Even if you rent at a break even or slight loss, if you could have 3 years of rental income offsetting your mortgage while realizing 3-6% appreciation, could be worth it, especially if you think appreciating for this area will exceed national averages.

In my opinion, it is better to get a property rented quickly (even if it means reduced rent) than it is to get it rented for the highest amount possible. 

**Cash Flow & Reliability**: The cash flow can be great, especially since the rent is typically above the average for the area, and it’s guaranteed by the government.

After closing, work on increasing your income, reducing debt, and preparing for a second mortgage.

You didn't mention where you are operating, but depending on average home prices, I think you'll be ok.For instance if we're talkin $500k homes, and if you will get a 2.5% commission, split that 50/50 with your Broker, you will end up with $6,250 per sale, right?

My building is averaging about 20k per unit.

Qualified applicants that get priced out of rapidly improving neighborhoods will move into these areas but it seems like they aren’t biting.High quality, lower income applicants aren’t stupid and they won’t settle.If you think this area is a losing proposition, I would think about selling and not banking on hope.In regard to vacancy, I don’t consider any area that has average occupancy (economic and physical) below 95%You might pay more for a better area but time will treat you right and you’ll make a ton of money in equity over the long term.

I guess they have more land to build there so it might reduce the appreciation there?

Account ClosedI recommend that have a consultation with your tax accountant and/or financial advisor on ways to reduce your taxes. 

The problem with averages is that a large number of high or low value properties can skew the figures either way.