To @Bill Brandt, unfortunately the reason they are moving out is because it was a fairly large family when they moved in and needed the space, but both parents had to move out to assisted living and the children grew up and moved out, so house is too big now for the renter.

They had 2 adult children living at home and not helping out.

But the furniture is a big capital expenditure. coming from experience i wouldn't let them take all the leases unless they pay 3 months up front for each one.

And my friends who have small children would similarly veto a place that didn't have a tub.

The park was built in the '50s and we bought it from the 80-year-old children of the original owners.

Best one is the couple who racked up $20k in credit card debt for all new furniture.New furniture, no house to put it in!

They let the rabbit run around in the house, and it apparently liked to chew or dig the carpet under furniture.

I have no idea why anyone would go backwards.So for environmentally conscious, financially constrained, singles or couples with no children, who like to move around and who are willing to live without running water and sewers it is a legitimate choice.   

Some family could, but not lineal family like parents, grandparents, children, etc, as they are disqualified parties to the IRA.A 401(k) has its own tax benefits, but would not benefit from the special tax benefits applied to opportunity zone investments.  

Replace ESA with black / family with children / unmarried cohabitants / homosexual / etc and this tactic has been used before.