At this point, it's not even just about creating a passive income so I can quit my job, it's more about just getting it done because the odds are so unfavorable and I want to prove to myself that I can do it.

And your answers for trash collection and having a tenant take care of maid service and other day to day motel operations will also be viewed unfavorably.

I don't believe so, is it not more unfair for me to take on a un-satisfactory tenant strictly because they are experiencing an unfavorable situation and leave a hard working one with a good job and great references out in the cold.If the the provincial government wanted landlords to take bigger risks on sub-par tenants they should make it easier for us to take legal recourse.There my 2 cents now I await the angry response :-)

It seems like this has worked for some people on biggerpockets that live in unfavorable investment areas.

For example, I’ve heard one podcast host (who has received some pretty unfavorable reviews on here recently for his turnkey business) say things like, “We buy properties for $50,000 that cash flow $700 or $800 per month.”

Every single person who reacts unfavorably to a post about a fictitious Bro is just deciding that the post is about them.

Having said that, I'm do realize there can be some good small deals, but the risk, I believe can be quite high due to unfavorable insurance and financing options and the cost of syndication, IF you're doing a syndication deal. 

And you can make that sound as favorable as unfavorable as you want. 

That is, unless you pay a huge deposit upfront, something you wisely say you don't want to do.As for your question about how a financial contingency in the Contract would look like, similar to the wording that you already put in the Contract (but which only allows for a maximum deduction of $10k because of unfavorable appraisal), it would say something like: "This Offer is subject to Lender approval; otherwise, the Contract can be cancelled by the Buyer with no penalty, full deposit refunded".If you haven't heard of such financial contingency wording, I suggest you add it to your arsenal. 

It's now their word against the former landlord's, with the understanding that the landlord would have had financial incentives to lie or conceal important and unfavorable facts about the lease to push the sale through and get her/his money.If you don't have these letters of estoppel in hand, in short, the tenants can have you over a barrel if they decide to lie about their agreement(s) with the former landlord.This is why the general rule is always to talk to the tenants, either personally or through a representative, before the sale, to collect these letters of estoppel.On the other hand, for all I know, you may have collected these letters of estoppel.