This is for a little lower quality property than my others.They all arent good, but that's sorta to be expected when people are in the long term rental market.

I have turned properties within a week and good tenants literally line up around here with good marketing and a quality unit.

But I am looking where this compromise between acceptable quality of living and investment potential might be found.

I vote for the third one - although I could be swayed a bit by that photo having the highest quality tile in it :)Assume you're using the same tile regardless of design?

Like someone said before, be sure to not just pick lowest bid and make sure you're prop mgr has worked with those contractors before to hopefully concur of their quality of work.

You take their money and you give them a quality place to live.

A regular income may cause it to be reduced or lose it altogether.You might be able to buy it yourself and put it into a spendthrift trust for quality of life advances only, no necessities.

Cost of repair materials lower.Then there are disadvantages: possibly lower quality tenants, lower quality homes.I'm about to take the plunge into renting them.

My first thought would be that whatever area near Turner that would suggest positive cash flow would be a low quality area/property and much riskier, potentially negating the cash flow.

We never buy a property unless it has sufficient positive cash-flow to meet our CoC criteria (opportunity cost + 3-5% min depending on the quality of the cash-flow).Coming from an experience where mortgage amortizations are <=25 years (residential) and no more than 30 on commercial and terms are typically 3-5 years {5-years being the most common} and no longer than 10yrs {which you would be foolish to take given the rate premium}, cash-flow is something you actively manage over the life of your holding.