At first glance it seems like an intriguing prospect to be able to more easily access a much nicer property in an attractive destination town.

Raw land with no other attractions doesn't seem worth it IMO.

If you want to live like a slob but its not physically harming my property, then it is what it is....If you have so much stuff that its damaging my investment, then you either change that and pay for the damage repair NOW (not at move out) or I evict you.So if the "clutter" is attracting rodents, insects.... resulting in water damage, mildew, dry rot or other physical damage to the building above reasonable "wear and tear", I don't care if you pay on time..... you fix it or you go.

Also, I know that nicer places usually attract better tenants.

I think the $/sf value you get being in that neighborhood, next to Snooze and Trader Joe's and a straight shot down 8th to downtown Denver is hugely attractive.

I’m a private asset manager for a small number of clients right now and am looking to expand into a GP role to create a fund that will attract larger institutional and/or higher net worth investors.

Anacostia, whipe the fastest appreciating neighborhood in DC 4 years straight is attractive in that sense, it can still be pretty rough.

I think this makes us more competitive in attracting quality tenants.

For example, is offering seller financing to lower their mortgage/down payment a good way to attract buyers? 

There are a few attractive properties in the Sacramento area for landlords.