I completely agree and understand that through a "house hack" privacy is sacrificed.

In other words, I reminded them they are still $200 below market rents and that if they chose to move out, I would miss them, but the unit would be listed at $2400 for the next occupants - so they were getting a deal and I WAS sacrificing and compromising to keep them as great tenants.I also let them know/reminded them that CA keeps seeking to expand rent control laws, which means I HAVE to increase the rent, otherwise if/when they do move out I won't even be able to raise the rent to "market rent" even after they move out.

Does anyone know where I can get cheaper shingles in the Hampton Roads or surrounding area without sacrificing much in terms of the quality of the shingles?

Then reach into your savings because you have been sacrificing and putting some away (right?!). 

Anytime you invest in a vacation home or 2nd home market, those are the first homes that get sacrificed when things get inverted. 

My simple philosophy is: buy the worst houses for the cheapest prices in the best streets I can AFFORD (without sacrificing positive cash flow, even leveraged at 70%).

Maybe you're sacrificing quality to be in a low-income neighborhood, or you accept Section 8 or PA or whatever.

But I think if my goal is just to cover my expenses, while keeping them happy, active, and more financially secure - it's well worth sacrificing the cash flow from their unit. 

I'd feel uncomfortable with properties that cash flow negative, but I'm ok with sacrificing some cash on cash return (as long as it's still cash flow positive!) 

For me quality can't be sacrificed, we don't slap stuff together.