They walked away from their leases, took FEMA money to move (and maybe even replace some "damaged" possessions, and are now living in new housing on the taxpayers dime. 

yes but it probably would be cheaper to replace the stove. 

For instance, the latest regulation in my state starts: "830 CMR 64G.1.1 repeals and replaces the regulation formerly titled as "Establishments Subject to the Room Occupancy Excise" and reflects the statutory changes enacted by St. 2018, c. 337 and St. 2019, c. 5."

Basically, from what I've seen (and this is purely anecdotal), they're not really going to go out past one, maybe two miles, unless there simply is no truly comparable property.

I think it's a great strategy to replace the BRRRR strategy for entry level investors who need number of cash flowing property to replace their 9 to 5s. 3.

I can build cheaper than I could replace but there is a time and stress factor to consider.

@Howard Cheng, Qualified and non-qualified use only applies to the period of time you owned your replacement property (the converted property). 

1. coaching- all of the "coaches" were newbies themselves with about 1 year of experience and about 1 deal under their belts and they always disappear after 2-3 months and get replaced with new "coaches".2. networking- they have a FB group, populated primarily by other newbies. go there to answer questions, and it's likely you'll get other newbies saying "good question". there are lots of newbies hoping to get into a deal, but who wants to put together a team where every single person is brand new with no experience?

From a pure investment standpoint, I hate the party pooper but I fear that, if you want to do property development in Tulum, you are too late to the party.

When you say the older vintage properties cash flow better I’m concerned you’re focusing in on properties  in areas that are below today’s replacement cost but in areas that cannot absorb the required capex.