What tenant would you rather rent to?

[Igster]

Originally Posted by Barbecue

What's there to miss out on?

all Tenants pay the same, and "good" tenants dont benefit the landlord anymore than a quiet one. Cant fault the Landlords for trying to minimize headaches for themselves

in my experience as both a pet owning tenant and property manager, those headaches usually come from the pet

Good people can own pets. I have heard so many horror stories about tenants and a ton don't involve pets at all.

Who would you rather rent to? A single 23 year old guy? Or a 40's something responsible couple with a dog? In many cases, you won't have any issues with the 40's something couple. Good luck with the noise and parties with the single guy.

[ken0042]

While I completely agree with you Igster (as I believe I fall into that category)- I can totally see why landlords would not want pets. I'd think there are as many pet owners who are irresponsible as there are who are responsible.

The one thing I did when I secured my rental was I invited the landlord over to my current house to meet my dog, as well as see what our current house looked like. No dead spots on the grass, floors and walls all intact, etc.

However my landlord could have easily have just picked any one of the other applications they had, as they had options. Hopefully that means I have a good landlord.

That being said, the earlier comment by somebody else that there is no benefit between good and excellent tenants; I disagree. A good tenant pays on time and doesn't make any unreasonable requests. An excellent tenant will take extra care for the place. Things like watering the grass, planting a flower garden, etc. They will also be flexible on minor repairs.

So it might be better to have an excellent tenant with a pet, than a good tenant without.

[Igster]

To me, it really depends on the tenant. What do they dress like? What do they drive? How old are they? Again, I mentioned young as being an issue, but that is discriminating in a way as well. My bad. I think it just really depends on the feeling you get from the person or persons looking to rent.

My wife and I take care of where we rent. We plant flowers, take care of the lawn (replace and re-sod as required because a dog will cause issues with the grass) and our pets are well trained, don't scratch or ruin walls or carpet and our dog is trained to only bark when it feels there is something threatening the place.

We are good tenants that have missed out on a lot of places we would like to live because we have animals. Did we choose to have them? Yes. But we love our animals and couldn't imagine living without them now. It just sucks when we can't rent some really nice places because people won't look past the fact we have pets. There is always more to the story folks.

[Hockeyguy15]

Something you maybe never thought of Igster is that some people have allergies to animals, and likely don't want to deal with that.

Or they could be Silver.

[Igster]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

Something you maybe never thought of Igster is that some people have allergies to animals, and likely don't want to deal with that.

Yes, I would understand that. But whole condo complexes and or buildings?

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Igster

Yes, I would understand that. But whole condo complexes and or buildings?

I can understand complexes/apartment buldings having pet restrictions, it's just too hard to tell if people are responsible pet owners. Boards can waste a lot of time dealing with animal complaints, so sometimes it's just easier to avoid it entirely.

[Igster]

Our poor old guy is almost 14 now, so I would imagine soon we'll only have to deal with places that have cat restrictions.

[photon]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

It's kind of a dick move to list and show a property saying you're allowing pets, and then back out and wait for option C because you got applicants with pets.

Yeah an ad should be clear, either saying no pets, or at least "pets considered". Back when I would allow pets, the type and number of pets was a factor. Sometimes I'd request them to bring their pet if appropriate, or I'd arrange to pick up the application in person so I could see their pet(s). 1 old cat is different than 3 huge dogs.

"No pets" is easy to write

Originally Posted by Igster

I'll be accountable for anything that is an issue, but it sucks as a pet owner who has to rent that so many options are not an option because people like yourself discriminate because you lump all pet owners into the same group and you "don't want the headache".

The fault isn't the landlords trying to avoid a headache, the fault is the significant portion number of pet owners that are headaches.

It's easy for you to say you will be accountable, but everyone says that. Reality is different, otherwise we wouldn't have the RTA and mediation and courts. In practice, landlords have to make decisions based on what's enforcable not on what someone says.

Having to go to mediation or take someone to court to get them to pay for the damages their pet makes is a HUGE hassle, often the cost of trying to hold someone responsible for what they agreed to is MORE than the actual damages. It's easy for tenants to be irresponsible jerks and get away with it.

If you could create a reliable blood test to be able to differentiate between the responsible pet owners that will own up to something their pet did and the ones that'll just move out, laugh, and leave the landlord with the bill then that'd be great. Until that point screening tenants is all about risk mitigation, and pet ownership is a significant risk factor.

I don't screen people based on the colour of their shirt because shirt colour doesn't say anything about risk. Pet ownership does. It's not a judgement about the character of pet owners in general, I'm sure the percentage of jerks that are pet owners is exactly the same (or even less) than the percentage of jerks that are not pet owners. It's a higher risk because the ones that are jerks have an additional source of risk along with them.

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Nobody takes pets in Calgary.

Charge $200 non refundable deposit and $50.00 a month extra per dog.

Compared to $4500 to replace carpets if they let their pet ruin them? $15,000 if it's hardwood? Pet deposits and increased rent can work for some places, I did that for a while but still found that the costs far exceeded what I could reasonably charge for a deposit and extra per month and still expect to get a tenant.

Originally Posted by Igster

Meh. Agree to disagree. I think many landlords are missing out on good tenants by lumping all pet owners into a single group.

For sure, anything a landlord does to screen a tenant is going to miss out on a good tenant. And there's always exceptions to the rules, one of the best tenants I had was a first time renter (I think she was so afraid of doing something wrong she did everything, I had to explain to her that she actually had some rights as a tenant). I've had good tenants with bad credit.

But again from the landlord's point of view it's about risk mitigation and landlords can only do that based on the information available to them.

[Swarly]

Originally Posted by Igster

Good people can own pets. I have heard so many horror stories about tenants and a ton don't involve pets at all.

Who would you rather rent to? A single 23 year old guy? Or a 40's something responsible couple with a dog? In many cases, you won't have any issues with the 40's something couple. Good luck with the noise and parties with the single guy.

So what you're saying is don't discriminate against the group you are in (pet owning group) discriminate against the other groups (23 year olds). Got it

you brought up what do they dress like and what do they drive. who cares? some of the best renters are working in construction or trades, guys who make good money with steady jobs but never have enough to buy. They will rent for years.

[photon]

Originally Posted by ken0042

The one thing I did when I secured my rental was I invited the landlord over to my current house to meet my dog, as well as see what our current house looked like. No dead spots on the grass, floors and walls all intact, etc.

Yup that's a great idea for anyone doing applications in a low vacancy market, but especially pet owners. A tenant that suggested that would jump up the list in my books. I've "arranged" visits to prospective tenants current places in the past ("I'll come pick up the security deposit and drop off keys"), but any time I've suggested it I've always got lots of push back.

Originally Posted by Igster

To me, it really depends on the tenant. What do they dress like? What do they drive? How old are they? Again, I mentioned young as being an issue, but that is discriminating in a way as well. My bad. I think it just really depends on the feeling you get from the person or persons looking to rent.

Sure, those are all ways to screen, but even then they discriminate in one way. Can't rent because they've got no fashion sense? Or hate newer cars?

Feeling is a factor, but it's too easy to be fooled by people, getting a great feeling with them and it turns into a disaster. It's happened to me.

Originally Posted by Igster

We are good tenants that have missed out on a lot of places we would like to live because we have animals. Did we choose to have them? Yes. But we love our animals and couldn't imagine living without them now. It just sucks when we can't rent some really nice places because people won't look past the fact we have pets. There is always more to the story folks.

It does suck, and of course there's more to the story. The problem is a landlord isn't a personal friend that's known you for a decade, you are a stranger and they have to make a decision with very little information in a very short timespan that could easily cost them tens of thousands of dollars if it's the wrong one. So they have to use whatever information is available and identify the greatest areas of risk.

Originally Posted by Igster

Yes, I would understand that. But whole condo complexes and or buildings?

Pets are against the bylaws at my condo complex.

[Flamenspiel]

^^Well as posted above "...age is not a protected ground and can be used to identify ideal tenants."

Everyone has opinions, but fundamentally you have to look at the law:

In Alberta age is not a protected ground and can be used to identify ideal tenants. However, landlords are prohibited from discriminating against tenants based on: race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religious beliefs, gender (including pregnancy, sexual harassment, and gender identity), physical disability, mental disability, marital status, family status, source of income, sexual orientation.

[Igster]

Originally Posted by Swarly

So what you're saying is don't discriminate against the group you are in (pet owning group) discriminate against the other groups (23 year olds). Got it

you brought up what do they dress like and what do they drive. who cares? some of the best renters are working in construction or trades, guys who make good money with steady jobs but never have enough to buy. They will rent for years.

I corrected myself about the age group above. See my post afterwards.

As for what do they dress like and what do they drive. It's not a point of do they wear the best clothes or do they drive brand new cars or BMW's, but it is a case of are they dressed poorly? Are their cars taken care of? If they don't take care of their own belongings, then how do you think they will take care of your rental?

[Barbecue]

Originally Posted by Igster

Good people can own pets. I have heard so many horror stories about tenants and a ton don't involve pets at all.

Who would you rather rent to? A single 23 year old guy? Or a 40's something responsible couple with a dog? In many cases, you won't have any issues with the 40's something couple. Good luck with the noise and parties with the single guy.

Nice to skew those two choices. Funny that they're similar to the Op's choices and still most people are going with the 23 year old

How about answering this?
Who would you rather rent to? A single 23 year old guy? Or a single 23 year old guy with a dog?

I bet you've never owned and rented property before. It's easy to scream discrimination when you're not the one who owns a $300k property and is liable for pretty much everything.

[photon]

And for any landlord, I'd suggest NEVER giving a reason to an applicant about why you are declining to rent to them. It's easy to feel like you have to justify yourself to them, but it's better not to.

Hah about the stripper thing, I had a stripper apply to a palace I owned once too. I asked why she was moving out from the downtown core and she said to get away from her abusive boyfriend.

Yeah, no...

[Igster]

Originally Posted by Barbecue

Nice to skew those two choices. Funny that they're similar to the Op's choices and still most people are going with the 23 year old

How about answering this?
Who would you rather rent to? A single 23 year old guy? Or a single 23 year old guy with a dog?

I bet you've never owned and rented property before. It's easy to scream discrimination when you're not the one who owns a $300k property and is liable for pretty much everything.

Again, I corrected myself above about the age thing.

And yes, I have rented my own property as well as managed and maintained an entire building. I speak from experience as a person who has done this as well as someone who has rented a lot in my life. So you LOSE that bet.

[Barbecue]

Originally Posted by Igster

Again, I corrected myself above about the age thing.

And yes, I have rented my own property as well as managed and maintained an entire building. I speak from experience as a person who has done this as well as someone who has rented a lot in my life. So you LOSE that bet.

Good, not only did you disciminate on age, but you already made the assumption that the older couple is responsible when you dont know them any more than the 23 year old

So as a experienced property manager (funny that you didnt mention that earlier but only mentioned you rented) and home owner, who would you rather rent to? A single 23 year old guy? Or a single 23 year old guy with a dog?

[sun]

Originally Posted by photon

And for any landlord, I'd suggest NEVER giving a reason to an applicant about why you are declining to rent to them. It's easy to feel like you have to justify yourself to them, but it's better not to.

Hah about the stripper thing, I had a stripper apply to a palace I owned once too. I asked why she was moving out from the downtown core and she said to get away from her abusive boyfriend.

Yeah, no...

Must have been a hell of a stripper.

[photon]

One letter can make a story sooo much more interesting.

[Igster]

Originally Posted by Barbecue

Good, not only did you disciminate on age, but you already made the assumption that the older couple is responsible when you dont know them any more than the 23 year old

In my experience, I have met more responsible 40 year olds than 23 year olds. It just is that way. Not always, but in many, many cases.

Originally Posted by Barbecue

So as a experienced property manager (funny that you didnt mention that earlier but only mentioned you rented) and home owner, who would you rather rent to? A single 23 year old guy? Or a single 23 year old guy with a dog?

I didn't mention it earlier because it was quite some time ago. We owned property that we rented out as well, but have been renting ourselves for quite some time. Just got tired of the headaches and upkeep of owning our own house so we decided renting would be better.

It really would depend on my gut feeling after meeting and speaking with the person. I certainly wouldn't just rule one out because they owned a dog, regardless of age. I would speak to both of them and see what my gut says.

[lazypucker]

Question for the OP - Do you think you can bang the 23yr-old nurse for free?

If yes, definitely choose her. If not, then choose neither...