The con with this strategy is that you are converting income that is rental in nature to ordinary income(may be subject to SE taxes).The pro with this strategy is that it potentially opens you up to health insurance / retirement account deductions.

If you live in a competitive market where renters naturally have utilities included, then you "MAY" consider it but unless the cost of the rent is considerable enough to offset the utilities and still cashflow, I would put it on the renters. 

You would think reading some of this very dubious commentary it's as simple as buying any nature of real property characterizing 99% of it as something other than 27.5 / 31 year property per a "Cost Seg Study" and then merrily expensing the whole kit and caboodle in year 1 - voila.Good luck with that unless you really enjoy playing tax deduction Russian Roulette.

Based on everything I have seen from other owners, the COVID impact has been minimal, as mentioned by the gentlemen above.I think part of it is due to the nature of their work. 

Due to the nature of the deal being an off-market cash deal and from a wholesaler, negotiations were slim and quick.

Most likely the state where the property is located is where lawsuits would be brought if they are something for personal injury like a trip and fall or something of that nature because the “cause of action” arose in that state.

My partner and I recently sold roots and all for a "natural playground".

My rental is located in the center of the city, which naturally draws more partiers and younger cohorts.

Just do your thing and maybe she'll naturally come around.

The earth goes through natural heating and cooling cycles every 100 years or so.That said the link you showed, at high emissions, only says an average of 2% of the properties will be under water at high tide in 40 years.