@Jeremy G. -
I agree that your rents are likely too low.
My properties are single family homes, most in smaller towns than the Manchester suburbs, and our average rent is about $1,250/month. One advantage that I have in the smaller towns is the lack of quality single family rentals available, and I have been finding that my rents are increasing substantially when I have turnover, which isn't very often (average tenancy is over 4 years).
When I have a vacancy, I have very little difficulty filling it with quality tenants, but I don't get as many calls as you are reporting.
I take a look at what else is on the market and price mine towards the higher end because my properties are in much better condition and have nicer finishings than my competition. I disregard those few properties that are priced astronomically high because the landlord lives in la la land, and I make sure that my rent is justified based on what the home has to offer. I want it to be the best value on the market so I can get the best tenant quickly, but I don't want to price it any lower than necessary to achieve that.
I then set up showings, back to back, 20 minutes apart, on the same day. Before I add someone to the schedule, I prequalify them over the phone, including telling them all of the things that might turn them off (snow removal and lawn care on them, renter's insurance requirement, pet policy, no fridge or washer/dryer provided, etc), and then I ask them to email me the day of the showing to confirm that they'll be there. If they don't email me, I don't show up. If I'm there anyway showing it to other prospective tenants and they come, I'll let them take a look at the property, but I am highly unlikely to rent to them since they've shown that they didn't follow through on a simple thing that they agreed to do.
The over-the-phone prequal is a huge time-saver. If I determine that they don't meet the 3.5 times rent in gross income, or they've been evicted, or if they can't see themselves renting a place where they have to shovel their own steps, or they aren't willing to provide a fridge, or if they simply refuse to answer my questions, we're done in 10 minutes over the phone and both parties save the time of doing a showing.
In theory, I like the idea of open-house group showings. Much less time-consuming, and you can just relax in the kitchen and answer any questions people have. However, can't do that if the place is currently occupied by a tenant who is moving; as we have an ethical responsibility to accompany everyone through the house to look after our tenants' belongings. Also, individual showings allow us to get a better feel for the people based on their behavior and comments.
@Mary M. -
NH does not have a law like Oregon where we have to rent to the first qualified applicant, as far as I am aware.
However, if we did, or if I invested in Oregon, I would absolutely do open-house group showings and ask people to drop their applications into a box if interested; so that I could choose the applicant with the strongest qualifications, since I received all of the applications at the same time.
I think that law is ridiculous. I get that it was implemented to protect people from discrimination, but it's a huge overreach. It's basically saying that you, as a landlord, are presumed to have a high propensity towards discrimination, so we're going to enact legislation that removes your ability to choose the tenant so that you are no longer even able to discriminate, whether you would have or not.
For example, I get 3 applications that have similar income, job history, rental history, and credit.
Person A had dirty clothes on, a passenger seat littered with McDonald's wrappers, didn't take their shoes off until asked to do so, had grime under their finger nails, etc.
Person B was a loud mouth type A personality who started telling me how things were going to be.
Person C was clean and respectful and asked if it would be alright if they created a mulch bed with plants and flowers in front of the deck.
If Person A or Person B sees the house first, and they meet my written objective qualification parameters, I, by law, have to rent to a slob who may trash my house, or a jerk who may cause arguments, disturb neighbors, or make my life difficult in any number of other ways? And I don't get to rent to the person who is going to take pride of ownership in the property, improve the landscaping, take care of my asset, and stay for a long time?
That's BS legislation. We should be able to choose whomever we want, for any reason we determine, so long as it's not for a reason that is considered to be discriminatory under the law towards a protected class. Slobs and jerks are not protected classes, and I should be able to make the subjective decision not to rent to someone whom I believe to be such.
Okay, done ranting, but terrible legislative overreach.
