There is another gentleman in our group that finds houses that are in danger of being lost wether by foreclosure or being behind on taxes.

If you rehabbed correctly, and properly screen tenants you will have fewer headaches in most cases. 

You want to be dangerous enough to know the numbers without visiting the house.

My rationale is that I already have control over all the assets I need to sustain me, so I know longer need the growth, and any more over that only adds risk and headache for no additional marginal benefit.Also, I preferred to invest in higher quality properties ... yes the price points were higher and the day one cash flow was lower, but the rents are also higher and the quality and consistency of the cash flow is higher, with far fewer headaches, and rents and prices in these neighborhoods are more likely to keep up with inflation over time, or in my case exceed inflation.

I would not consider any city on the top 100 most dangerous cities list.

I would stick with that, rather than break policy and accept a larger, potentially dangerous animal.

The mandatory solar applies to significant remodels, so at some point you will have no choice but go solar - in the future there will be fewer if any incentives to do so.

Hi @Rik Patel  Over-leveraging is a dangerous move, so I wouldn't suggest it.

You can dominate your small town, but there is risk due to fewer employers and smaller resident base.

Finally, if you have a vacation home but you rent it for fewer than 15 days per year, you don't have to report the income, but the property is treated for tax purposes as your home, not an investment.Please note that I am not an accountant and nor tax expert, and while I am an attorney, I cannot provide specific legal advice to you in this forum.