As far as I know, in CA, there is no distinction between borrowers, when it comes to usury law. 10% is the limit, no matter who lends to whom (if none lic. lender and no broker involved).

In most jurisdictions, there is a legal distinction between a boarder/roomer and a tenant and quite often different rights and obligation on part of both the boarder/tenant and landlord.

Again, his terms are attainable through local banks, but I am not aware of HMLs in that range.I draw the distinction because financing through a bank and through a hard money lender are not interchangeable processes for many borrwers.

Hands off doesn't seem to work unless it's a highly professional crew with a distinct and true leader.

A man who does not understand his limitations is a dangerous business partner.  

This doesn't make it a bad investment providing everything pans out long term but we think paying above retail at the time of purchase can be a dangerous way to invest.

Bill has also mentioned many times on BP that following old gurus in areas of financing is plain dangerous as new finance laws are in place. 

Contact your building regs folks, complain about a dangerous building if they are not properly secured, use the "blighted area" approach, they can motivate owners to at least act.

@Maggie TasseronThere is not any state law in Florida that says you must rent to the first qualified applicant.However, it is my personal policy, and is somewhat common sense.Really interesting to hear everyone's opinions on what can easily venture into dangerous (illegal) territory with regards to 'turning down' applicants!

So there's an incentive for me to have the property paid off when I'm 45-50 years old (15 or 20 yr loan), as opposed to financing for 30 years and then not owning it outright until I'm 60 (when I can access my 401k anyways).BUT - I always hear about the dangers of negative cash flow.