I have found that it is possible to get most inherited tenants on board with my policies-- you just have to offer the incentives that get you the behavior that you want.

When adverse conditions present, the ones hurt the worst are the ones with the most debt.Yeah, I hear ya @Brian Burke, but coming from 22 years at the Federal Reserve I can tell you they are always behind and wrong in the timing of policy moves and economic forecasting.

According to the Holton-Wise Property Group FAQ, they don't charge tenants for water due to the city's policy (specifically referring to this thread: https://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/731/topics/741251-how-to-handle-water-bill).I've seen others say they either bill-back the tenants for water or have a clause in their lease which states that renters pay anything above $X and that an eviction can occur for nonpayment.My question is as follows: in both of the above scenarios, the property owner is always accountable for the bill. 

Insurance is completely different for short term vs long term, so I don't want to get a short term policy if I don't have a permit.

Additionally, in compliance with local data retention policies, originally signed documents must be held for three years in the event evidence is requested again from the court.

Many properties I see (SF Bay Area) would be cashflow negative at purchase even just on PITI and not accounting for repairs, capex, etcReal estate in California has always appreciated, but its not always just a straight line up, like any market there are peaks and troughs with a general trend line up.

I guess all I have to say is in NYS do not make any policy decisions based on the protected classes.

My personal preference is to get as many properties under your name as you can at those better rates and then get a large personal umbrella policy to mitigate your liability risk. 

How would your PITI on your property change?

As far as current protection, I changed my insurance to a Landlord policy and am requiring rental insurance from tenants.