However there are many dangers.

No, such jobs really do exist. with 100 units, you'll be working your tail off.Try it, if you hate yourself you'll like it.Tips, approach with a really laid back personality, think before jumping.You'll be a social worker, don't take problems of others seriously.Manage your maintenance people with kid gloves but be stern.Set office hours and stick to them, put a sign on your apt. door to take up issues during office hours.Get a recorder to answer you phone in your off time and screen your calls.Set policy and stick to it, administer them fairly and equally.There should be an apt managers association in your area, join and network.Learn the eviction process and follow it to the letter, don't waste your attorney's time.Smile a lot.

We all know this is the type of social problems we have where sometimes good intentions result in bad consequences.

Leverage is dangerous, but with that much equity, you may be able to find something.

Such as going 6 months instead of 3 or moving it to 1 mile radius instead of .5.The dangerous thing about moving your search parameters to 1 mile instead of .5 would be in some markets, the sales prices could change dramatically within a matter of a few blocks.

Originally posted by @Nicolas Paez:Sorry to rain on anyones parade but these rules of thumb are very dangerous.......Lastly, while the 50% ... rule might be ideal targets...The 50% rule is not a target. 

Actually paying yourself for the work and then including it on Schedule C is just COSTING you more money as you will be paying both halves of Social Security and Medicare.

While I agree that open houses aren't necessary (and potentially dangerous as no control over who walks in), I would avoid any agent who hasn't returned your call in over a week (or 24 hours, for that matter).

Consider too that his statements were made by a person that was raised with the advice to "get a good paying job at a large corporation with a pension" work there for 40+ years, then retire and collect on your pension and social security.

I can't believe this turned into a thread where you feel compelled to justify keeping part of the building intact that is dangerous to the point of making the structure uninsurable.