For new construction deals I generally am finding for multifamily (California and Arizona) your operating expenses being closer to 40%This may be a bit different for these tiny homes which I don’t know much about but I feel 30% is aggressive.

Heads up - these are outlawed as short term rentals in Seattle now (alongside tiny homes and RVs)Originally posted by @Jacqueline Cliff:Lake Chelan comes to mind.  

Tiny houses are also an option, but the city of Seattle recently banned them as STRs (which is really what they’re best for...)Good luck!

We hacked our way to 4 properties and established ADU's or DADU's on 2 of them, with a third in the works and a tiny house on wheels in the mix as well.

Investment Info:

Single-family residence buy & hold investment.

Purchase price: $330,000

Unique cabin Airbnb on West Seattle's waterfront

It's worked out quite well; I own 3 decent SFR properties in far northern rural CA, paying less in mortgage, taxes than owning a tiny 2/1 condo in San Diego.

If your main reason is to avoid a tiny conveyance fee and value reassessment from the county,  there is too much risk. 

So even if Austin feels inundates by Californians, it actually only takes a tiny fraction of Californians to create this impression.When you look at Calfornia's net out-migration per capita, it's nothing crazy.

According to the quantity theory of money, if you increase the supply of money in an economy, the price level of all goods and services increase (i.e. inflation).

IF anyone gets evicted ( I still think this number will be TINY.) they certainly won’t want to rent an apartment.