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 will give you enough information to be dangerous.

THAT is dangerous!

Someone else has warned about out of state investing and I would be very careful as you are quite a distance away so there is increased danger due to distance.

Holding onto a property merely for tax considerations is a dangerous gamble.

You are relying on guests to properly build and control a fire.There is no way I would expect guests to be making a fire and keeping in in control.If you are in the Rocky Mountain west, fire danger is a real thing and one stray spark from some green wood popping could create a wild fire.

Knowledge is great but in my opinion it’s useless if you’re not actively using it, and it could be very dangerous if you’re accessing wrong or old information to solve new problems. 

Most of the bigger companies will turn it away due to level of danger and blight in the area.