Pit Bulls, Horses, and Poor People

[Bryan L.]

There's so much in this business that I just don't understand. On a fairly regular basis I will get a call from someone who needs to rent or they want to buy with owner-financing. And they have no money for the down-payment, a credit score of 403, and they can't afford monthly payments of more than $450 per month. And they have pit bulls or horses. Now I know that horses are expensive to feed and keep, so why not sell the horses so that you can have a little money to house yourself? And the pit bulls - really, I don't think I know of a single person with pit bulls who has their finances in order. I don't think the pit bulls cause a person to have bad finances, but why is there a correlation in the first place?

[Pete T.]

@Duncan Taylor

I dont want to call anyone out in this group of posts, but I'll just say you might be losing some money with those "rules" I guess you could make some leap that someone w/ visible tats could affect...? Not really sure. If they are making a good living and visible tats are not a factor in their workplace, not sure why it matters. Same goes for pits. I understand no dogs for various reasons (hair, fur, wear, accidents, destruction, smells, etc.), but to single out pits just seems ignorant to me. If this is what some people say they base their decisions on, I am nervous about what they are not saying. For me, it makes more sense to base judgements off income, credit, criminal history, judgements, etc. I am not saying some tenants dont raise red flags, just dont get the pit bull and visible tat grouping.