So why take the extra risk and hassle to get to 1,000 if the marginal benefit to you basically goes away (and then goes negative) after, say, 50 units ... and that is still way more than you should realistically need if you pick the right units at the right terms.You are free to set any goal you like, but this one just seems silly to me personally ...

If you're thinking of putting it in things that are not zero risk (hedge funds, real estate), then hopefully you are seeking a risk premium (not a new concept around here, but there are new lurkers reading this), else just leave the equity in the house.

I am not sure why this concept would be partisan.

That means you have a negative $600 Cash Flow while living there for one year.  

I know that sounds weird when talking about REI - and I agree - there are better cash following investments than $2000 properties but this is more me trying to wrap my head around it as a concept.

Seems like an interesting concept, but I can't find many reviews about it online.  

Key concept here is that helping others is helping yourself.  

I would encourage you to gather the info on what your actual cash flow (positive or negative) would be.

If you are adding something that negatively changes a tenants life they may resist, if it is simply common language they may have no issues.

This can be a big negative when you sell your property down the road.If national tenant blocked rent that goes up say 10% every 5 years can be okay sometimes if corporate guarantee is strong.