mortgages are generally not callable merely on death of borrower.

Staying in first time homebuyer territory is smart for the quick sale.  

To persuade parents of the risks involved, educate them on the BRRR method, explaining how each phase works and why it's less dangerous than it appears.

But option A seems dangerous to property as it seems shifts the ground damaging the foundation and building as mentioned like below>>Designed to prevent the ground from shifting.From the nearest wall of the building this retention wall is at about 15 feet away.At one point i thought of putting some gravel for better water passage but dropped that idea as it cost money and becomes more harder to maintain by tenant or me in futurePlease advise

This places a spotlight on dangers of the loopy schemes these gurus are teaching.

One of the policies we saw had the breed exclusion that said something like... the breed exclusion applies if the dog breed is declared a dangerous breed in that city, state, etc or any surrounding municipality.Literally the city next to the one in question has a dog breed ban that they don't really enforce but as far as I'm concerned would open the door to a dog bite liability claim being denied.

THAT is dangerous!