I don't have the exact line of cases in front of me, but I recall the standard being something along the lines of "seller has a duty to disclose any condition that a reasonable person would find dangerous."

There's a distinct difference there. 

Danger is the bank calling the note due. 

I didn't think this would be a concern (units have been selling very quickly in the neighborhood), but for a number of reasons unit #2 still hasn't gone under agreement.At this point my closing date has been pushed back 3 times, and I'm getting dangerously close to the end of my rental agreement (1/27).Is this "50% rule" unavoidable in this circumstance, or are there lenders who would be willing to overlook it?  

This area is definitely not as "dangerous" as it was in recent years, but I imagine it would appear too sketchy for many investors.Forest Hills - This has been an "arrived" neighborhood from the day it was conceived.

In your case doing a long term partnership with family is dangerous.  

As to their distinctions,its self explanatory.

Ok, ok. .I just wanted to somehow acknowledge that I appreciate the nice job he did.I see now the danger in a one time rent reduction...and I was concerned about establishing a precedent.Maybe a firm handshake, looking him straight in the eye with a "Thank you" is the best course of action.Thank you, everyone.Arnie

The rental demand is there in Waterbury because it is a city in a central location and there are areas of that city that are straight up dangerous so the good areas will always have a pool of candidates.

This is incredibly dangerous - one child one finger one question Kappoow.