I used to give the 1% rule a ton of weight, and I still look at it when analyzing a deal, but it's not a deal breaker.

This could lessen your big loss currently and could allow you to keep moving forward with real estate investing so you could make it up on the next one.

You need to have written policy in how you deal with tenants and apply that policy across the board.If you allow pets under a certain weight, they have to be allowed across the board.If you have a policy that all tenants must make 3 times the rent, then all tenants must meet that.And if you have a policy about waiving late fees, or reducing rent, or waiving one month of rent, whatever it is, you really need to apply to all.When landlords get into case by case basis with a different rule or decision for every tenant, that's when you set yourself up for a fair housing violation.   

If this lingers any longer, then we are back to the same boat in another 2 months.I am also seriously considering a rent credit for multi-family occupants with a weight tilted to longer term tenants. 

It is good that you're trying to work with them to lessen the annoyance of the situation, but they in turn need to work with you as well.

Get it on letterhead that includes the following items at a minimum:  proof of spay/neuter, sex, breed, shots, vaccinations, county of registration, age, height, weight and colorProof of annual pet license.

The main issue you haven't mentioned is that you have too many layers of roofing up there and weight is a real concern.

This is not something that requires congressional approval, so the announcement today carries significant weight.

How do I lessen my risk when buying sight unseen?  

Do lenders actually lend on the income of the asset or it is weighted on the net worth of the borrower, or both?