Net lease income sounds like the whole point of industrial, what does it actually cost to get

What draws people toward industrial in the first place is the promise that leases run long and net, meaning the tenant carries taxes, insurance, and maintenance while the owner collects a check. That is the version of real estate a lot of passive investors actually want. The deals in this room complicate that picture. Operators trade yield for term, argue about roof carve outs, watch an appraisal come in light, and sit on empty buildings for eleven months. None of that reads as passive. There are really two things being bought here. One is a long net lease to a solid tenant at a low cap rate, where the passivity is real and the price is that today's yield is thin and the whole outcome depends on that one tenant renewing or the building re-leasing at term. The other is a multi-tenant building at a higher going-in yield, where an owner is actually managing something, dealing with several rollovers, and the income is lumpier but not staked on one signature. Quality and location tend to win over the long run, but that principle does not settle whether an investor who wants genuinely passive income should pay the low cap for a single tenant or accept some work for a better current number. Where the room actually lands on that split is worth surfacing, since the honest answer is probably closer than either side expects.