When you consider differences in property taxes and other things across states, I become less interested in using the 1% rule. One of my friends from high school bought a 2 bed/2 bath townhouse for 180K. Taxes were original $4500/year, they are now $5,200. I bought a 4 bed/2 bath house in Colorado at the same time in 2007. Taxes were originally 1500 year and are currently 1500 a year. My mortgage payment is 970. Assuming that our insurance is the same, his mortgage payment is $308 more because of taxes and another $150 more for HOA. Same purchase price, but our mortgages payments are completely different (970 vs. 1428). Even if he can get 1% and I currently do not (.8%), I still have more cash flow.
Absolutely great example of why one should run the specific numbers.
I will say though that if it doesn't meet 1%, I won't bother, even in a low property tax location. And yes, sometimes you need higher than 1% to compensate for something like that. In those circumstances I'd be looking for well above 1%.
That doesn't mean though that I'd lower the standard in another location.
0.8% in low property tax place > 1% in high, sure. But why not at least 1% in that low property tax place! or 1.3% in the high one?
(FWIW, I personally won't even go as low as 1%, the above was just an example.)
Definitely better to run the numbers, I agree you, but I'd shoot for a better return and run the numbers. ;)