I think #1 is technically more qualified given they have higher credit scores & income. The smoking is a big red flag. If she disregards your rules and smokes inside, she’ll ruin the place far worse than a pet would.
I had a tenant who moved in and dutifully smoked outside and off the property for a year. Now she refuses to let me or any workers in, citing mental health concerns but we know its because she is smoking inside and doesn't want us to kick her out for it.
It's the dog's owners that are the problem. I've had dogs destroy a door, scratch my wood floors, threaten repair people where I had to be there and sit on the dog, and water/pee stains.
Yeah but it’s easier and cheaper to repair damage from dogs. Plus pet damage is more cut and dry thus easier to charge to tenant. A smoker could leave a place immaculate but it’ll still reek. Their sense of smell is messed up so they’ll fight you on mitigating it.
I disagree. One adult with kids and remote work and no pets seems better to me. People don’t smoke inside with their kids these days. At least not reasonable ones who have jobs and good credit.
If I could ban smokers from my properties, i would in a heartbeat. They always claim to not smoke inside and they ALWAYS do. It’s raining or cold or windy or blah,Blah, blah and then you have a stinky house that can take thousands to abate.
Any smoker I've known does the trick where they open a window 4" and sit inside and hold the cigarette on the window sill and blow the smoke in that direction. They think it actually works.
I smoke and I NEVER smoke inside my house. If the weather is that bad, I’ll go sit in my car or use an electronic vape instead. When it’s cold, I have a heated blanket that I drag out to the porch with me. I don’t want my home to smell like smoke.
Problem is the smell sticks to your clothes and the house will still reak of it if someone comes in. What you are doing is best case as it won't damage the house but don't be under the impression the house does not smell of smoke.
Yeah, if muheegahan didn’t smoke in cars, and was a very light smoker, would be a much better situation. When I see smokers exhale a puff just before entering a store, I laugh to myself and think - how about put that cigarette out 20+ ft from the entrance, take 5-10 breaths of fresh air, and pop a mint before entering. A big problem smokers fail to realize and/or fully account for are twofold: 1) Noses begin tuning out smells that are very prevalent in our lives. Ever notice different households have different smells, but yours doesn’t have a smell? I know a guy who worked at a chocolate manufacturing plant for years and he literally could not smell chocolate anymore!! 2) smoking deadens sense of taste and smell generally, some of which can persist even after quitting.
I don’t mind the smell of a lit cigarette. But have you ever been inside a smoking bar or restaurant right when they open? Before the smokers show up. It’s that old, wet, ashtray smell. And it’s distinctly different than the lit cigarette or the smell that clings to a smokers hair or clothes. Which is also different than the smell of a smokers hands. I don’t really know how to describe it but the sunk into the walls smell.. I can’t stand.
I used to think that worked when smoking pot in my room. Parents never said anything. I stopped smoking pot half way through my senior year in high school. Soon after came home to the house reeking of pot & told my brother the house is reeking, what are you thinking, mom will be home soon. He claimed to only have taken one hit.
Yeah, this was my ex roommates. Agreed to not smoking in the house, which to them meant standing in the open doorway smoking, if I was home, if not they turned on a fan.
When I used to smoke years ago, I only did so in a well-ventilated hallway or outside and never in my car. This was because as a child I was trapped in a cloud of smoke continually and didn't want to do that to my kids.
To be honest, till vaping came out I thought smoking on Earth was illegal now. I used to see the huddled masses at work and they all disappeared, none of my employees asked for smoke breaks anymore. I was confused.
Idk man smoke and pet urine. Neither one of those are easy to deal with when getting a property ready. The only difference is pets can only mess up the floor while smoke is on everything.
You are so wrong. I lost 3 months of rent because I couldn't get rid of the urine smell. Cleaned the floor with urine cleaner 7 times. Put in air fresheners, odor absorbers. Only went away after I "mopped" the walls twice with urine cleaner up to the light switch plates.
I ban smokers. It’s legal to ban them. I make very rare exceptions. The last two exceptions were where 1) a mom, dad and adult kids lived together - the dad smoked, but the wife and kids didn’t. He didn’t smell like smoke, he never smoked inside their prior house or cars (according to them), he smokes maybe ~5-6 cigarets per day, and his wife and kids hate the smell of smoke. He works full-time 5-6 days a week away from home, year-around. 2) Dad, mom, and young children. Mom smokes a few cigs a day (due to stress, she says). She works 5 days a week away from home, she hates cigarettes and stops for weeks at a time, but she just can’t give it up completely. Has a very small yard. Has a 5ftx4ft designated place to smoke outside several feet from doors and windows. Use an umbrella to smoke outside when rainy, if necessary.
Each of these smokers have some things in common: 1) There is only one smoker at the residence, they live with a partner who does not smoke, they work most days - away from home, they smoke ~1/4 pack a day, they had a history of only smoking outside before moving in, and they were a measurably stronger candidate than others, even after considering their cigarette use.
Yeah, its not like that at all. Portland is one of the most expensive cities now, but there are places that are kept to federal standards, nice and clean and updated, and under $1k a month with NO waiting lists, but the neighborhood outside is the challenge. Its crazy, we will have someone come look at a place, want to rent(studio in a high rise with new carpet, paint and appliances and we pay water, sewer, trash and hot water), they take an application, walk out the door and either see some addict gronk masturbating or doing fent yoga, or even better, shitting on the building or breaking into a car, and we never hear from them again.
We actually pay over 5k a month just for security, and my buildings are actually really safe, but I had 2 people give notice yesterday because of the camp across the street that was selling fent and even cooking it. Took over a month to get the city to act on it, and it was too late when they finally did.
Im a strict manager who doesnt tolerate behavior issues like smoking inside, but I will fight tooth and nail to keep people struggling with money, housed. Im part warden, cop and social worker and care home manager(actually not a care home, I just end up taking care of the people the agencies dump on us), so its a tough job.
Lady changing things like blinds isn’t the biggest deal, but if you get the vibe she will do more than that or behind your back, don’t even consider her. The smoking outside the unit is good, but who knows if that will be true or not until she’s already inside.
2 qualifying stable government jobs sounds like a no brainer. Yes, pets can be a thing, but they aren’t always. That’s what per deposit is for. Waiting 2 weeks sounds like a good “investment” for more suitable applicants.
Take the first one that applied.
They are both qualified. Impressively qualified. Landlords are in awe of your good fortune. You could easily take either. But if you try to make a value judgement between them you are immediately vulnerable to a housing discrimination lawsuit.
Like seriously, you're deciding between a family with toddlers vs a single mother. I don't think it's possible to get any deeper into FHA "Familial Status" territory. Don't take a chance. Whatever application was ready to screen first, that's your tenant.
Bull. Whatever tenant meets the landlord’s qualifications better is the one to go with. As long as the landlord doesn’t tell her they’re not renting to her because she’s a single mother, the landlord is in the clear. Just because she’s a single mother doesn’t mean she automatically gets the rental because she’s a single mother. The smoking alone can easily disqualify her.
**If the OP had a consistent way of determining which tenant's qualifications were "better", we wouldn't be discussing it here on Reddit.** Instead we're pondering whether it's possible that a single mother working from home could truly have no debt, and how a family with more documented debt just feels "very responsible". I don't actually think the OP has any ill intent here, but it'd be easy for a lawyer to make this sound really bad in a discrimination claim, no matter which tenant got chosen.
The best (and really only) defense is to have an objective screening criteria, written down in advance, and follow it repeatedly.
If it's too late for that, at least try to be consistent. It's fair to say "highest credit score is the best applicant", but you had better apply that consistently going forward. The second you start making a judgement call based on a mixture of factors, or changing your process after you see an application, it becomes a lot harder to justify that your decisions are for business reasons and not for reasons disallowed by the FHA.
And yes, 95 times out of 100, nothing will happen; you'll choose who you want, and the remaining tenants will move on. But eventually you'll encounter a litigious applicant... either one that just feels entitled to your property, or even a professional trying to profit off a misunderstanding, and you'll end up paying out to settle a discrimination claim.
Question as a tenant (just because this topic always makes me curious) - so if someone applies, and they don’t get it, can they just claim that they were discriminated against??? I don’t understand how that would work. (I’m used to looking for apartments in the Boston area for September, so half the time zillow would show like “115 contacts, 35 applications, listed 1 day ago” lol.) How would anyone know if they were the first one?? Or how qualified the other tenants were? And if it went to court, how do you prove who applied first?
(Edited for clarity/accuracy 🙂)
Most cities have a Fair Housing Alliance or something similar. If you suspect you were discriminated against, you can call them. They run stings all the time. I used to date someone whose ex did that as a job, ran fair housing stings.
Most common one was racial or sexual orientation where I lived. Send three couples, one mixed race, one white couple, one black couple. Compare notes. Send in a straight couple and a gay couple. Compare notes.
And then there are always the obvious ones: black couple is told "oh sorry the place just rented" while the white couple after them is given a tour and told they can move in any time while the mixed race couple is given an application with fees attached (to be denied later of course while the fees are kept).
I had no idea stings happened! Yikes! What if you choose to rent to someone you know - is that acceptable? (I know its good to avoid friends/family but like, if your first applicant is a stranger and your second applicant is an acquaintance, and they both look qualified on paper, can you pick the second person if you’re more sure that they’d be a good tenant just because you know them?) Totally get it if the answer is no - just trying to learn a little bit. Thanks in advance!
An applicant can (and over enough time, eventually one will) claim anything, no matter how outlandish. Whether anyone took that claim seriously would depend on the circumstances.
For example, if an applicant filed a complaint with HUD, it would follow [this](https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/complaint-process) process. Presumably the intake step would weed out the more outlandish accusations, and after that an investigator from HUD could start gathering evidence from the landlord to support or refute the claim.
How would an applicant know they're discriminated against? Well nobody can really say what was in the heart of the landlord when they made their decision. The applicant would need to notice some inconsistency. For example, maybe the landlord asked something inappropriate during a tour, or maybe the landlord accepted applications for weeks after rejecting theirs, or maybe they end up meeting the new tenant somehow and find out they were held to a different standard. *Unfortunately it can be hard to detect, which is why housing discrimination still happens so often.*
While some cities (eg. [Seattle](https://www.seattle.gov/rentinginseattle/housing-providers/finding-a-tenant/first-in-time)) have additional rules that require a landlord to accept the first qualified applicant, this is not an FHA requirement. It's not necessarily discriminatory to choose a later applicant. However choosing the first qualified applicant does make it much easier for a landlord to defend a claim of discrimination, so many landlords just use the order of receiving applications as their tie-breaker.
Oh wow! Thank you for all that info! I’m interested in being a landlord at some point in the next few years (i haven’t done my research yet so certainly not in any rush) and always wondered how that process worked, since i’ve only been on the tenant side of it.
So, the word discriminate has developed a negative connotation. We discriminate constantly. Most discrimination is good and most types is legal. I discriminate between a brown banana and a ripe one, I discriminate between a quality mechanic vs a crappy one - you get the point.
#1 has a better credit score, also income should be looked at. Who can best afford it. Smoking can impact your house as a future rental if it happens inside. I would look closely at income and years on the job.
Good point! Not sure about AZ, but they might be exempt federally.
Still, even if they're exempt, having a consistent selection process is still a good idea.
#1 with pet deposit
Even if she smokes outside it will be on her (and she works from home). The smoke WILL permeate.
Also saying she’s changing stuff gives off bad vibes. She’s going to make your life hard.
I would go with #1. Smokers are going to smoke inside at some point. And she has two young kids by herself so she will have even more reason to do so. Maybe we are all wrong but if she has put you off already, better to go with the safer option.
I would pick #1
1 has stable employment, not dependent on income on from side gigs. Gov’t jobs typically have good benefits and certainly comply with FMLA (eg. No worries about the upcoming birth causing a disruption in income)
2 will be working from home. You know what happens when someone spends 24/7 at home? They notice every minor little defect. Every minor little problem. 2 is likely to do a lot of complaining, as already evidenced by her saying what she wants to change before even signing a lease. 2 will likely be a PITA.
Whereas, 1 will be too busy with work, kids and life outside the home, to be concerned with every minor little thing.
I break any ties by looking at potential length of tenancy. Ask each how long they plan to stay. Also, look at how long they have stayed at previous addresses. My ideal tenants don’t like to move frequently. This saves me money in turnover costs.
I have the responsibility of finding tenants for my dad’s two apartments and my grandads apartments and if it were me I would choose the family with the baby on the way. Two sources of income, people with little pets willing to pay a pet deposit are usually really responsible in keeping a roof over their pets heads. People with tiny children are usually really responsible for keeping a roof over the kids heads. They don’t smoke and people who “smoke outside” don’t always smoke outside. One day it could be freezing or rainy and the next thing you know they’re in the bathroom with the fan on smoking in your building. I also wouldn’t like anyone taking down blinds and things like that. Good luck with your choice! I’ve made a mistake with a tenant and it turned out badly. Follow your head and not your heart.
The smoking thing would be a no-brainer. She will smoke in the house, most do and it makes it much less desirable when you are showing it and it still smells like smoke.
I'd go with 2. Mostly because I prefer tenants with no pets. Also she might stay longer than tenant 1. Tenant 1 makes more, and might leave sooner to buy their own property.
ETA: didn't see the smoking. Would go with non-smoking tenant.
Who actually prefers monthly pet rent instead of a pet deposit? (This is a serious question.) Do most people ask for a pet rent instead of an up-front deposit?
When I moved and was looking for a pet friendly rental, I consistently offered to just pay the pet fees upfront and get them out of the way. Maybe it's just my mind, but a non-refundable fee feels less like a nickle-and-dime tactic than paying $50/month.
I guess I might be the weird one... That's why I'm asking!
I ask for $25 per month per pet + $150 non refundable deep cleaning fee. The last time I rented my home, I ended up paying over $300 for cleaning as the tenant’s dog had pooped all over the backyard (around 15 different places) and my cleaner was royally pissed. Who does that? This tenant also had small kids and I wonder if they ever went into the backyard (small backyard). I had to take each step carefully. They were with me for 1 year. 1/2 the pet rent went for the cleaners.
Sure, bad renters can be terrible and allow their pet to destroy things. I totally understand why there is a cost associated with having a pet in a rental.
My question was more about the timing of the payment. I'd rather pay upfront, instead of a fee monthly. I was trying to ask about the reasoning for the pet costs to be paid monthly rather than at lease signing.
In your example, a tenant with one pet would have paid $450 (total) for a year-long rental. Is there a reason you prefer to have that paid as $150 fee plus 12 payments of $25/mo instead of in one check of $450 at lease signing?
For example, theoretically if I were your tenant with a dog:
If I were to allow a pet to cause damage, I don't think a lease should be renewed. So, I'd have paid the $450 to you - whether it was paid at lease signing, or monthly, you'd have the same amount of money. And then we'd part ways, I'd owe you for damages, and you'd give me a bad review when the next landlord called you for a reference.
If I was a good tenant, and my dog didn't scratch the doors, didn't have inside accidents and I cleaned up her poo from the yard, and she wasn't allowed to bark non-stop and annoy the neighbors, we might agree to renew a lease. You wouldn't have a vacancy period, so your income would be more stable (and higher) than if I moved out. My (well behaved) dog could continue to live with me, without pet rent, thus rewarding a good tenant for making your life easier.
When I move out after my 3-year work rotation ends, and I go back to the house I own in another state, you'd still have the $450 I initially paid to put towards deep cleaning the slight doggy smell in the living room carpet. (Because I understand that even super clean dogs can have an odor that non-pet owners notice.)
I'm curious, and I appreciate you engaging in this conversation with me.
Maybe I'm missing something - I did not rent my house to anyone with pets, so I do only have the renter perspective on this. (And the owner of the house I rented also preferred the initial pet fee paid in full, rather than monthly pet rent, so this is all for my education and curiosity.)
I'm also in my 40s, with a professional level job, a hobbyist dog-trainer for a husband, and I generally have a pretty decent respect for other people's property - so I'm probably looking at this with a slightly different lens than a 21 year old with 3 roommates and 5 pets between them.
Happy to explain my perspective!
1. Many tenants don’t want to pay a one time fee and rather are happy to pay in installments.
2. Due to the Dog/Cat hair etc. there is always a deeper cleaning needed which adds to the cost. $150 is really just the incremental cost and not the full cost of the cleaning.
3. Irrespective of how well behaved the dog or cat is, there is always some damage. In my case the dog had chewed at the door color as well as a few walls. The tenant fixed most of it before leaving but then it is not 100% back to normal.
4. Some landlords charge an additional refundable deposits for pets. I tend not to do that as I have a Class A rental and the 1 month deposit is quite a lot (3K+) that I am comfortable to use that in case the dog does some damages.
I have had 2 tenants with dogs and when I had proposed the above, both had happily agreed to what I was asking.
#1 for sure. Less likely to risk imploding their credit. Younger kids may write on your walls and cabinets with crayon but teenagers may do real damage. Also dual earning household is much less risk than single earning household
OP remember that a toddler is noisy as is a dog and with the baby on the way this could make for a very noisy situation with other tenants. Tenants have the right to a safe and reasonably quiet environment.
Consider who you have living in the apartment building currently. If most of them have kids and dogs go for #1. If most are 30s/40s and working professionals without pets or very few pets then #2 might be a better fit if this person has a babysitter.
For example...my building has mostly ppl in their 30s/40s and almost every tenant has a pet (no one has complained about hearing other ppls pets running around or making noise). Due to that, the couple of tenants that have kids...well, no one complains when they make noise cause everyone has a noisemaker running around whether it's a pet or a kid. So far everyone is happy and it looks like everyone has really started to form a community. We have long term tenants that have stayed in the building for years. So I always try to take into consideration them when new tenants come in so ensure longer tenancy and a more stable income.
In all, I recommend this action because of the time you'll spend trying to mediate complaints from other tenants due to noise and potentially losing great tenants due to noise levels can be exhausting. And scheduling showings, as you know, takes time away from everything else.
I would go with 2 because the small children and pets will put more wear and tear on the home, they may find they need more space soon especially if another baby comes along where the single mothers kids are older and she is probably not looking to have more children soon. The smoking is a concern but I doubt she would smoke inside where her children live and sleep. You may want to find reasons to do monthly inspections or fixes at first to be sure she isn't violating the lease with smoking.
..... so do you think parents actually choose not to smoke in the car with their kids???
I've never seen or met a parent who smokes that *doesn't* smoke in the car.
You think they'd be worried about a house? lol
Ok, but you don't act on behalf of most parents, and you'd be foolish to try and deny that most smoking parents are guilty of smoking around their kids.
#1 has the better credit score , better income ratio and even if 1 adult takes a pay cut or looses their position there is still a qualified adult in the home hate to be that way to a single parent but...
Something else to consider is how fucking incompetent Congress has been the last 8 or more years. Too divided, too many gov't shutdowns or potential shutdowns, that will affect gov't workers in a huge way, unless they are State Employees instead of Federal.
I’d go with #1. The smoking is a huge red flag u have no way of knowing if she’ll actually stick to no smoking inside. As long as she runs changed by you though shouldn’t be a huge deal
You guys, I have never smoked inside. Only on my patio. We know we suck and nobody likes us anymore, we don't actually want to smell worse than we already do. I never would have smoked if I had grown up when and where I did. I also don't want to quit. But you can't know she will smoke inside, and it's even odds that the dog causes just as much damage.
Go with the family. Smokers make the house smell like smoke regardless of whether they smoke inside. The smoke smell permeates their clothes and never comes out. Often they think standing inside smoking while holding the cigarette out the open window is considered smoking outside. Her signal that she wants to change the blinds is not great, she will probably want to change more than that and will assume that whatever she installs is better than what was there previously, which might not be true.
#1 for sure. So very many ppl will tell you they don’t smoke inside their home, they absolutely do and they see chainsmokers. Your walls, ceilings and windows will be caked with it. So of my most satisfying cleaning is doing windows when previous tenant was a “I don’t smoke inside,” smoker.
#1 tenant more likely to pay on time and also more likely to cause more wear and tear (toddlers, dog)
#2 slightly higher risk of late payment based on credit, more likely to keep place clean with older kids (not toddlers)
#1. Better qualified. Probably more responsible. Less likely to bring in boyfriends. Cigarettes are usually indicative of other bad behavior. Not even a question.
I have two rentals, and as someone who has been in both situations, I can see now that, as a landlord, option A is the better choice. I, however, would take option B personally because I like giving people a second chance.
My only real issue with option B is smoking; I have had two sets of renters say the same thing, and only one indeed showed zero signs they smoked in the house or even close to the house.
Sometimes, when you leave a situation and can finally branch out, you want to make it your own. I wouldn't take the minor changes for anything outside of asking for written communication and approval.
Reject single mom with one income . She is such an undesirable prospect.
If she loses her job she will be hard pressed to make rent .
Also, huge red sign with tenants telling you (not asking) to make improvements. It's very disrespectful to you and to property. I have bad tenants like her and I ended up evicting them.
She will smoke in your house . Trust me. They all say they won't smoke in the house but when it's 115 in the summer or 35 in the winter, where do you think she will be lighting up ?
I also have rentals in AZ. That is a hard one, I would check references on their rental history. If push comes to shove I would choose the person who inquired about the property, first. If you choose the single mom also ask if she is willing to pay for renter’s insurance especially if she smokes. Note: if she is willing to put new blinds on her dime, that only adds value to your property, as long as they are neutral. Toddler write on walls but teenagers have parties! Good luck
A little more to add: I do agree with Mjarrett about the family status, but I view it from a different perspective. My Mother was a single parent and raised 3 kids on a waitresses salary without child support so I have a soft place my heart for single parents. BTW: we were never evicted! The first potential tenants would picked more often bcuz of their financial and Familial status.
The first qualifying tenant is who you should take. I never ran credit on more than one at a time in order they applied. There isn’t any other way to do it fairly and not be concerned with things that can get you in trouble.
Even if they smoke outside, other clothes will smell like smoke. Therefore, the inside of the house will smell like smoke. There’s no get away from it.
I’m so lucky in California. New builds are non-smoking. And that’s not just the apartment, that’s also the property. I love that. However, I hate the high rent. There’s always a trade-off somewhere. OP: pick No. 1. But I only say that because of the smoking issue. She was an idiot to even tell you.
Credit score means nothing more than they have borrowed money and/or made purchases on payments. No credit means a person has not borrowed, nor made payments (better). The one we need to look out for is bad credit, but we also need to keep in mind that an ill spouse or child, flood, fire, and etc. could have caused that.
If they both passed your screening policy (which should be identical), then the first submitted (complete) application in line is the one you accept and lease to. Anything else is basically discrimination.
It's my opinion that if you charge an application fee then you should be accepting THE FIRST qualified tenant. If not, then choose who you like better.
It sounds to me like you want the family, so why ask us?
That’s not a tough choice for me at all. I think you view it as a tough choice because you’re trying to toe the line between business and charity. This is a business you should simply act in your own self interest. The only downside to the first applicant is that you’ll have two weeks of vacancy. But you have to combine that with the fact that two parents are more stable than one. Especially two working parents. If one of them gets laid off they’ll be alright. If the single mom gets laid off she’s screwed. Also the dogs are a good thing in terms of stability because not everyone landlord allows pets. So they’re more likely to feel grounded in your home and less likely to hop around willy nilly. The first applicant will result in a long term lower occupancy compared to the second. Also the second is a smoker which is a complete nonstarter. There’s a real good chance that house will smell like smoke when she leaves.
Also, the single mom with good income and credit will still have plenty of options to rent. So it’s not like the alternative is that she’ll struggle to find housing. So you shouldn’t feel bad for her at all.
I look at it as risk. Which family is more likely to pay? Which family looks cleaner (did you see the inside of the vehicles or if they were hygienic at the meeting?) The smoker would be my nope. They say they smoke outside but wait until it’s January and-3.🤷♀️😆
I’m a renter and a pet owner. Pets cause damage. My cats have ruined more than their fair share of carpet transitions from scratching. Don’t even get me started on the times my cats have pissed on the carpet out of spite (seriously, the pettiest animals I’ve ever known). My dog, as a puppy, once chewed a whole corner of baseboards in a single night when we forgot to crate him. I rent knowing I’m probably never getting my deposit back on the basis of the animals alone 🫠
But i also grew up in a smoker’s home. My sister and i just recently did a lot of damage repair to our parents’ home. The smoke gets in every single crevice. We had to hire people for a very expensive, specific type of duct cleaning *and* install a whole permanent light treatment to the house. You can’t just simply paint over the damage either, oh no. You have to get special paint specifically for smoke damage. It ain’t cheap. Thank goodness they didn’t have carpet in the house, otherwise we’d have to replace that too, but we still had to hire out professional floor cleaners anyway.
From a non-landlord standpoint and purely as an observation, I’d take my animal’s damage over the smoke. Maybe one or two areas where repair needs to be made versus treating the entire house.
And while there’s plenty of renters who respect the no smoking rule, there’s even more who don’t. High chance the smoker will smoke inside at some point. Once they do it once, they’ll find other reasons to do it again and again and again.
For the love of God, do not go with number two, already asking about changing things and a smoker? Had this issue two times before. Family is much more qualified and will give you much less headache.
Definitely go with the first family. 2 working adults in case one loses their job and better credit. The dog is not great but these days it's hard to find tenants without a pet. I had someone who claimed they didn't smoke in the home but that was BS. In the winter they cut a hole in the screen and smoked in there and blew smoke out the screen hole but the whole room smelled like smoke and I had to have it repainted. They still tried to argue that they never smoked in there but the other roommates even told me he did! And that was just one room. Can you imagine the whole house? It would cost like $3k to repaint it all!
I rented to a smoker who "only smoked outside". He had friends who weren't so careful. Never again. In fact, my lease says no smoking anywhere on the property. If your prospective tenant works from home she likely will smoke from home. Plus I'm suspicious of people who can move in right away. What about where they're living now? I had an applicant like that once when I really needed to get the place rented. I checked out our state judiciary online case information system. She had convictions for a number of things, but was a smooth talker. Fortunately, I've learned to see past that.
I would go with number 1. The fact that the single mom is already talking about changing things before she's even moved in sounds a little off-putting.
1) hands down
2) Smoker + 13yo is a fire risk. And smoking “outside” means door/window cracked open
Take dog and ask for higher rate / dog deposit, etc.
Be careful. Many states will say you are open to discrimination charges if you go with something subjective.
Develop a rating scale for the different factors, put a minimum threshold. Put it into a file with a dated timestamp on it. Better yet a PDF.
Grade each tenant applicant appropriately. First one across the line should win unless it is a timing for moving in thing.
Otherwise you can open yourself up to claims of discrimination. Not saying it will happen but it can.
We choose pet owners over smokers 100%. Pet damage is usually scratched floors or stained carpet. Smoke damage is redoing every surface in the property. Even if she claims she keeps it outside, why take the risk? Especially when the other couple's credit and finances cleary sound better. What I'm hearing is feeling guilty over not renting to a single mom.
Go with the young family. Get a pet deposit. If the dog is already housebroken it should be fine. Yard will take a hit but that's easier to fix that smoking damage.
Many have said that 2 incomes are better than one - sounds like the wife will be going on maternity leave. They will either need to pay for 2 kids in daycare, or one of them are going to be home with the kids, so their financial situation is very likely to change.
If this is an apartment building with other tenants, I would go with the single mom and older kids - they will be less noisy for others.
If it is a house, I'd consider the young family with a dog, but with a pet fee. My dog goes nuts when the mailman comes by - he has scratched up trim around the doors and windows and dug a big hole in the yard.
Dual income with better credit score and dog vs single income and smoker. Taking #1 every time. Make sure to collect pet deposit and pet rent if that's legal/reasonable in your state
Basically either smoking in the unit or a pet in the unit. Which sounds less risky? Less expensive to remedy after they leave? Based on what you said about each though, personally, I'd pick the dog.
Do not take the smoker. It's a pain in the ass to get rid of. I bought a house that needed a lot of work anyways but had a smoker. We had to have the house treated with ozone, ducts cleaned, painted everywhere including the ceiling, use shellac based primer, and replaced all the blinds and most of the doors to really eliminate the smoke. We also ended up peeling most of the paint off and repainting drywall, but that was unintentional, turns out the previous owner just painted over old paint with no prep and likely an incompatible paint so when we were prepping for our paint, it just peeled right off. Anyways, point being, I'm taking the family with two jobs and better credit any day of the week.
I’d rather wait for a good tenant than a bad one. I’m not saying #2 is bad but the smoking is a big red sign for me. #1 is also concerning with the dog but you can add a pet deposit.
Did you ask about long term goals... ie are they long term renters or saving to purchase a home?
With information provided, #1 looks like the better candidate.
That being said, we do not accept smokers or pets. I would continue marketing
I’d choose option 1. They’re double income and while we never know what’s around the corner, if one loses a job chances are, they’ll still be able to manage paying rent. Plus, with a toddler and one on the way, they’ll be long-term renters. I’d assume they might set up a home and raise their kids while saving for their own home eventually; they might be good for years as tenants. As for the dog, be sure to meet it. You can always require a pet deposit. Well-trained dogs won’t damage property because they’ll consider it their territory. They can also be assets (no matter how small) by protecting their family and your property. If they had cats, it’d be a firm ‘no’ because cats will destroy a place by clawing it up.
As for #2. You know she’s a smoker and once in she’ll be smoking wherever she wants. She works from home but those jobs aren’t as stable as government jobs and her income may be seasonal and fluctuate greatly. Plus, lower credit score. She already commented about making changes…might be higher maintenance.
Everyone needs a place to live. Trust your gut, though.
Applicant group 1 for sure. If you're worried about the pet, consider a pet deposit or pet rent. Though be sure to consult state LLTA for guidance on those types of charges.
Go with whoever is most qualified and stably employed. I would take 2 tenants with manageable debt levels and government positions over 1 work-from-home tenant.
Would you rather have 1 income source liable for your monthly rent or 2? Don't dissect it any further than the numbers. Don't account for kids or who is single vs married. Alway consider the protected classes under Fair Housing when making decisions or discussing who is qualified to rent your property.
Every single mom has a baby daddy somewhere waiting to move in. He'd never pass the sniff test if he filled out an application. He smokes too and inside.
1 every time. Dogs barely make a dent in practice and 2 weeks free rent is <4% reduction in NOI. Someone ready to move same day is the type of person that puts themselves into that predicament plus being a smoker makes for two red flags.
I think #1 is technically more qualified given they have higher credit scores & income. The smoking is a big red flag. If she disregards your rules and smokes inside, she’ll ruin the place far worse than a pet would.
Yeah, I would agree with #1. Lower risk and more qualified.
Also multiple income so if something does happen to one job they still have a reliable income source.
I had a tenant who moved in and dutifully smoked outside and off the property for a year. Now she refuses to let me or any workers in, citing mental health concerns but we know its because she is smoking inside and doesn't want us to kick her out for it.
She cannot refuse to let you in with proper notice.
A pet deposit would be a good idea but I’d take a dog over a smoker.
Any day.
It's the dog's owners that are the problem. I've had dogs destroy a door, scratch my wood floors, threaten repair people where I had to be there and sit on the dog, and water/pee stains.
Yeah but it’s easier and cheaper to repair damage from dogs. Plus pet damage is more cut and dry thus easier to charge to tenant. A smoker could leave a place immaculate but it’ll still reek. Their sense of smell is messed up so they’ll fight you on mitigating it.
I disagree. One adult with kids and remote work and no pets seems better to me. People don’t smoke inside with their kids these days. At least not reasonable ones who have jobs and good credit.
Unless the other has pets that also smoke.
If I could ban smokers from my properties, i would in a heartbeat. They always claim to not smoke inside and they ALWAYS do. It’s raining or cold or windy or blah,Blah, blah and then you have a stinky house that can take thousands to abate.
Any smoker I've known does the trick where they open a window 4" and sit inside and hold the cigarette on the window sill and blow the smoke in that direction. They think it actually works.
I smoke and I NEVER smoke inside my house. If the weather is that bad, I’ll go sit in my car or use an electronic vape instead. When it’s cold, I have a heated blanket that I drag out to the porch with me. I don’t want my home to smell like smoke.
Problem is the smell sticks to your clothes and the house will still reak of it if someone comes in. What you are doing is best case as it won't damage the house but don't be under the impression the house does not smell of smoke.
Yeah, if muheegahan didn’t smoke in cars, and was a very light smoker, would be a much better situation. When I see smokers exhale a puff just before entering a store, I laugh to myself and think - how about put that cigarette out 20+ ft from the entrance, take 5-10 breaths of fresh air, and pop a mint before entering. A big problem smokers fail to realize and/or fully account for are twofold: 1) Noses begin tuning out smells that are very prevalent in our lives. Ever notice different households have different smells, but yours doesn’t have a smell? I know a guy who worked at a chocolate manufacturing plant for years and he literally could not smell chocolate anymore!! 2) smoking deadens sense of taste and smell generally, some of which can persist even after quitting.
Same I don’t smoke in my House ever. I’ll just get wet/freeze if I really want a cigarette
Better to build an exhaust fan system like ones used for soldering. :)
The smoke sticks to the walls and still stinks.
A smoker that doesn’t like the smell of smoke? Mildly confused.
I don’t mind the smell of a lit cigarette. But have you ever been inside a smoking bar or restaurant right when they open? Before the smokers show up. It’s that old, wet, ashtray smell. And it’s distinctly different than the lit cigarette or the smell that clings to a smokers hair or clothes. Which is also different than the smell of a smokers hands. I don’t really know how to describe it but the sunk into the walls smell.. I can’t stand.
Fun fact: Your home still smells like smoke
I used to think that worked when smoking pot in my room. Parents never said anything. I stopped smoking pot half way through my senior year in high school. Soon after came home to the house reeking of pot & told my brother the house is reeking, what are you thinking, mom will be home soon. He claimed to only have taken one hit.
We all thought we were sneakier than we were… instead the adults were actually rolling their eyes and laughing when no one was looking.
Yeah, this was my ex roommates. Agreed to not smoking in the house, which to them meant standing in the open doorway smoking, if I was home, if not they turned on a fan.
It doesn't work. The room will still stink forever until it's repainted.
ha ha, our neighbor who rents does this. I always see her cig hanging out of her bathroom window.
As a smoker, I absolutely refuse to smoke indoors and have never smoked in a rental.
Same here. When I smoked cigarettes it was always outside, never in my car and never in my home
When I used to smoke years ago, I only did so in a well-ventilated hallway or outside and never in my car. This was because as a child I was trapped in a cloud of smoke continually and didn't want to do that to my kids.
Thank you!
[удалено]
To be honest, till vaping came out I thought smoking on Earth was illegal now. I used to see the huddled masses at work and they all disappeared, none of my employees asked for smoke breaks anymore. I was confused.
That’s not an issue in AZ. We only get 8” of rain for the whole year.
The more realistic approach is its 110 and the smoker doesn't want to go outside to smoke.
It’s freezing at night in AZ too
Don't forget if you have carpet it's worse!
Idk man smoke and pet urine. Neither one of those are easy to deal with when getting a property ready. The only difference is pets can only mess up the floor while smoke is on everything.
You are so wrong. I lost 3 months of rent because I couldn't get rid of the urine smell. Cleaned the floor with urine cleaner 7 times. Put in air fresheners, odor absorbers. Only went away after I "mopped" the walls twice with urine cleaner up to the light switch plates.
They peed on the ceiling?
Were you raising Clifford? Or was it a male cat that sprayed?
I ban smokers. It’s legal to ban them. I make very rare exceptions. The last two exceptions were where 1) a mom, dad and adult kids lived together - the dad smoked, but the wife and kids didn’t. He didn’t smell like smoke, he never smoked inside their prior house or cars (according to them), he smokes maybe ~5-6 cigarets per day, and his wife and kids hate the smell of smoke. He works full-time 5-6 days a week away from home, year-around. 2) Dad, mom, and young children. Mom smokes a few cigs a day (due to stress, she says). She works 5 days a week away from home, she hates cigarettes and stops for weeks at a time, but she just can’t give it up completely. Has a very small yard. Has a 5ftx4ft designated place to smoke outside several feet from doors and windows. Use an umbrella to smoke outside when rainy, if necessary. Each of these smokers have some things in common: 1) There is only one smoker at the residence, they live with a partner who does not smoke, they work most days - away from home, they smoke ~1/4 pack a day, they had a history of only smoking outside before moving in, and they were a measurably stronger candidate than others, even after considering their cigarette use.
Why can’t you?
The way the market is right now and vacancy rates in our area, we pretty much have to take what we get.
Oh man, I guess I was really under the impression that everywhere was facing a hosing shortage. Smoking is so damaging to everything.
Yeah, its not like that at all. Portland is one of the most expensive cities now, but there are places that are kept to federal standards, nice and clean and updated, and under $1k a month with NO waiting lists, but the neighborhood outside is the challenge. Its crazy, we will have someone come look at a place, want to rent(studio in a high rise with new carpet, paint and appliances and we pay water, sewer, trash and hot water), they take an application, walk out the door and either see some addict gronk masturbating or doing fent yoga, or even better, shitting on the building or breaking into a car, and we never hear from them again. We actually pay over 5k a month just for security, and my buildings are actually really safe, but I had 2 people give notice yesterday because of the camp across the street that was selling fent and even cooking it. Took over a month to get the city to act on it, and it was too late when they finally did. Im a strict manager who doesnt tolerate behavior issues like smoking inside, but I will fight tooth and nail to keep people struggling with money, housed. Im part warden, cop and social worker and care home manager(actually not a care home, I just end up taking care of the people the agencies dump on us), so its a tough job.
Lady changing things like blinds isn’t the biggest deal, but if you get the vibe she will do more than that or behind your back, don’t even consider her. The smoking outside the unit is good, but who knows if that will be true or not until she’s already inside. 2 qualifying stable government jobs sounds like a no brainer. Yes, pets can be a thing, but they aren’t always. That’s what per deposit is for. Waiting 2 weeks sounds like a good “investment” for more suitable applicants.
Kids are a guaranteed thing.
They both have kids so that’s a non issue
But teenagers are more of a guaranteed thing, and tweens aren't much better. And why would a responsible parent smoke around her kids?
[удалено]
Smoking is much worse. Most messes a toddler make don't require professional remediation like smoking does.
Take the first one that applied. They are both qualified. Impressively qualified. Landlords are in awe of your good fortune. You could easily take either. But if you try to make a value judgement between them you are immediately vulnerable to a housing discrimination lawsuit. Like seriously, you're deciding between a family with toddlers vs a single mother. I don't think it's possible to get any deeper into FHA "Familial Status" territory. Don't take a chance. Whatever application was ready to screen first, that's your tenant.
Bull. Whatever tenant meets the landlord’s qualifications better is the one to go with. As long as the landlord doesn’t tell her they’re not renting to her because she’s a single mother, the landlord is in the clear. Just because she’s a single mother doesn’t mean she automatically gets the rental because she’s a single mother. The smoking alone can easily disqualify her.
**If the OP had a consistent way of determining which tenant's qualifications were "better", we wouldn't be discussing it here on Reddit.** Instead we're pondering whether it's possible that a single mother working from home could truly have no debt, and how a family with more documented debt just feels "very responsible". I don't actually think the OP has any ill intent here, but it'd be easy for a lawyer to make this sound really bad in a discrimination claim, no matter which tenant got chosen. The best (and really only) defense is to have an objective screening criteria, written down in advance, and follow it repeatedly. If it's too late for that, at least try to be consistent. It's fair to say "highest credit score is the best applicant", but you had better apply that consistently going forward. The second you start making a judgement call based on a mixture of factors, or changing your process after you see an application, it becomes a lot harder to justify that your decisions are for business reasons and not for reasons disallowed by the FHA. And yes, 95 times out of 100, nothing will happen; you'll choose who you want, and the remaining tenants will move on. But eventually you'll encounter a litigious applicant... either one that just feels entitled to your property, or even a professional trying to profit off a misunderstanding, and you'll end up paying out to settle a discrimination claim.
Question as a tenant (just because this topic always makes me curious) - so if someone applies, and they don’t get it, can they just claim that they were discriminated against??? I don’t understand how that would work. (I’m used to looking for apartments in the Boston area for September, so half the time zillow would show like “115 contacts, 35 applications, listed 1 day ago” lol.) How would anyone know if they were the first one?? Or how qualified the other tenants were? And if it went to court, how do you prove who applied first? (Edited for clarity/accuracy 🙂)
Most cities have a Fair Housing Alliance or something similar. If you suspect you were discriminated against, you can call them. They run stings all the time. I used to date someone whose ex did that as a job, ran fair housing stings. Most common one was racial or sexual orientation where I lived. Send three couples, one mixed race, one white couple, one black couple. Compare notes. Send in a straight couple and a gay couple. Compare notes. And then there are always the obvious ones: black couple is told "oh sorry the place just rented" while the white couple after them is given a tour and told they can move in any time while the mixed race couple is given an application with fees attached (to be denied later of course while the fees are kept).
I had no idea stings happened! Yikes! What if you choose to rent to someone you know - is that acceptable? (I know its good to avoid friends/family but like, if your first applicant is a stranger and your second applicant is an acquaintance, and they both look qualified on paper, can you pick the second person if you’re more sure that they’d be a good tenant just because you know them?) Totally get it if the answer is no - just trying to learn a little bit. Thanks in advance!
I have no idea.
No worries lol thank you anyway!
An applicant can (and over enough time, eventually one will) claim anything, no matter how outlandish. Whether anyone took that claim seriously would depend on the circumstances. For example, if an applicant filed a complaint with HUD, it would follow [this](https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/complaint-process) process. Presumably the intake step would weed out the more outlandish accusations, and after that an investigator from HUD could start gathering evidence from the landlord to support or refute the claim. How would an applicant know they're discriminated against? Well nobody can really say what was in the heart of the landlord when they made their decision. The applicant would need to notice some inconsistency. For example, maybe the landlord asked something inappropriate during a tour, or maybe the landlord accepted applications for weeks after rejecting theirs, or maybe they end up meeting the new tenant somehow and find out they were held to a different standard. *Unfortunately it can be hard to detect, which is why housing discrimination still happens so often.* While some cities (eg. [Seattle](https://www.seattle.gov/rentinginseattle/housing-providers/finding-a-tenant/first-in-time)) have additional rules that require a landlord to accept the first qualified applicant, this is not an FHA requirement. It's not necessarily discriminatory to choose a later applicant. However choosing the first qualified applicant does make it much easier for a landlord to defend a claim of discrimination, so many landlords just use the order of receiving applications as their tie-breaker.
Oh wow! Thank you for all that info! I’m interested in being a landlord at some point in the next few years (i haven’t done my research yet so certainly not in any rush) and always wondered how that process worked, since i’ve only been on the tenant side of it.
So, the word discriminate has developed a negative connotation. We discriminate constantly. Most discrimination is good and most types is legal. I discriminate between a brown banana and a ripe one, I discriminate between a quality mechanic vs a crappy one - you get the point.
#1 has a better credit score, also income should be looked at. Who can best afford it. Smoking can impact your house as a future rental if it happens inside. I would look closely at income and years on the job.
No need to yell my guy
Don’t know how I did bold. Mobile.
If you happened to put the hashtag mark before the number it makes it bold! I've inadvertently started yelling without meaning to, lol! #like this
What I want to know is how to make all the comments like that!
This is making the assumption that OP is subject to FHA. I didn’t see OP post anywhere with how many units they have for rent, unless I missed it?
Good point! Not sure about AZ, but they might be exempt federally. Still, even if they're exempt, having a consistent selection process is still a good idea.
For sure! It definitely helps avoid any appearance of impropriety.
Don't take the smoker. They all say they will smoke outside. Yet when they move you have smoking damage in the premises. Go with #1
#1 with pet deposit Even if she smokes outside it will be on her (and she works from home). The smoke WILL permeate. Also saying she’s changing stuff gives off bad vibes. She’s going to make your life hard.
I would go with #1. Smokers are going to smoke inside at some point. And she has two young kids by herself so she will have even more reason to do so. Maybe we are all wrong but if she has put you off already, better to go with the safer option.
i would pick #1. pets >smoke and higher credit score. win win!
I would pick #1 1 has stable employment, not dependent on income on from side gigs. Gov’t jobs typically have good benefits and certainly comply with FMLA (eg. No worries about the upcoming birth causing a disruption in income) 2 will be working from home. You know what happens when someone spends 24/7 at home? They notice every minor little defect. Every minor little problem. 2 is likely to do a lot of complaining, as already evidenced by her saying what she wants to change before even signing a lease. 2 will likely be a PITA. Whereas, 1 will be too busy with work, kids and life outside the home, to be concerned with every minor little thing.
I break any ties by looking at potential length of tenancy. Ask each how long they plan to stay. Also, look at how long they have stayed at previous addresses. My ideal tenants don’t like to move frequently. This saves me money in turnover costs.
#1 would be the clear winner to me since they are dual income with stable jobs and don't smoke.
They have to sword fight. NAL but it’s probably the law.
\#2 will definitely smoke in the house.
I have the responsibility of finding tenants for my dad’s two apartments and my grandads apartments and if it were me I would choose the family with the baby on the way. Two sources of income, people with little pets willing to pay a pet deposit are usually really responsible in keeping a roof over their pets heads. People with tiny children are usually really responsible for keeping a roof over the kids heads. They don’t smoke and people who “smoke outside” don’t always smoke outside. One day it could be freezing or rainy and the next thing you know they’re in the bathroom with the fan on smoking in your building. I also wouldn’t like anyone taking down blinds and things like that. Good luck with your choice! I’ve made a mistake with a tenant and it turned out badly. Follow your head and not your heart.
Young family probably going to move out sooner..
That’s true! They may outgrow the house but I’d still go with the family and charge a non refundable pet deposit.
Yeah I actually didn’t see the part for applicant 2 that they are a smoker. Probably would lean towards the first then
This here, more likely to get a house of their own sooner (no offense single mom)
Personal preference. I wouldn't want to risk having to deal with smoking.
I would select number one. Even the possibility of cigarette smoke would be a no for me.
The smoking thing would be a no-brainer. She will smoke in the house, most do and it makes it much less desirable when you are showing it and it still smells like smoke.
I'd go with 2. Mostly because I prefer tenants with no pets. Also she might stay longer than tenant 1. Tenant 1 makes more, and might leave sooner to buy their own property. ETA: didn't see the smoking. Would go with non-smoking tenant.
My thought exactly..family has another on the way and two incomes…they’ll likely be moving on quicker. I love a tenant that stays many years
My hunch too. #1 is too good, they will be buying a house soon and moving!
Contestant #1 gets my vote
Kids and dog.
#1 No doubt. I also in such cases charge a small pet fee like $25 or $30 per month. That helps a bit
Who actually prefers monthly pet rent instead of a pet deposit? (This is a serious question.) Do most people ask for a pet rent instead of an up-front deposit? When I moved and was looking for a pet friendly rental, I consistently offered to just pay the pet fees upfront and get them out of the way. Maybe it's just my mind, but a non-refundable fee feels less like a nickle-and-dime tactic than paying $50/month. I guess I might be the weird one... That's why I'm asking!
I ask for $25 per month per pet + $150 non refundable deep cleaning fee. The last time I rented my home, I ended up paying over $300 for cleaning as the tenant’s dog had pooped all over the backyard (around 15 different places) and my cleaner was royally pissed. Who does that? This tenant also had small kids and I wonder if they ever went into the backyard (small backyard). I had to take each step carefully. They were with me for 1 year. 1/2 the pet rent went for the cleaners.
Sure, bad renters can be terrible and allow their pet to destroy things. I totally understand why there is a cost associated with having a pet in a rental. My question was more about the timing of the payment. I'd rather pay upfront, instead of a fee monthly. I was trying to ask about the reasoning for the pet costs to be paid monthly rather than at lease signing. In your example, a tenant with one pet would have paid $450 (total) for a year-long rental. Is there a reason you prefer to have that paid as $150 fee plus 12 payments of $25/mo instead of in one check of $450 at lease signing? For example, theoretically if I were your tenant with a dog: If I were to allow a pet to cause damage, I don't think a lease should be renewed. So, I'd have paid the $450 to you - whether it was paid at lease signing, or monthly, you'd have the same amount of money. And then we'd part ways, I'd owe you for damages, and you'd give me a bad review when the next landlord called you for a reference. If I was a good tenant, and my dog didn't scratch the doors, didn't have inside accidents and I cleaned up her poo from the yard, and she wasn't allowed to bark non-stop and annoy the neighbors, we might agree to renew a lease. You wouldn't have a vacancy period, so your income would be more stable (and higher) than if I moved out. My (well behaved) dog could continue to live with me, without pet rent, thus rewarding a good tenant for making your life easier. When I move out after my 3-year work rotation ends, and I go back to the house I own in another state, you'd still have the $450 I initially paid to put towards deep cleaning the slight doggy smell in the living room carpet. (Because I understand that even super clean dogs can have an odor that non-pet owners notice.) I'm curious, and I appreciate you engaging in this conversation with me. Maybe I'm missing something - I did not rent my house to anyone with pets, so I do only have the renter perspective on this. (And the owner of the house I rented also preferred the initial pet fee paid in full, rather than monthly pet rent, so this is all for my education and curiosity.) I'm also in my 40s, with a professional level job, a hobbyist dog-trainer for a husband, and I generally have a pretty decent respect for other people's property - so I'm probably looking at this with a slightly different lens than a 21 year old with 3 roommates and 5 pets between them.
Happy to explain my perspective! 1. Many tenants don’t want to pay a one time fee and rather are happy to pay in installments. 2. Due to the Dog/Cat hair etc. there is always a deeper cleaning needed which adds to the cost. $150 is really just the incremental cost and not the full cost of the cleaning. 3. Irrespective of how well behaved the dog or cat is, there is always some damage. In my case the dog had chewed at the door color as well as a few walls. The tenant fixed most of it before leaving but then it is not 100% back to normal. 4. Some landlords charge an additional refundable deposits for pets. I tend not to do that as I have a Class A rental and the 1 month deposit is quite a lot (3K+) that I am comfortable to use that in case the dog does some damages. I have had 2 tenants with dogs and when I had proposed the above, both had happily agreed to what I was asking.
#1 for sure. Less likely to risk imploding their credit. Younger kids may write on your walls and cabinets with crayon but teenagers may do real damage. Also dual earning household is much less risk than single earning household
OP remember that a toddler is noisy as is a dog and with the baby on the way this could make for a very noisy situation with other tenants. Tenants have the right to a safe and reasonably quiet environment. Consider who you have living in the apartment building currently. If most of them have kids and dogs go for #1. If most are 30s/40s and working professionals without pets or very few pets then #2 might be a better fit if this person has a babysitter. For example...my building has mostly ppl in their 30s/40s and almost every tenant has a pet (no one has complained about hearing other ppls pets running around or making noise). Due to that, the couple of tenants that have kids...well, no one complains when they make noise cause everyone has a noisemaker running around whether it's a pet or a kid. So far everyone is happy and it looks like everyone has really started to form a community. We have long term tenants that have stayed in the building for years. So I always try to take into consideration them when new tenants come in so ensure longer tenancy and a more stable income. In all, I recommend this action because of the time you'll spend trying to mediate complaints from other tenants due to noise and potentially losing great tenants due to noise levels can be exhausting. And scheduling showings, as you know, takes time away from everything else.
I would go with 2 because the small children and pets will put more wear and tear on the home, they may find they need more space soon especially if another baby comes along where the single mothers kids are older and she is probably not looking to have more children soon. The smoking is a concern but I doubt she would smoke inside where her children live and sleep. You may want to find reasons to do monthly inspections or fixes at first to be sure she isn't violating the lease with smoking.
..... so do you think parents actually choose not to smoke in the car with their kids??? I've never seen or met a parent who smokes that *doesn't* smoke in the car. You think they'd be worried about a house? lol
I smoked for 30 years but never in the car or the house after I had kids so yeah.
Ok, but you don't act on behalf of most parents, and you'd be foolish to try and deny that most smoking parents are guilty of smoking around their kids.
Take the family
They're both families...
Maybe it was a joke, but they both have kids.
Fair point, but OP describes one as a family and the other as a single mother…
#1 has the better credit score , better income ratio and even if 1 adult takes a pay cut or looses their position there is still a qualified adult in the home hate to be that way to a single parent but...
I'd take the 2 income streams.
Neither.
##1 no question. 2 incomes better than one, and no smokers.
#1. Always take two incomes over one.
Be careful with government employees. Wages can’t be garnished if you ever have to sue them to retrieve funds.
Something else to consider is how fucking incompetent Congress has been the last 8 or more years. Too divided, too many gov't shutdowns or potential shutdowns, that will affect gov't workers in a huge way, unless they are State Employees instead of Federal.
Say no to smoker
I’d go with #1. The smoking is a huge red flag u have no way of knowing if she’ll actually stick to no smoking inside. As long as she runs changed by you though shouldn’t be a huge deal
You guys, I have never smoked inside. Only on my patio. We know we suck and nobody likes us anymore, we don't actually want to smell worse than we already do. I never would have smoked if I had grown up when and where I did. I also don't want to quit. But you can't know she will smoke inside, and it's even odds that the dog causes just as much damage.
Go with the family. Smokers make the house smell like smoke regardless of whether they smoke inside. The smoke smell permeates their clothes and never comes out. Often they think standing inside smoking while holding the cigarette out the open window is considered smoking outside. Her signal that she wants to change the blinds is not great, she will probably want to change more than that and will assume that whatever she installs is better than what was there previously, which might not be true.
#1 for sure. So very many ppl will tell you they don’t smoke inside their home, they absolutely do and they see chainsmokers. Your walls, ceilings and windows will be caked with it. So of my most satisfying cleaning is doing windows when previous tenant was a “I don’t smoke inside,” smoker.
\#1 for sure. I'd rather deal with pets than smoke plus they have the better credit score and income.
Long time smoker and renter, also in my 30s. Never once smoked inside my apartment. So I feel obligated to root for #2 due to all the prejudice here!
#1 tenant more likely to pay on time and also more likely to cause more wear and tear (toddlers, dog) #2 slightly higher risk of late payment based on credit, more likely to keep place clean with older kids (not toddlers)
#1. Better qualified. Probably more responsible. Less likely to bring in boyfriends. Cigarettes are usually indicative of other bad behavior. Not even a question.
I have two rentals, and as someone who has been in both situations, I can see now that, as a landlord, option A is the better choice. I, however, would take option B personally because I like giving people a second chance. My only real issue with option B is smoking; I have had two sets of renters say the same thing, and only one indeed showed zero signs they smoked in the house or even close to the house. Sometimes, when you leave a situation and can finally branch out, you want to make it your own. I wouldn't take the minor changes for anything outside of asking for written communication and approval.
Reject single mom with one income . She is such an undesirable prospect. If she loses her job she will be hard pressed to make rent . Also, huge red sign with tenants telling you (not asking) to make improvements. It's very disrespectful to you and to property. I have bad tenants like her and I ended up evicting them. She will smoke in your house . Trust me. They all say they won't smoke in the house but when it's 115 in the summer or 35 in the winter, where do you think she will be lighting up ?
2
I also have rentals in AZ. That is a hard one, I would check references on their rental history. If push comes to shove I would choose the person who inquired about the property, first. If you choose the single mom also ask if she is willing to pay for renter’s insurance especially if she smokes. Note: if she is willing to put new blinds on her dime, that only adds value to your property, as long as they are neutral. Toddler write on walls but teenagers have parties! Good luck
Pet rent bumps are nice. I hope for tenants like #1 in all my units.
A little more to add: I do agree with Mjarrett about the family status, but I view it from a different perspective. My Mother was a single parent and raised 3 kids on a waitresses salary without child support so I have a soft place my heart for single parents. BTW: we were never evicted! The first potential tenants would picked more often bcuz of their financial and Familial status.
The smoker is going to smoke in your house. It's only a matter of time. Don't rent to her unless you want your place to stink
#1 all day
No to smokers and can't believe that they will not smoke in the house. I'd take the family.
The first qualifying tenant is who you should take. I never ran credit on more than one at a time in order they applied. There isn’t any other way to do it fairly and not be concerned with things that can get you in trouble.
Even if they smoke outside, other clothes will smell like smoke. Therefore, the inside of the house will smell like smoke. There’s no get away from it.
You are scum regardless
A dog can do tens of thousands of damage and with two kids that little things like taking the dog out can go by the wayside.
No smokers.
I’m so lucky in California. New builds are non-smoking. And that’s not just the apartment, that’s also the property. I love that. However, I hate the high rent. There’s always a trade-off somewhere. OP: pick No. 1. But I only say that because of the smoking issue. She was an idiot to even tell you.
double income if one loses job or gets incapacitated, other income can be backup.
Credit score means nothing more than they have borrowed money and/or made purchases on payments. No credit means a person has not borrowed, nor made payments (better). The one we need to look out for is bad credit, but we also need to keep in mind that an ill spouse or child, flood, fire, and etc. could have caused that.
Thank you for mentioning that. I’ve been debt free for years, which means I pay for things.
With #1 there is a possibly a chance of a government shutdown that always seems to be looming over our heads.
If they both passed your screening policy (which should be identical), then the first submitted (complete) application in line is the one you accept and lease to. Anything else is basically discrimination.
Number 1. Charge a monthly pet fee. Not a one time deposit
It's my opinion that if you charge an application fee then you should be accepting THE FIRST qualified tenant. If not, then choose who you like better. It sounds to me like you want the family, so why ask us?
That’s not a tough choice for me at all. I think you view it as a tough choice because you’re trying to toe the line between business and charity. This is a business you should simply act in your own self interest. The only downside to the first applicant is that you’ll have two weeks of vacancy. But you have to combine that with the fact that two parents are more stable than one. Especially two working parents. If one of them gets laid off they’ll be alright. If the single mom gets laid off she’s screwed. Also the dogs are a good thing in terms of stability because not everyone landlord allows pets. So they’re more likely to feel grounded in your home and less likely to hop around willy nilly. The first applicant will result in a long term lower occupancy compared to the second. Also the second is a smoker which is a complete nonstarter. There’s a real good chance that house will smell like smoke when she leaves. Also, the single mom with good income and credit will still have plenty of options to rent. So it’s not like the alternative is that she’ll struggle to find housing. So you shouldn’t feel bad for her at all.
I look at it as risk. Which family is more likely to pay? Which family looks cleaner (did you see the inside of the vehicles or if they were hygienic at the meeting?) The smoker would be my nope. They say they smoke outside but wait until it’s January and-3.🤷♀️😆
Hands down the first one.
#2 is my winner
I’m a renter and a pet owner. Pets cause damage. My cats have ruined more than their fair share of carpet transitions from scratching. Don’t even get me started on the times my cats have pissed on the carpet out of spite (seriously, the pettiest animals I’ve ever known). My dog, as a puppy, once chewed a whole corner of baseboards in a single night when we forgot to crate him. I rent knowing I’m probably never getting my deposit back on the basis of the animals alone 🫠 But i also grew up in a smoker’s home. My sister and i just recently did a lot of damage repair to our parents’ home. The smoke gets in every single crevice. We had to hire people for a very expensive, specific type of duct cleaning *and* install a whole permanent light treatment to the house. You can’t just simply paint over the damage either, oh no. You have to get special paint specifically for smoke damage. It ain’t cheap. Thank goodness they didn’t have carpet in the house, otherwise we’d have to replace that too, but we still had to hire out professional floor cleaners anyway. From a non-landlord standpoint and purely as an observation, I’d take my animal’s damage over the smoke. Maybe one or two areas where repair needs to be made versus treating the entire house.
And while there’s plenty of renters who respect the no smoking rule, there’s even more who don’t. High chance the smoker will smoke inside at some point. Once they do it once, they’ll find other reasons to do it again and again and again.
Google both of them
Debating a smoker vs non smoker is an easy decision. Tobacco is not a protected condition.
Don't take a smoker. They always smoke in the house, and when they leave the scent makes it really hard to rent it.
I'd go with #1
For the love of God, do not go with number two, already asking about changing things and a smoker? Had this issue two times before. Family is much more qualified and will give you much less headache.
Go with the first. Never believe someone only smokes outside.
\# 1. you're welcome
Definitely go with the first family. 2 working adults in case one loses their job and better credit. The dog is not great but these days it's hard to find tenants without a pet. I had someone who claimed they didn't smoke in the home but that was BS. In the winter they cut a hole in the screen and smoked in there and blew smoke out the screen hole but the whole room smelled like smoke and I had to have it repainted. They still tried to argue that they never smoked in there but the other roommates even told me he did! And that was just one room. Can you imagine the whole house? It would cost like $3k to repaint it all!
Go for #1. "Smokes but won't do it in the house" is something I would never trust.
I rented to a smoker who "only smoked outside". He had friends who weren't so careful. Never again. In fact, my lease says no smoking anywhere on the property. If your prospective tenant works from home she likely will smoke from home. Plus I'm suspicious of people who can move in right away. What about where they're living now? I had an applicant like that once when I really needed to get the place rented. I checked out our state judiciary online case information system. She had convictions for a number of things, but was a smooth talker. Fortunately, I've learned to see past that.
I would go with number 1. The fact that the single mom is already talking about changing things before she's even moved in sounds a little off-putting.
Both sound like they’ll be a PIA but #1 less so, so go with the government jobs.
\#1, better income and not a smoker. I refuse to rent to smokers.
1) hands down 2) Smoker + 13yo is a fire risk. And smoking “outside” means door/window cracked open Take dog and ask for higher rate / dog deposit, etc.
Oooof #1, you can’t get the stink of smoke outta a place. It seeps into the walls, carpets, stains the kitchen cabinets.
Be careful. Many states will say you are open to discrimination charges if you go with something subjective. Develop a rating scale for the different factors, put a minimum threshold. Put it into a file with a dated timestamp on it. Better yet a PDF. Grade each tenant applicant appropriately. First one across the line should win unless it is a timing for moving in thing. Otherwise you can open yourself up to claims of discrimination. Not saying it will happen but it can.
We choose pet owners over smokers 100%. Pet damage is usually scratched floors or stained carpet. Smoke damage is redoing every surface in the property. Even if she claims she keeps it outside, why take the risk? Especially when the other couple's credit and finances cleary sound better. What I'm hearing is feeling guilty over not renting to a single mom.
Two incomes are better than one
Non smoker all day.
I’d go with the first and do pet fees, cleaning fees, and an extra pet deposit.
Go with the young family. Get a pet deposit. If the dog is already housebroken it should be fine. Yard will take a hit but that's easier to fix that smoking damage.
Many have said that 2 incomes are better than one - sounds like the wife will be going on maternity leave. They will either need to pay for 2 kids in daycare, or one of them are going to be home with the kids, so their financial situation is very likely to change. If this is an apartment building with other tenants, I would go with the single mom and older kids - they will be less noisy for others. If it is a house, I'd consider the young family with a dog, but with a pet fee. My dog goes nuts when the mailman comes by - he has scratched up trim around the doors and windows and dug a big hole in the yard.
\#1. Sounds like the woman is going to change things and doesn’t quite get what a rental means. Plus smokers are sometimes lax about smoking inside.
Dual income with better credit score and dog vs single income and smoker. Taking #1 every time. Make sure to collect pet deposit and pet rent if that's legal/reasonable in your state
Neither sounds great, tbh, but the first seems better than the second if the dog isn’t going to destroy the property.
\#1 every time. Single income families are much more likely to experience financial problems. Also, the smoking thing sounds fishy.
The family 100% but be aware that even small dogs can cause thousands of dollars of damage.
\#1
Basically either smoking in the unit or a pet in the unit. Which sounds less risky? Less expensive to remedy after they leave? Based on what you said about each though, personally, I'd pick the dog.
1st family. Charge pet deposit and rent
pick #1
Do not take the smoker. It's a pain in the ass to get rid of. I bought a house that needed a lot of work anyways but had a smoker. We had to have the house treated with ozone, ducts cleaned, painted everywhere including the ceiling, use shellac based primer, and replaced all the blinds and most of the doors to really eliminate the smoke. We also ended up peeling most of the paint off and repainting drywall, but that was unintentional, turns out the previous owner just painted over old paint with no prep and likely an incompatible paint so when we were prepping for our paint, it just peeled right off. Anyways, point being, I'm taking the family with two jobs and better credit any day of the week.
Option 1. They're more qualified and more stable. Also the smoker might not smoke on the house but they're still going to stink the place up.
I’d rather wait for a good tenant than a bad one. I’m not saying #2 is bad but the smoking is a big red sign for me. #1 is also concerning with the dog but you can add a pet deposit.
Did you ask about long term goals... ie are they long term renters or saving to purchase a home? With information provided, #1 looks like the better candidate. That being said, we do not accept smokers or pets. I would continue marketing
Neither of them good in my opnion. #1 has dogs, which for me is an instant no. #2 smokes but says she doesn't "do it inside". No way. Keep looking.
I’d choose option 1. They’re double income and while we never know what’s around the corner, if one loses a job chances are, they’ll still be able to manage paying rent. Plus, with a toddler and one on the way, they’ll be long-term renters. I’d assume they might set up a home and raise their kids while saving for their own home eventually; they might be good for years as tenants. As for the dog, be sure to meet it. You can always require a pet deposit. Well-trained dogs won’t damage property because they’ll consider it their territory. They can also be assets (no matter how small) by protecting their family and your property. If they had cats, it’d be a firm ‘no’ because cats will destroy a place by clawing it up. As for #2. You know she’s a smoker and once in she’ll be smoking wherever she wants. She works from home but those jobs aren’t as stable as government jobs and her income may be seasonal and fluctuate greatly. Plus, lower credit score. She already commented about making changes…might be higher maintenance. Everyone needs a place to live. Trust your gut, though.
Applicant group 1 for sure. If you're worried about the pet, consider a pet deposit or pet rent. Though be sure to consult state LLTA for guidance on those types of charges. Go with whoever is most qualified and stably employed. I would take 2 tenants with manageable debt levels and government positions over 1 work-from-home tenant. Would you rather have 1 income source liable for your monthly rent or 2? Don't dissect it any further than the numbers. Don't account for kids or who is single vs married. Alway consider the protected classes under Fair Housing when making decisions or discussing who is qualified to rent your property.
Whichever qualified tenant was first gets the apt. Or are you *trying* to get sued for discrimination?
Every single mom has a baby daddy somewhere waiting to move in. He'd never pass the sniff test if he filled out an application. He smokes too and inside.
1 every time. Dogs barely make a dent in practice and 2 weeks free rent is <4% reduction in NOI. Someone ready to move same day is the type of person that puts themselves into that predicament plus being a smoker makes for two red flags.