For example the one that I live in I put in no pets, no smoking, no sublet, no waterbeds, no inflammatory speech displayed in window,  can't use the roof, decorations must not destroy walls. 

Landlord under false pretense of abandonment you entered in and destroyed evidence of a crime that had been committed at the scene JUST to get rent?

I can remember a time when they destroyed people.  

I say end tenancy when the tenant stops contributing to your goals.Tenant pays rent on time, contibutes to my goals.A tenant being dirty, not preferred but still may contribute to my goals (if still paying rent, not destroying property or causing problems)Tenant paying less than market rent, not preferred but reduces vacancy loss, turnover costs, new leasing fees, etc., may still contribute to my goalsBeing dirty, not paying rent on time, paying under market rent, definitely does not contribut to my goalsI definitely would not fix the place up with the current tenant in it.

By the time he intervened, they had destroyed his place, and some of the kids living there had been arrested for arson throughout the neighborhood.      

I hate water, destroys everything it touches and always finds a way.

For example, if the tenant destroys the place out of malice, you can offer a reduced purchase price to the owner instead of the bill being on you should the tenant do it after you owned the building.

Because people are so heavy they are gradually destroying the wall-mounted ones.

They absolutely destroy the units - have NO respect for anyone else's property.  

They tend to destroy the property, because they just haven't developed the work ethic that someone from less privileged means would have.