I look at it as saving the rest of the existing members and myself headache. 

in a vast interview process with many steps before allowing someone to move in. a new roomie is an everyone-decision, not a landlord-only decision; if you're expecting people to co-exist in a space together (for longer than just a few months), you have to make sure they all have some things in common, or at minimum have the right expectations in terms of cleanliness and routine habits.someone working the night shift and someone else having a 5am rise-time, or someone who works from home in a call-center job is not going to jive well for example. and someone who doesnt handle conflict well is not going to jive with someone who is brutally honest and up front about issues. happy to go into more deets on how we do things if it will help. this can certainly be lucrative in terms of cash flow, but there are huge mud puddles i have stepped in over the years which i have had to learn to navigate.

Work with your commercial lender and see if you can self finance, by cross collateralizing your existing portfolio.

One lot has a 2 bed and one bath cottage that was an existing STR. 

You have acquired skills that are worth 500k, so maybe you can translate that into an adjacent career path and leverage your existing skills?

How can a individual existing property be moved out of partnership to a individual member without triggering capitol gains?

At this time the interest rates may make keeping your existing home a better option than times when rates have not risen as substantially.  

This is way more conservative than a lot of people I talk to and has definitely meant that I lost out on opportunities, but it gives me bigger peace of mind and in shifting markets I feel better prepared to adapt if need be. 

Letting your contractors (specifically if you have a GC) what the budget is and that the must notify you if a change order exists (versus they tell you after the work is completed). 

But ...The first thing I observed was the replacement cost portion of the quote, was, IMO, less than what it will actually cost to demolish the remains of the existing structure, pay for any hazardous waste removal following a catastrophic loss, and actually pay to replace the property in the event of a total loss, even though I used the quote feature to increase the replacement cost value by 20% (the maximum it would allow).