In another thread, Dodge asked an excellent question regarding who is tenant worthy.

Most of us have the typical landlord standards (income, criminal background check, payment history, and so forth). Related to the other thread, and how you choose to live out your values, would you select any of the following as tenants for your own property, and if so, which ones:

1. Rudy Giuliani, who has been rich but now has trouble paying creditors

2. the QAnon Shaman

3. the Capitol rioter who put his feet on Pelosi's desk

4. Someone who was captured on video smashing in windows or damaging property in the Capitol

5. An random young person who was convicted for Jan. 6

6. A random older person who was convicted for Jan. 6

7. Someone who was not convicted nor charged, but whose social media shows active participation in January 6.

8. Someone whose social media shows that they left a house in shambles after being invited in, completely unrelated to Jan. 6

Would your answer change if they have failed to pay rent to a previous landlord?

Would your systems automatically disqualify them (all calls go to voice mail or Google Form) or would you listen to them tell their story?

As a professional landlord, would you

- not get involved?

- consider it poor decision-making and not your problem?

- give them a chance?

If another applicant better met your standards, would you still select one of the above in order to give them a chance? Would you donate money instead to charity? Would you simply select the best applicant and consider it just business?

Would you sign up as a landlord on a housing advocacy list in support of people like those listed above who might have trouble getting housing? If yes, and you were sent a "tester", would you pass the test?

If you were seeking to change the profile of your applicants, what would you do to attract that targeted tenant, whether it be a radical election denier or militant liberal?

Hundreds of people have been convicted of acts of violence related to January 6. It is highly probable that a number of us will be presented with an opportunity to live our stated values in our everyday business life. What does that look like for you?

[[[[[...... As a professional landlord, would you........- give them a chance?,,,,,,]]]]]]

Seems political in nature. I see where you are going though.

Richard, The questions above were solely inspired by the OT: Election Day thread. Are you also saying your question in your post tonight about Financialization sounds like reporters on the NY Times or some such organization?

6x6, this is not political in nature. It is a concrete response to Sid's post in the other thread where he says "I prefer to focus on what I can affect: the present and the future. As a student of history, I find that groups stuck in the past get left behind and fall into obscurity." The other thread had gotten too long to address specific scenarios.

Mapleaf, I had to look up TDS.

WMH, why am I posting this? Because Jeffrey has given us this wonderful forum for people to exchange specific ideas, suggestions, and recommendations and has stated that he values all input, from people with such diverse viewpoints as NE and JAC. If you don't like the questions in the specific post, can you identify scenarios that are reasonable possibilities to run into in now that were unlikely to run into in prior years, and when you do encounter them, what is a wise course of action to take?

If you still don't like that alternate approach, it may be reasonable to use Ray-N-Pa's method of doing a SWOT analysis. I say this noting that you are usually thoughtful and non-accusatory in your posts, and I would welcome seeing that again.

I do applaud NE, Ken, Sisco, and Oregon Woodsmoke for realistically considering the scenarios and sharing their answers, and not putting their heads in the sand.

I screen applicants thoroughly so those mentioned would not end up tenants of mine. I've heard enough stories when I first started out, and those, wasted my time. The older I get the more I've learned how to conserve my time doing business. I've had many of testers and passed. I had two over-the-phone testers who gave me a verbal warning. One I deserved, the other was off base. If they had seen the unit, they would have understood that the ceilings, being slanted, were too low for bunk beds.

Sir Walter, Your thread is definitely political since you used all J6 scenarios. Ridiculous.

My tenants happen to be all Democrat. I do regular screening on every one but your examples indicate that you most likely have Trump Derangement Syndrome. I know for a fact that J6 was blown up out of proportion just like all the other Democrat lawfare over the past 8 years.

Ok would you rent to:

1. A BLM Activist (who participated in an actual riot)?

2. Someone who enjoys the smell of tires burning in the morning? (Walz's looney wife)

3. A George Floyd rioter/looter?

4 A member of Antifa?

5. A politician who bailed out the "Summer of Love" rioters? (Kamala)

Two can play at this game.

When I first saw the title of this post, I though maybe it was to inspire us to be introspective regarding "Am I the type of landlord a good tenant would want to have?"

In other words, Am I "tenant worthy"?

I think what Sir Walter is asking is, could you as a LL find opportunity in renting to people who might have a blemish that would normally disqualify them, but could be excellent renters nonetheless.

TO expand this to the nonpolitical, this could include:

--Tier I and II sex offenders

--undocumented workers

--felons with good work history

--refugees with no credit history and no way to check criminal background

I hear over and over how hard it is to find good tenants. I have rented to all of the above. I have carefully-selected sex offenders and felons in my rooming houses, and they're just as successful as my other residents. I've rented SFHs to families the other two categories. Some have struggled to maintain a clean and sanitary house, but some have been fantastic. One ended up buying the house from us.

I think what Sir Walter is asking is, could you as a LL find opportunity in renting to people who might have a blemish that would normally disqualify them, but could be excellent renters nonetheless.

TO expand this to the nonpolitical, this could include:

--Tier I and II sex offenders

--undocumented workers

--felons with good work history

--refugees with no credit history and no way to check criminal background

I hear over and over how hard it is to find good tenants. I have rented to all of the above. I have carefully-selected sex offenders and felons in my rooming houses, and they're just as successful as my other residents. I've rented SFHs to families the other two categories. Some have struggled to maintain a clean and sanitary house, but some have been fantastic. One ended up buying the house from us.

Mapleaf, I am not close enough to my tenants to know if they are Democrat, Republican, or other. Their politics or lack of politics did not surface in standard screening.

My questions were mostly inspired by posts by Dodge and Sid in the OT: Election Day thread. Although that thread was OT and politically based, some of the comments could be interpreted as asking "what do you do to take advantages of the upcoming changes in the market condition due to the incoming administration." That was why the examples I listed were focused on applicants who would be more closely associated with the incoming administration as opposed to the outgoing administration or past market conditions. It was also why there were other questions asked related to changing the profile of your applicants and finding your targeted tenant.

Sid's specific words which helped lead to this post were: "For better or worse, time has moved on. I prefer to focus on what I can affect: the present and the future. As a student of history, I find that groups stuck in the past get left behind and fall into obscurity." and "All the best. Rent on!"

Dodge's specific words which helped lead to this post were: "Consider each or our recent 2 main choices for president. If you looked at their track records, broken promises, extreme viewpoints, I don't think either would be considered tenant worthy." and " My point was that either would never pass most of our screening as tenants".

The original post was also partially inspired by knowing that at least one regular poster has more than once stated that found a profitable niche by renting to those with an eviction on their records who otherwise met their criteria, and found them to be good tenants because the tenants knew they would have trouble finding another home to rent. I don't remember which poster, but they seemed to find a way that worked *for them* in their particular pond.

And lastly, the original post was also partially inspired by you, who repeatedly posted over months that you have had extreme difficulties filling your latest vacancy, and your responses to those who have suggested that you change your marketing and other procedures to avoid continuing to get the same results.

To answer your questions, would I rent to:

1. A BLM Activist (who participated in an actual riot)?

No. Riot participation (destruction of property) by anyone is an automatic disqualifier.

2. Someone who enjoys the smell of tires burning in the morning? (Walz's looney wife)

Insufficient information to tell. This is my first time hearing about it. Is the question regarding a generic someone who meets this description or is the question specifically Watz's wife?

3. A George Floyd rioter/looter?

No. Riot participation (destruction of property) by anyone is an automatic disqualifier.

4 A member of Antifa?

Please help those of us out who have holes in our screening procedures. What specifically are you using to identify if someone is a member of Antifa? Do you have access to an Antifa registry or some other special list? Is there some screening service that you are using to screen them out? I'm not being funny. I seriously want to know if there is an actionable and reasonable check available.

5. A politician who bailed out the "Summer of Love" rioters? (Kamala)

Insufficient information to tell. This is my first time hearing about it. Is the question regarding a generic someone who meets this description or is the question specifically Kamala?

I hope this answered your questions. Please post how you are identifying members of Antifa.

Dodge,

As stated above, the original post was partially inspired by your words in conjunction with the landlord who rents to a specific segment who would not pass most landlord's screening.

I guess it depends at what point in the conversation when the applicant slides in a "God Bless You" into the gibberish that they are spreading.

Well, I guess I have an answer to a question in my mind. Or, maybe that is the problem today; we think we have an answer, we surmise, we don't look deeper. And, we put OUR own distorted spin on someone else's actions or statements, to suit our own mindset.

You see, I have said , many times, that I have found a ' sweet spot' with tenants who have one eviction on their records. But, I very much doubt that I have EVER said its because they are trapped in my rental because no one else would rent to them. Because I DON't think that. THAT, in fact, would be an undesirable trait, as then, if they didn't work out, I'd have a harder time moving them on. Why it is one 'sweet spot' is they have learned their lesson, and are determined to NOT acquire another eviction. I have also talked about screening for cooperation, though I have NEVER revealed how I test for that, as it would be so easy for a prospect to fake that, if they were aware that I was doing specific things to gauge a reaction. ( Nor would I reveal what I use to other landlords because, surely, someone would blab it all over the interwebs, and it would no longer be useful. )

By the way, I also accept smokers, that's another 'sweet spot'. But with SMOKERS, I DO recognize ( at the outset) that smokers will have a difficult time finding another place to rent. So , I know, at the outset, to screen carefully, as, once in place, it isn't as easy for them to move on. BUT, a house bought very cheaply, that had lots of smells from mold, cockroaches, kitchen grease, or other smells can be cleaned thoroughly, repaired properly, and a smoker is not likely to notice any residual smells that may resurface. With a tight housing market, it is a way to use houses that have suffered years of neglect and waste at the hands of others but have been repaired and cleaned to end the waste/ neglect. And, if I rent to smokers, you don't have to.

Busy, My apologies if I seemingly misrepresented your intentions. I did not think that an eviction was the only criteria that you looked at or that you wanted a tenant to feel trapped. What I meant to communicate was that one of the lessons such a tenant may have learned was that many landlords disqualify a person with an eviction. It was not meant to distort your intentions as a landlord.

Thanks for sharing the information on your smoker sweet spot.

I understand your idea - but I question the method. Here is how you might have perhaps re-written it for public consumption, taking politics out of it:

"Most of us have the typical landlord standards (income, criminal background check, payment history, and so forth). Related to the other thread, and how you choose to live out your values, would you select any of the following as tenants for your own property, and if so, which ones:

1. A person who made a very good living but appears to now have trouble paying creditors (probably based on a credit check.) MY ANSWER: I would not rent to them. Circumstances change and not always for the better, obviously.

2. A person who reveals themselves to be a bit strange on their on-line profile, and perhaps posts about defying authority: MY ANSWER: I would not rent to them. They don't appear to be law-abiding, cooperative people.

3. About the same as above: a person whose on-line photos reveal someone who disrespects law & order and authority. MY ANSWER: I would not rent to them. They don't appear to be law-abiding, cooperative people.

4. Someone who was captured on video (or has a record of such actions as smashing damaging property) MY ANSWER: I would not rent to them. They don't seem to respect the property of others or concerned who sees them do it.

5. An random young person who was convicted (for doing what? A date is not an action. What did they do on that date?)

6. A random older person who was convicted (for doing what? A date is not an action. What did they do on that date?)

7. Someone who was not convicted nor charged, but whose social media shows active participation in a riot: MY ANSWER: I would not rent to them. They don't appear to be law-abiding, cooperative people.

8. Someone whose social media shows that they left a house in shambles after being invited in: MY ANSWER: I would not rent to them. They don't appear to be law-abiding, cooperative people who respect the property of others.

Would your answer change if they have failed to pay rent to a previous landlord? No.

You need to be careful using national news headlines as a screening tool. You too might find yourself named in a defamation lawsuit along with the media outlet. Better to stick to verifiable facts which most of the modern media outlets have ignored for the last few years.

Busy, I had not considered the smoker sweet spot. It does give me cause to think about some of my places that have had smokers in them.

I guess cleaning (smell wise) would be easier if I knew that I was putting a smoker back into a place that a smoker just left from.

Still have to deal with the pictures on the wall problem from the smoke. That is easier to cover up than the reoccurring smell.

Still have some smokers in place. Recently I have been converting my places over to non-smoking. This has been because it is typically much easier to clean a non-smoker's residence. The same can be said about pets.

I don't care how well the place was cleaned, wet dog comes in and lays down you get that smell. I have it happen when the kids bring the grandpups over for a visit.