My main question is whether it makes more sense to go the seller financing route and pay off the principal in 8–10 years or stick with a standard 30-year loan.My thinking is that the tax deductions from a mortgage wouldn’t outweigh the potential equity I could gain over those 8–10 years.

Generally, a population of at least 300,000 is needed to capture their attention.

That's where most should be focusing their attention.

You get a deduction for the contribution, the gains grow tax-free and as long as you use the proceeds for health-related expenses the funds come out tax free as well. 

Going DIY and self-managing this type of asset from another state may not be an easy task for such a building and neighborhood, it needs more attention (and probably capital).Try an unconventional approach.

Although the study may increase the gain, the gain may be taxed at a much lower rate making it a beneficial investment.If a property is purchased with the intention to flip or own for a short period of time (less than 3 years), a cost segregation study may not be significant.Overall, as long as you intend to hold the investment property for greater than a year, the benefits of a cost segregation study should be considered.

Some thoughts to consider:If you sell now, you are unlikely to pay capital gains taxes as your first 250k (500k if married and filling jointly) aren't reported.Doing your first rental remotely is undesirable without 1.)

Thanks John for bringing that to my attention- creative financing.

They get a higher return since they are covering housing cost, have the $250k per spouse primary residence deduction in gains, is a savings account, higher leverage position, lower interest rate possible, will pay more premium for location, etc.House might be overpriced for REITs but not for home owners.  

I don't know the rules in the US, but in Canada, you can do that every 2 years and when you sell, you don't pay taxes on the capital gains.