I am an owner and landlord of several units, and have a unique proposal for the landlord of another building. I'm looking for feedback for anyone who has done this before, or from others that want to weigh in on the pros and cons of the situation. I'll start with a quick summary, then much more detail down below.

The low-down:
The owner of a multifamily (I have a connection with) is willing to take below-market rent from someone he can trust (me) to pay rent and treat a unit kindly (for personal residence - just signed the lease). I'm considering offering the owner of the building the same below-market rent on other vacant units that come up, paying the monthly below-market rent every month to him so he doesn't have to worry about it, then subleasing it out, and absorbing the vacancy and turnover expenses myself. Essentially, I would be taking all the monthly payment risk, vacancy, turnover, and deposit/damage responsibility from him, in exchange for a deal on rents to compensate me for that risk. Has anyone done this before?

Here were the owner's motivations when he rented me a unit for personal use, at significantly below market, as stated by him:

1) He wanted to be able to collect rent every month from someone he could trust (I came on a fantastic referral from a friend and former "pupil" in our college economics classes who is the landlord's cousin). And have strong financials.
2) He didn't want to have to worry about the unit being treated poorly, as they were remodeled - and there are some sketchy people who still live/move in to the neighborhood.
3) I think he also wanted to give a little "gift" to a friend of a family member. It's unclear how much, if any, this might play into it..

So my proposal seems to fit into what he is looking for.
1) He gets one monthly check for all his units (he seemed relieved to be able to do it on this unit, so maybe he's happy to do more.. maybe he just doesn't like the landlord risks).
2) He doesn't have to worry about vacancy or evictions, because I'm responsible for it (I would also propose giving him a big deposit for good faith, and my personal credit and cash flow, which is substantial..).
3) The rents would also be at a much higher level - which will help so he's not bound by low rents under rent control in Oakland. That's good for value when he's refinancing, which I know is also on his mind.

Risks & Rewards
I've thought of a few of the pro's and con's. But I would like to hear from others about their perspective, or other considerations I haven't thought about yet. Many I have not put down here because it would just be too extensive, but I appreciate any input. The building is in a highly desirable area with rising rents and low vacancies. Should be able to get good tenants that want to stay.

Risks:

Tenant trashes place; I'm out of pocket

Tenant stops paying rent. I pay for eviction and vacant unit while tenant lives there (landlord risk)

Landlord-friendly city (Oakland)

It doesn't work out, and the relationship potentially gets soured

Benefits:

Estimated $17k/yr net for 3 units, assuming no "blow-up"

Net cash flow provides significant cushion for "blow-up."

Could still be profitable if "blow-up" happened annually, which appears very unlikely.

Desirable area near public transport & 1 block from Lake Merritt in Oakland

Now let's talk numbers..
Monthly

Owner rents units to me at: $1,000

I rent them out at market: $1,600

Gross Spread $600

Vacancy Allowance from owner $42

Total Monthly Gross $642

Actual Vacancy $133

Other turn costs $42

Net Profit per Unit/mo $467

# of units 3

Total Cash Flow $1,400.00 /mo

That pencils out to just under $17K net annually to me if there are just regular turnover costs, without any "blow-ups" like drawn-out evictions, significant damage, etc., which I would expect to be rare, given the tenant I believe I can pull due to the desirability of the area. Maybe even an extra $100 or $200/mo rent/unit. So this seems to give lots of cushion. I would ask for a small vacancy allowance from the owner (included), although my vacancy costs would probably be slightly higher than his would have been at lower rents.. I may also ask for a "turnover" allowance, but that is not included yet.

So let's say I have an issue beyond normal, tenant does $2K in damage, $1K in legal fees, and I end up paying them $5K to leave the unit by end of month. That's an $8k haircut, netting me just over $8k for the year. Not a homerun exactly. But I don't expect those kind of blow-ups on an annual basis by any means (I have more than double the units in a less-desirable, lower-income area nearby and haven't had any of these problems over a similar time frame.)

Thoughts?
Opinions?
What am I missing here?
Sound good?
Am I crazy?