A quick rule of thumb: with the Purchase price being $220K and rent being $1800/month, it doesn't even meet the 1% rule , if it were to be rented for 1% (220K x 0.01= $2200/month), it would most likely work out for you but this doesn't seem like the numbers work.Long story short, no deal- unless you can raise the rent and/or lower your PITI.

As far as cash flow, you find a market with low entry & cost of living, as this will reflect lower renovation cost.

Can you significantly add income that the property generates, lower expenses that the property currently has, and can you do all those things while making an 'investment'.

Which is what puts it at a lower cash flow.But, I do not have the real numbers as the report the current owner sent is skewed.Originally posted by @Anthony Dooley:@Brian Foote The BP calculator makes the deal look worse than it actually is.

If the owner accepts $0 for their property the city may reduce the liens owned to the assessed value but generally not lower. 

Is this the smart thing to do to lower the tax burden?

It's rare, but occasionally you can find a value add play where you'd be buying into a property with much lower than market rents where you have to do a renovation in order to get higher rents, and then you can get the 1% rule.

If you have a lower gross rental income per bookings (say $150 average booking for a small condo) and a similar $20 cost per basket, but that basket includes nothing that is tied to the identity of the property or makes it unique, it seems likely the repeat booking rate and likelihood of positive review will have minimal impact.

If it’s a lower priced I always charged a minimum, which could be 6-10% just for the listing side.

Louis, MO due to the generally lower prices.