This was an absolute disaster and at the end of the day my investments suffer.

I'm still in the planting trees stage... ;)

It's still early and I'm suffering from a cold... so a little cloudy.

So in summary, negative cash flow isn't bad if the house is in a great location, you screen the tenant properly so you suffer minimum damage to the property, rents are paid on time, and the house has a good chance of appreciating. 

The Unethical thing that you could not do that may be considered illegal is if you in some way destroy or devalue the property since it is an asset to a senior lien holder and they may suffer as a direct result if you do any damage.

Plant City we are working with an owner with a 2 acre parcel to get approvals for a 10-20 unit depending on the density we can get approved with zoning or planned development.

I have a very nice little 4 acre piece I bought in Northern CA back in the early 90's that if I used cash flow as a determining factor i would have never bought it for 27k and suffered negative cash flow of 200 a year in tax's all these years. but I would not also own a property that has just been zone mixed use residential next to the largest casino in CA...  

I suffered 2 evictions because of it.

Can we locate it with in driving distance of the new Intel plant ? 

put the 20k down and cut my losses...invest to upgrade property and try to break even if I get it sold...( not likely going to happen)walk away and suffer the consequences on my credit.. ( I do have a good amount of capital to continue investing with cash) continue pushing forward with the headache to pay down the principle...