This is a less common practice in SoCal, but with a buyer who is a hassle, it's exercised.Further, you have the buyers contacted, and they negotiate a deadline, with mutual  compromise.  

My original plan was to use handwritten yellow letters asking advertising my flexibility in purchasing their house; I am looking to seller finance or use some sort of option to help homeowners get close to 'market value' for their homes if they are willing to compromise on the terms.

A more passive investment, like lending, will often return a lower COC, but your time will not be as compromised.

I find Menards to be a great compromise between Home Depot and Lowes.

An auctioneer in my area advertises "absolute above $X,XXX.XX" This tends to be a pretty good compromise for the seller and attracts me as a buyer if the reserve is know and low enough for me.

A good negotiator helps two diametrically opposed parties compromise.

That figure-range seems to be a compromise between a straight profit split and strict "per hour" profit split.

He moved out without telling me (he was not a good tenant so I was happy to see him go, and so were the other residents) so I applied his security deposit to the window repair.On the other hand, if they are really good tenants, I'd find a way to compromise and negotiate, having said all of the above.

What you do not want to do is compromise the two entities so that a judge views them as the same and you lose some asset protection.There are many creative things using loans, options and other things.

I like this idea as a theory but is there an ultra conservative compromise, say 50% LTV?