The second property I looked at was a pure commercial shop.  

With software that reads the listing when called - there can be nothing but pure intent to hijack the listing.

In a logistical and purely mathematical sense, what you're saying is correct.I think the debate is really one of risk.

I have some hang ups of doing a pure 50/50 split, when I bear 100% of the downside risk.

@Ben - I'm sorry to hear the mess they made; unfortunately is not unusual for tenants to act like this (sometimes out of pure negligence and some other's out of life's circumstances - please note I'm not condoning their behavior) Steve is right; here in Texas (I'm in Austin) the landlord/property management company has 30 days in which to account - in writing - expenses due a tenant after move out.

It's purely based on an inability of a business owner to communicate with a potential customer and whether the business owner should feel morally obligated to tax his business to accommodate these customers.  

From a purely business prospective you should not rent to her, and on a personal level, you should not rent to her.

Pure color commentary: He also seeks to shame me for “maximizing the value of my property” by not evicting such an inconsiderate tenant on the basis that the dog was not registered on the lease. 

(DC, MD, MA)

I suggest you keep it only if you *want* to do so, and if you're prepared to acknowledge that your motivation isn't purely financial.Best of luck, and condolences on your father's passing.