Obviously there won't be any 100% "safe" tenants, no matter how much vetting you do, a job loss etc. could always happen to anybody... but I feel like having one at all simply shows that they didn't prioritize keeping a roof over their head for one reason or another, among other issues.Everything else from that post, if I am referencing the same one, seems fine to me.

Owners are risking financial loss, lawsuits from neighbors and serious fines if they live in HOA's.My neighbor rented his beautiful townhouse in the Los Angeles area using this company.

But I am also having a lot of booked guests concerned about their upcoming stays because of the two storms currently brewing.I've thought of self-insuring but I've been able to find policies with good coverage that also cover the loss of income.  

If your expenses associated with the rented portion exceed the income, you may have a tax benefit if you are eligible to deduct passive rental losses from your other sources of income.

I listed it for sale, I need to cut my losses.  

It's just gonna be peppered in with more stretches of loss. 

It was not uncommon that they bought some of the worst houses (weird layout, dated, much deferred maintenance) in the nicest neighborhoods and then would try to relist them as-is to make a profit before ending up having to do the actual work required to the property for it to sell again, selling at a loss, or maybe making a little bit of money in transaction fees.

Or should I cut my losses, sell it now, and look to invest in something else later?

We have a dozen or so properties there, that are without water indefinitely, perhaps as long as month.Of course, that's small change compared to the utter destruction and loss of life.  

they can apparently help you with loss of rent.