No offense to Diane but my Phoenix experience has been the polar opposite.

NYC issues a lot of $999 fines for the first offense and up to $7,500 per instance for subsequent offenses. 

You have to keep playing offense before you play any defense.

Did they say we need XX to move or did you get offensive when they turned down what you considered your fair offer??

No offense meant by reputable - the few people I know who have used architects in this area have had horrible experiences - mostly stemming from communication issues. 

It really is the only way to be sure.OK, that's unreasonable unless you're renting from a little self-managing DIY guy like me, but you should NEVER worry about asking anybody renting a property to unequivocally prove that they own it/have the right to rent it out to you.Any landlords, property managers, or agents who would take offense to this request these days and are unwilling to make every effort/go the extra mile to establish their identities are very likely not legit.In the very small eventuality that you do find someone who is for real AND takes offense at a request to prove their identity, well, you're dealing with a moron.

Credit score (min can vary, but should be least 650 if not 670)Verifiable (pay statements, tax returns) income (min can vary, but should be at least 2.5x the rent if not 3-3.5x)No evictionsNo criminal background (except for driving-related offenses)Positive reference from previous (not current) landlord

A small city near me had what they called the "One strike ordinance", if a rental had anyone arrested for a drug or firearms offense they could shut the unit down for 6 months so nobody could live there!

If you get written documentation from the plumber, and have a good lease, the disposal of wet wipes down the drain could be tenant-caused enough that it constitutes a chargeable offense, especially if they agree to stop disposing of wet wipes down the drain and/or admit that they have done so. 

One federal court of appeals held that such a blanket ban violated Title VII, stating that it “could not conceive of any business necessity that would automatically place every individual convicted of any offense, except a minor traffic offense, in the permanent ranks of the unemployed.”Although the defendant-employer in that case had proffered a number of theft and safety-related justifications for the policy, the court rejected such justifications as “not empirically validated.”