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?

Your mgmt should tell you about the roofs or point out and structural, aesthetic, hazards, plumbing, etc issues and seek bids for 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.  

All else equal, buying homes that have been built to a very specific aesthetic is a bad choice.

For an issue like indoor air quality, though, tenants could make the same claim and send their landlords down a similar rabbit hole.

I would certainly talk to a GOOD mortgage broker and see exactly what he needs to do to get him into a quality loan product sooner rather than later.there might be a few key steps he can take to speed up the process.