All Forum Posts by: Gary Floring

 As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I've owned German Shepards that were "harmless" and completely loving and friendly around their family and people they knew. And extremely intelligent animals. But I've seen situations where another dog or stranger in the vicinity caused their demeanor to change suddenly to "en guard!"  Because of their protective instinct, they become extremely wary in these situations and can pounce without warning. They can be calm and playful one moment, and then a door bell can set them off into "red alert" mode immediately. This behavior is uncharacteristic of golden retrievers. 

Bottom line is, our "harmless" dogs may be considered domesticated, but in reality they are still instinctively wild animals and can be UNPREDICTABLE.

I understand your sentiment, Anthony. However, insurance companies have banned certain breeds because of historical statistics on bites, maulings, and fatal attacks (similar to actuaries assessing life insurance policy risks). Because these insurance companies have such bans, landlords are practically forced to follow them, to avoid liability. 

In any case, let's be honest here: the fact is, large dogs like golden retrievers have earned a reputation GENERALLY as gentle, playful, friendly, family dogs. The same cannot be said of pits. Hence, the banning policies.

???

Are you suggesting that because their expenses exceed income they are OK with having a loss?  I have not seen a case where that scenario happens year after year. Even if it did, any "loss" is simply subtracted from overall annual income, right? In that case, the taxable income is reduced, but usually not by a significant enough amount to realize a substantial "gain" from the rental loss. Please elaborate.

I love animals and agree that having a "no pets" policy cuts off a large pool of applicants. If you are in a renters' market, then it makes sense to allow them. But if the market if more balanced, having a no pets policy is easier to have and enforce. Pets bring with them a host of issues that add to a landlord's headaches. Large dogs do damage to property by digging, chewing, and clawing. There is daily poop that many tenants don't bother to pick up, leading to flies everywhere in the warmer months. They may bark incessantly when no one is home. 

Cats are a little more gentle on the property, but can inflict major damage with their need to scratch. If no scratching posts are available, your kitchen cabinets and other furnishings become their target. If you get a cat who likes to mark his territory, good luck with getting rid of the urine smell.

For cats and dogs, the worst issue has to be FLEAS!!!  As this thread confirms, once established, they are nearly impossible to eradicate due to their four-phase hatching cycle. In the worst cases, fleas will infest the entire house for weeks if not MONTHS. In multifamily units, they easily travel from one rental to the other.

Not worth the risk and hassle, in my opinion.

Many insurance companies prohibit pit bulls.

I would like some input from other investors on Lynnette's comment above. I have struggled with this question; is it better to have one or two rentals paid off or nearly paid off, or to have several rentals that have minimal cash flow because they are highly leveraged?  Comments from BP community appreciated!

Ladies and Gentlemen,

THIS IS A SCAM!

These real estate gurus pop up like mushrooms throughout the year and entice people to attend a free event through very slick radio and TV ads. Once there, they turn up the heat with very polished and professional "motivational speakers" who know how to work a crowd.  They promise much but deliver very little. And that is the whole point. They want to sign you up with a "special deal" but can only take a limited number of students tonight...this is your chance!

It is really your chance to be FLEECED along with other sheep who fall for these circus barkers. What was it P.T. Barnum said??? 

Cancel, demand a refund, and then, get the REAL information you need in real estate investing for FREE. Its all here on BP, YouTube, and your local RE meetups. 

 Eric, I have a similar situation and would be curious as to what your final decision is in your case. How about this one.....

Scenario 1: An investor owns a rental property that has 80% equity (increasing rapidly due to 15 year mortgage) and nice positive cash flow. 

Scenario 2: An investor owns two rental properties like the one above, but with only 40% equity in each (increasing slowly due to 30 year mortgages), and is currently barely breaking even.  

Which is the better situation for the long term? Pros and cons of each scenario? Anyone??

I texted you today. See you there!

Its a difficult situation for landlords: if you have a "no pets" policy you reduce the risk of liability and damage to your property. But then you also reduce the pool of qualified tenants. Large breeds are inherently more dangerous than smaller breeds. I have owned German Shepards that were very docile and friendly with their families. But their loyalty instinct can make them suddenly aggressive toward strangers. 

I owned a GS once that was probably 4 years old, very playful, and kind of submissive around other large dogs. But one day a kid in the neighborhood was walking by and the dog bit him unexpectedly. He was "just guarding his territory" it seems. 

Bottom line is, large dogs such as Shepards, Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, etc. are still highly protective over their owners and territorial over their property, and can be unpredictable. Don't ever be surprised when one of them bites someone for "no apparent reason."