All Forum Posts by: Colton S.

I know I am most likely making enemies. I don't disagree with your points here about raising rent, and getting attached. I do think the CDC and Freerepublic links are far out dated (2004 and 1995), and the dogbite.org is literally an organization set out to abolish pit bull ownership. Not my idea of a reputable information source.

@Lynn McGeein To speak to the point of the size of the dog, what I am saying is simply that the statistics you used are skewed because they do not take into account the fact that pit bull ownership is quickly on the rise in general. More dogs equals higher percentages in statistics regardless of the actual temperament of the dog.

A Chevy Silverado has one of the highest vehicle death rates in the US, but that does not make it an unsafe vehicle. There is simply a massive amount of them, everywhere causing a rise in the overall stats (this point was made with Honda Accords before, but that stat has since changed).

I understand that your insurance company restricts certain breeds and we cannot get around that. Unfortunately, we live in a world of over generalization towards humans, animals and things. This can be changed over a long period of time, but there will always be that one "scary" type of dog.

If your insurance allows and you allow larger dogs in your rentals, then there is absolutely no reason to restrict certain types of dogs. If you're doing decent screening and have pet requirements (deposits, insurance, trainings, introductions, et al) in place then your risk would be the same no matter if your tenant has a golden retriever or a pit bull. Bad dogs come from bad owners, and we don't want bad owners in our rentals no matter what.

I brought up the cow analogy to be similar to the Silverado one. There is a large amount of cows in the US, so they cause a large amount of deaths. Yet they are nothing to be afraid of.

Plus, a pit bull has a far lower bite rate than most smaller breed dogs. However, a bite from a pit will do more damage than a smaller breed, that's why the stronger dogs are on the list and the small dogs are ignored.

TL;DR: Over generalization is a bad thing. Dogs are as dangerous as you perceive them to be. Don't always trust statistics. You can't argue with insurance.

@Lynn McGeein with statistics such as these you have to keep in mind a few things or they are skewed.

Smaller dogs bite more than larger dogs, primarily Chihuahuas and other small similar dogs, this is a well known fact. The reason larger dogs make the top of the bite list is because when a small dog such as a Chihuahua is aggressive and bites you, even drawing blood, they're not typically reported because it's small in relation to a human. Of course it would be crazy to see in the news that a Chihuahua killed someone, because of the relative size in terms of a human.

However, larger dogs even when playing will make the list because something small that draws blood is on a larger scale and creates more fear in the person than a small dog.

Saying that Larger dogs like Pit Bulls are aggressive because you have looked at the statistics is like saying cows are aggressive because they killed 24 people in 2015, 4 less than the average death by dogs. Cows are not aggressive, they are nothing to be afraid of but it is easier for a larger animal to hurt someone due to their general size.

Now, I'm not saying that you don't have a reason to deny them or not rent to owners with pit bulls.
What I am saying is that if you go through the effort to rent to owners with large dogs (50+ lbs) there is no real added risk to rent to an owner of a pit bull or other dogs. All dogs can be at risk of biting someone, so why should I be more or less afraid of the dogs not on that list? If a dog is well trained and meets all the criteria that you listed before Lynn, I see no reason to deny them. They are no more/less a risk than the other animals you would be accepting.

What I am saying is void if your insurance says no to dogs on that list, that is not under our control and we need to have a certain level of protection. But if your insurance is following the recent trend and only asks if they have a dog and if they have bitten someone, then I would certainly rent to them IF you allow dogs and IF the dog has never bitten someone.

@Account Closed Check this out.

I'll have my realtor pull these listings so we can look at them together.

Would you advise looking for owner financing over a traditional loan so I can get into more properties at once?

@Thomas S. I thought you were all about no emotions, but here you are talking about what makes a landlord feel better. (; 

Just poking fun. I do respect your posts and insight, even if we have different views on animals.

@Ryan Dossey, thanks for replying! I have been playing with it and narrowed it to about 300 people based on purchase price, age, type of property, equity and location. Is there any other filters you would recommenced? I was just looking and didn't really think the disrepair or bad tenants. Would you advise for/against this being my 2nd property?

Oh and @Jason Hartley insurance companies that typically have a "no aggressive breed" policy are willing to allow the dog to have a "Good Citizen" certification and on going training. Of course locations and companies differ.

So, next time before just saying that someone is giving bad advice please read the post and possibly offer suggestions, comments, feed back and your opinion. That's a bit more constructive than "Oh, they're wrong".

@Jason Hartley I'm sorry Jason, but please review my post. No where did I say be uninsured. 

"I would say so long as you have them sign something stating that they are responsible for any actions their dogs take and have insurance you should be fine."

I did not specify the kind of insurance because quite honestly I didn't feel the need to repeat what @Nick Aderman already knows. He is looking for insurance and already requires renters insurance.

I beg to differ on the dog itself needing to go, the way that I am looking at it is the damage has been done to the property already, they have lived their 4+ years. If the proper precautions are taken, why remove cash flow? The unit is taken care of, the rent is paid, nick is just looking to mitigate his risk in the animals. 

I gave a response of that, and not one of kick them or you'll have a giant lawsuit on your hands. That might be the easy thing to say as a onlooker, but is that the easy thing to do as an investor? I assume there will have to be rehab, marketing, etc to get that unit rented especially seeing as we are going into a slow season. Why not mitigate risk, get everything in order and then prepare to rerent.

Any responses or help?

Thanks!