Time spent listening and talking with people who understood both the risk AND reward put an ease to our spirits when doubts and fear came in.

If that was removed, and tenants understood they will be billed for damages at the end, it may change their attitudes. 

(Of course I might be if I better understood the California market)

I suppose it’s because it’s the most easily understood part of the bill.It’s largely counterproductive in limiting further restrictive legislation if that’s all we focus on

I understood it to mean pretty much what is wrote above but my lender said she couldn't lend on it so I asked if we could do a re-fi on a SFR that we own and that's how we ended up doing it. 

Also, they understood that in order for said exit to work, they'd need to leave plenty of meat on the bone for me - they did.

Thank you all for the comments.For some of you that not understood what I was asking, some clarifications here:1.

Even leading up to the last crash, only a few people really understood what was happening. 

Buyers understood they were paying a premium but with recent appreciation trends we all felt confident that they would recoup the equity within 18-24 months.

I was involved in a similar situation and once the broker called and explained to the seller their obligation to pay the commission and that if they payed the buyers agent their percentage, they would still owe the full 6% to her firm per the listing agreement, the sellers understood their obligation and it worked out.