My totally biased, but correct opinion, is if it meets your cash flow criteria, you keep them indefinitely.

In case you don't know what these are and just want to read along to the responses, I will define each term.Demographics: This information gives you age, gender, and income level of a group of people.

I've not yet done the math to determine which strategy would save me more money, but the big cons of this areNo primary residence, therefore slightly higher interest rates, 20 - 25% down (but depending on the market, this may very well be equivalent to 3.5 - 5% down in LA).Depends on the quality of tenant screening, but it's probably safer to assume that they won't take as great care of the property as I would.Probably need a property manager, professional or tenant.Either strategy seems to net me the same cost around $1,500 monthly, but I'm biased towards Los Angeles as I can rent to friends which solves a lot of the tenant/landlord issues.I'm not looking for anyone to give me all the answers but would appreciate any insight, food for thought, and constructive criticism. 

Also, it’s not “Canada” that doesn’t allow damage deposits, it’s the exceptionally tenant friendly / landlord biased province you’ve invested in.

@Dan Smucker of course, I am definitely biased, but I'd encourage you to check out Birmingham, AL.

I saw them quite thoroughly and loudly, as my biased memory fondly recalls in these bleak later years...On a related matter, this one time, I had the cops toss a doctor out of one of my properties.

My main concern was that there may be some sort of propane cost bias from the tenants.  

I'm biased towards Harrisburg since that's where I live and know the best, but being the state capital you always have state workers coming and going that people forget about with Harrisburg. 

I'm biased as I only invest locally and I'm tightening up my definition of "local" even further.

The contract is pretty standard - however it's incredibly biased towards the seller.