I'm certainly not a fan of doomsayers and being motivated by fear, and no one can time the market; but I think it's not a matter of if, but when and how bad.

I state from the get go, that it's in my best interest "wealth wise" to have rent control, but here's why I think it's bad for tenants and the market as a whole.

That's an example but something in the middle ground that works for both of you.I'm a bit non-plussed with some of the large multi-family syndicators who like to talk about how they can force rents up for lower income people and in almost the same breath talk about how they help the same people with their charity...I think, like everything else there is a productive middle-ground where you can earn good returns and not force people into bad situations.

Very true @Dennis Mears, the market could support probably 250$ more based on my research (only 2, 2 bed houses for rent in the whole city, and they are going for 200$ more than my proposed $150 more price.) but vacancies are expensive and having them been there 3 years they must be decent, just some bad habits from previous landlords 

If you can't handle $100,503 and it must be $100,500 in order for you to not delay your clients closings then perhaps what you really need to do is re-evaluate either your math, software, business model and/or career choice.

I'm personally not a fan of the mentioned tactic, and frankly it has given real estate investors in my area a bad name. 

Not bad if you ask me!

Not bad if you ask me!

Not bad if you ask me!

There's a similar choice for the buyer.