As a new user to BP but someone who has done well with the three properties I’ve owned, I was taking a look through the forums seeing what screening tools others were using and thought it was interesting how much of an emphasis the 2% rule & 50% rule played out as a starting point for many.

The scenario where this plays an important role is if the permitted uses are ones that do not pay as well as the current "retail" type use.

If you are ONLY getting $4k/yr long term historical average on a $200k house, that is 2%, so definitely not the right time or place to play that game. coastal SoCal historical average (going back 40 years) is around 6% ... with 20% down (5-to-1 leverage) that is a 30% average annual return; that is the example I use because that is the example I know, not sure about Oregon but suspect it may be better than the 2% in your example. 

Its not a power play or a scare tactic.

The more the tenant believes the owners are not doing their part the harder it is to get to an even playing field with them.I have heard about Cozy, but never used it.

He claims his real estate strategy is playing bank, not sure how well that's working for him these days though, I'm not sure how old this advice is or if it's viable. 

If there is a bankruptcy, you need to be very diligent about understanding the impact that could have on a transfer of the property by the owner and what role, if any, the bankruptcy trustee will play in your proposed settling of certain debts of the debtor.

However, I'm more buying from "Learn the rules first before playing the game."

Hopefully someone more experienced can speak up on this but for me it seems as though southern California is an equity play more than cash flow.

Say throwing in a $1000 referal bonus, that sort of thing?