I'm looking at small tiny strips or former bank buildings as a potential flip.  

This is the goal.My wife and I love house flipping shows, have been intrigued by the tiny house movement.

Except for one tiny detail: you're not paying off a fixed 4% loan.

  I do not state I will not rent to tiny children upstairs of course...I show upstairs rentals to folks with small children if asked to.

This one caught me so off guard I had to think how to answer it.Applicant on the phone: "I saw your ad and I just wanted to ask you, and I am not racist or anything but are there black guys in the building I am a tiny white girl".I started to think could this be some "mystery renter" from NAACP or whatever?

Maybe the cardboard boxes are part of the new 'tiny house' movement ... haha!  

Yeah, 100% increase of a tiny # is still a tiny #. 

That house had what amounted to a tiny bathroom in a hall, two different rooms that could only be accessed via another room and one room with a huge beam in the middle of the floor.

Plopped down in a very tiny Mexican town outside Fresno, CA, is a beautiful subsidized senior apartment complex. 

tenant A loves dogs but the building policy prohibits pets. one day, tenant A notices thru the front window that tenant B moved in with 2 dogs (a pit bull mix and a german sheperd mix) with the PM present and no issue was apparently raised; landlord even pet and played with the dogs. tenant A feels betrayed and goes out and buys a yorkie. landlord finds out and issues notice of breach of contract and to vacate or restore the apt to its pet-free requirements.tenant A contronts landlord and demands explanation as to why tenant B has 2 big dogs but tenant A cant have 1 tiny one. landlord discloses tenant B provided proof that each of the 2 dogs are emotional support animals.tenant A asks tenant B why does she have 2 emotional support animals, and for a referral to a professional that could also recommend 2 or 3 dogs so he can keep his yorkie and get a playmate for his and maybe even the yorkie's 'emotional support' each.tenant B is insulted and files a HUD complaint that landlord shared that she needs emotional support (per Fair Housing Act, landlords may not divulge that a tenant has any disability to any third party).meanwhile, tenant C whose toddler was soon after mauled to death by tenant B's sheperd mix, has just won a case in California Supreme Court finding the landlord to be a statutory owner of the dog since it was accepted onto the premises simply based on a letter written by a 'pet therapist' without regard - and consequentially, with negligence - to the other tenants' safety and thus responsible for $2,000,000 in compensation to tenant C for the loss of precious human life, regardless of whether landlord was negligent or not, and regardless of whether animal was a service/support animal or pet.landlord, having lost his countersuit against tenant B for vicious 'support' animal's lethal actions, files claim for his homeowner's insurance to cover the $250 million he owes tenant C but claim is denied altogether on basis that building had a no pet policy and dogs were not declared and the pit bull mix, though recommended, was never even licensed.last but not least, landlord receives summons, subpoenas, etc from HUD and appears for trial in Federal Civil Court. judge finds landlord guilty of divulging that tenant has a disability and orders landlord to pay the statutory $16,000 for one county of housing discrimination,  plus 300,000 in actual damages for the complainant (and of course, her attorneys fees) for she is emotionally scarred for life!