This results in less rule breaking, less property damage and less undesireable behavior.Remember, it is like a chess game.

I found this weeded out a lot of undesirables.  

My list allows for some discretion if one component is lacking, and almost all of your undesirables will lack in more than one area so they will disqualify:Applicant must be employed or have verification of income.

For us the break-in  risk, proximity to other properties and the tenants generally being high made it undesirable to have them there. 

Many companies require you to use their application forms (on-line or faxed/e-mailed), which we do and add our own supplemental pages for info they don't request but we want.Think about the qualities of a good tenant, what your criteria is, and design a process to weed out undesirables and look at credit, criminal landlord history.  

Obviously it's not worth this amount (after living in it for a month I felt it wasn't worth this much even without the repair issues, so you can understand there are a lot of other issues I haven't noted here that make it an undesirable residence - friends and family kept asking me why the heck I was paying so much). 

Or is there something about your properties that makes them undesirable to good tenants who have more options?

Renting to the older tenant means less turnover and no kids.And I disagree that smaller units are undesirable.  

Some people would be surprised at how effective a $25.00 application fee is at weeding out undesirables.

This also makes a older homes undesirable for the average home home buyer/renter.These are my opinions but hope they help to explain why I am still intrested in the SF area as an investment.