Apologies if I'm doing a "Cliff Clayvin" here and spouting off the obvious...
You may want to think about the impact of financial leverage this way. Your return on a particular property equals the income capitalization rate (or "cap rate") plus the appreciation rate.
Example: If you have a $100,000 rental that generates a bottomline profit (rent minus expenses) of $4,000, that's a 4% cap rate. And if that rental inflates in value by 2%, that's a 2% appreciation rate. And with numbers, your project or overall rate of return equals 6%.
If you can borrow money at any rate less than 6%, you make out like a bandit.
Financial leverage amplifies your risks, though. If the property depreciates by 3%, you're "earning" 4%-3%, or 1%... so it's not really magic.
And then the other thing to consider--and I am not saying this is a good idea--you can use financial leverage with any investment asset. And you get the same result. I.e., you could buy $100,000 of stocks and if the dividend rate equals 4% and the appreciation rate equals 2%, you get a 6% overall return... and if you can fund this with money you borrow for 4%, you're again making out like a bandit if things go well... and getting totally beat up if things do poorly.
The more I write, the more I feel like ol' Cliff Clayvin, so I'm going to stop... but I guess I'd close by saying this. I'd buy the $100K-$150K house with cash and then not take the risks associated with leveraging up.