[AYBABTME]

An empty house will turn bad faster than a rented out house. Give it to a property manager for the time it's rented, and when you move back in, do a remodel.

With tenants in the house, you'll be doing regular maintenance anyways, especially at turnover. You might find some damage once in a while and repair it over the years. This is damage you probably wouldn't find if you lived in there yourself, because you wouldn't have the "turnover" event triggering a deep check. But also, you might avoid the damage in the first place, who knows. Overall though, it's minuscule expense in comparison and it's not like the house will be ruined out of it. A decade or two later you'll want to do work on the house anyways before you move back in.

I think renting out is actually a lot better than you'd think. A good property manager will help you find good tenants and save you a whole lot of headache, save you from getting yourself into iffy legal situations, etc.

[prottog]

I don't think wear-and-tear (or even outright damage) from tenants is the big concern. The real danger is someone who truly wrecks your property, doesn't pay rent, in a legal environment where it takes you two years to evict such a person, all the while they might continue to do inflict more damage.

Additional legal protection for renters usually decreases the supply of rentals for this reason, and it's the exact same reason why unemployment rates are higher in countries where employees are very difficult to fire.