I am not being unreasonable here.

It's about the tenant's right to use the property without unreasonable interference by the landlord.If I came home from work and you were regularly doing yardwork - and snooping around - and I'd know what you were up to - I'd move.  

-I have heard many of the southern STL counties (Not Jefferson) are nearly unreasonable in their requests and policies for renting and safety.

Does that sound unreasonable to you?

When the major metros become too unreasonable, it may look like a better option

I would try to address this unless the repair cost is unreasonable. 

That might be salt in the wound in her eyes, and unnecessary (assuming there already is a clause that covers this).Tenants know when they're being unreasonable. 

I have heard from experienced landlords that it is often better to NOT let the tenant know that we are "owner/landlord", but rather that we are "just the PM" or even that we "just work for the PM".That way, it is easier to manage the tenants when they make unreasonable requests, we can just say "Sorry I can't authorize that, I just work for the PM" and we are not seen as the "bad guy" in the scenario, the unseen owner takes the blame.I wonder if this technique makes sense in a house hacking situation?

So, from the way you described it, I don't think asking this tenant to do what you want is reasonable, based on the terms you have established.I'm not clear on what you expect this tenant to do or the other tenants, but it seems unreasonable. 

Since it hasn't been mentioned you can bribe them to leave but unless they become a problem, or are dramatically under market rent you are probably wasting money if you do that.Lastly, be careful not to make them jump through unreasonable hoops after title transfer.