Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Margaret in CO

Should landlords be required to allow pets?

Recommended Posts

A woman on our marketplace today posted something about "why is our valley so uptight about renting to folks with animals?" I stupidly tried to explain that many landlords don't want the extra wear and tear on their investment properties, and the woman went off about the ADA and service animals, etc. etc. Most folks seemed to think that yes, if truly a service animal, ADA applies (as it does by law) but I was surprised at the number of people who thought renters were OWED access to housing that would accept pets! Is this a new entitlement mindset? I was called an idiot and a horrible person, yada, yada, 'til the whole thing was pulled off. I was flabbergasted by the inability to see that people have a lot of money invested in their properties (our median house in the south end of the valley now goes for about $335,000, and about $650,000 for the north end, yes, for a basic 3 BD, 2Ba house). And everyone's valuations went up $90,000+ this year! Do you feel people are owed housing that allows pets? 

Edited by Margaret in CO
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, of course not. As a life-long pet owner, it's nice if a landlord feels comfortable or has some kind of arrangement in place should a dog chew something, etc. but you are not required. We had pets when we rented and there was a security deposit involved. It was also abundantly clear to us should the dog damage something, that we would either fix it or pay to have it fixed.

There seems to be less tolerance toward people who assert their rights regarding property or just about anything else; this is probably what fueled this discussion.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disallowing pets can certainly be a class issue. I'm not going to say it's exactly the same as not allowing children, because obviously our society privileges human children over all non-humans (and that's quite a reasonable position!) but... well, children put wear and tear on properties as well. *shrugs*

People benefit from having pets. There is a valid argument to be made that these benefits shouldn't be only extended to those who can afford their own homes.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

Disallowing pets can certainly be a class issue. I'm not going to say it's exactly the same as not allowing children, because obviously our society privileges human children over all non-humans (and that's quite a reasonable position!) but... well, children put wear and tear on properties as well. *shrugs*

People benefit from having pets. There is a valid argument to be made that these benefits shouldn't be only extended to those who can afford their own homes.

But should a private landlord be required to provide that? Or should they be able to decide they want to, possibly requiring an extra deposit or fee?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Extra pet deposit and extra monthly pet fee are both standard where I live.  Children do cause wear and tear,  but they rarely damage walls and flooring so badly they need to be completely replaced, as sometimes happens with cats and dogs who mark territory or relieve themselves inside.  

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

o landlords should NOT have to allow pets.

 I am a landlord of  1 house/ We have a no pet policy. we have made an exception ONCE for a tennent that promised that their dog was an outside only dog - only for them to then bring the dog in to have pups and keep the pups inside. We don't charge enough rent to replace floors and walls because of people who cannot keep their animals outside.

 

 

My niece though her giant dog was a half human and of course it should be inside her rental house. all the plaster had to be replaced in the living room when she moved out of her rental house because the dog not only urinated against some walls but chewed the plaster off one wall when everyone was at work 

 

Why should landlords be forced to have animals in THEIR houses? Why? 

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had renters abandon a dying cat in a kitchen closet, another abandon a dying dog in a back bedroom (necessitating replacing the entire floor), a renter who had a litter of puppies on the living room carpet, and one who kept chickens in the basement! We're a bit touchy about animals. One of my dd's had a dog who chewed through the sheetrock (she had paid a large dog deposit) and she paid a pretty penny to fix the wall. I don't understand the stance that landlords should be REQUIRED to take pets! But I was informed today that I was an idiot that just didn't see things "fairly". 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Why should landlords be forced to have animals in THEIR houses? Why? 

 

Well, you're not forced to rent out your house in the first place.

16 minutes ago, klmama said:

Extra pet deposit and extra monthly pet fee are both standard where I live.  Children do cause wear and tear,  but they rarely damage walls and flooring so badly they need to be completely replaced, as sometimes happens with cats and dogs who mark territory or relieve themselves inside.  

 

And that I can fully get behind.

(I'd perhaps feel a bit less strongly about this issue than I apparently do - things I never knew about myself! - if cities in the US weren't so widely going through an affordability crisis. When you're paying through the nose to rent a place an hour away from everybody's work and school, you should have some rights of your own.)

As for "legitimate service animals", the government doesn't regulate that and the ADA doesn't allow you to check for "legitimacy" either, which is just as well because there are very, very few accrediting organizations for any service animals, no matter the disability.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the landlord OWNS the property.  they are the one who has worked and saved hard to BUY the property. They are the one who has to do the maintenance between tennents to make the property  rent-able.

 

 

  • Like 17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if there were less pets in the world there would be a heck of a lot less resources needing to be used.

 it is not essential to life to have a pet.  if you cannot afford to have your own place or have a pet friendly rental then you don't need a pet. just as simple as that.

Edited by Melissa in Australia
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

 

Well, you're not forced to rent out your house in the first place.

 

(I'd perhaps feel a bit less strongly about this issue than I apparently do - things I never knew about myself! - if cities in the US weren't so widely going through an affordability crisis. When you're paying through the nose to rent a place an hour away from everybody's work and school, you should have some rights of your own.)

 

Well, I guess you have the right to live in another place. If there were NO rental properties period, where would people live? Many don't want to buy--they don't plan on being in an area that long. We talked about buying a property for dd and her dh to rent in IN, but I'm glad we didn't. They simply aren't THERE enough to take care of a lawn, etc. They are quite happy to be on the road a lot, coming home now and then to water the orchid. 4 out of my 5 children rent. If no one rented out their properties, they would not have housing. We're in a tough spot as landlords--our taxes keep going up (and I know we aren't paying what folks in say, NJ are paying!)  so we have to raise the rent. We tend to keep renters 15+ years, so we must be fair landlords. We have a house that one family has been in for over 23 years (easy to keep track of because their last kid was born right before ds) and one I think 12+ years now, and then the house in town. It's a bit of a revolving door--the current folks have been in for over a year now. The previous tenants left the dying dog, and walked out at -35, breaking every pipe in the house. No rent for 3 months, and we had to replace every floor in the house--ugh. And store their stuff for 30 days before we could dispose of it. We had a renter who had punched through every door in the house. Glad to see THEM gone!

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel for people who lost their homes and already had a pet.  I hate the thought of a pet being separated from its family because they couldn't find a pet friendly rental.  Breaks my heart.

When we rented I appreciated the landlords that treated us nicely and realized that their property was our home.  I hate when renters do horrible things like mentioned upthread.  It's mean to landlords and ruins things for other renters.  My bil is a landlord and he expects everyone to be an idiot.  

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I don't think landlords should be required to allow pets . Your property, you get to set the rules.

From what I can tell it's extremely common around here for rentals to allow pets. Likely because they've figured out that not allowing them significantly limits the pool of potential renters. But again -- that's their choice, and they have to live with both the bad and the good of it.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Melissa in Australia said:

if there were less pets in the world there would be a heck of a lot less resources needing to be used.

 it is not essential to life to have a pet.  if you cannot afford to have your own place or have a pet friendly rental then you don't need a pet. just as simple as that.

The problem is when you do have your own house or a pet friendly rental and then there is an earthquake or a fire or other unforseen change of circumstances.  But no landlords should not be forced to take pets or children with the possible exception of guide dogs for the blind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.  I do not believe it is an obligation for a Landlord to accept pets. And, that can mean a lot of different things. If it is a dog, from a Toy Poodle to a St. Bernard.  There is more potential for damage to the house. Especially if the house has wall to wall carpeting. People with pets should know, IMO, that their options are more limited, when they search for a house to rent.  

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a landlord, you set the rules.  Two bedroom house?  You only allow a family of 4 to live there due to fire safety?  Completely within your right.  No pets, also within your right.  No smoking?  Harder to control, but also within your right.

We recently took our dog on a vacation with us and got an AirBnB that allowed a dog.  It was in such worse condition than the rentals we usually get.  We were happy to have the dog, but it wasn't the same caliber of home.   I realize that isn't the same exactly, but I guess my point is that animals do put more wear and tear on properties.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.) No. I hate the idea of a homeowner being *forced* to allow animals in their house.

2.) It’s complicated. Limited animal allowances do contribute to abandoned animals and put families in very complicated positions with their furry loved ones.

And just as a side note, it bums me out to think that some people might think a family who can’t afford to purchase a half million dollar house (or comparable, depending on the area) isn’t good enough for pet ownership.

Also, this home owner is pretty sick of dealing with having pets in the house, lol.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, of course they shouldn't, although I do appreciate when they do!  (Because we're a family of animal-lovers.)  I can certainly see why a tenant wouldn't want to deal with animals, and it's more than just wear and tear.  You have the noise issue (I've visited several apartment buildings where the owner is at work and the dog barks off and on all day long), allergies (that pet smell and hair can stick around for a long time after the renter has left), potential aggression toward other renters in the building, and keeping the outside property picked up and tidy.

As far as what to do if there's some disaster that requires a renter to relocate and not being able to find a place that will accept their pet...  Well I guess we can't base all of our decisions on "What if's."    I hope that's when the local community would step in and help figure out how to make it possible for the owner and pet to be reunited and together.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My tenant of 5 years is moving out in a few days and I'm going to have to put the house back up for rent. She had 2 dogs that she crated during the day. The house was always well taken care of and I could see no sign of dog and no dog smell. I was hesitant to allow pets, but this turned me around. I'm considering allowing pets with training certificates. I think that seems fair. I can see both sides since when we were young, we had an untrained dog and we rented. I wouldn't have wanted us for tenants. 😳

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Melissa in Australia said:

if there were less pets in the world there would be a heck of a lot less resources needing to be used.

 it is not essential to life to have a pet.  if you cannot afford to have your own place or have a pet friendly rental then you don't need a pet. just as simple as that.

That's cold. A pet can mean the difference between loneliness and companionship, between having no family and having one, between feeling useless and feeling useful. There are absolutely people who need animals in their life, regardless of their income level. 

Re: your comment about resources. The same goes for livestock used for food, so should we all be vegan? And, of course, it also applies to children. 😉 

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it really has to be up to the landlord.  When you are a property owner you're 100% responsible for the damage, smell, mess, etc.  When you're not, I can see why it is really hard for some property owners to try and put a fair and actually affordable price tag on that.  Like if an animal regularly has accidents on walls or carpeting it could easily be thousands of dollars of damage for a single year lease.  Especially in apartment settings, it can be hard to re-rent with someone with allergies, the noise, smell, etc can be an issue for neighbors in close quarters, etc.  

My father was a landlord for many years and it's fairly ridiculous what he had to put up with over the years.  A few bad tenants ruin it for everyone.  

And I get affordable rentals are an issue and it stinks that pets won't work in some settings.  The rental market in our metro is nuts.  

Edited by FuzzyCatz
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should only be required to allow real, trained, working, necessary service animals for disabled people. I think it's perfectly fine for them to charge a steep fee to truly cover the costs of the kinds of damage that pets can cause and the time between renters while damage is being repaired, but it shouldn't be required to allow pets. I do sympathize with responsible pets owners who are affected by the irresponsible pets owners who ruin it for them.  We all have to deal that kind of thing in some way because of jerks.  I was at the beach a month ago that had public access and public parking, but no public bathrooms.  I had to pay for items I didn't want so I could pee.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Landlord red flags:   "american stafordshire terrier", "emotional support service dog", "always in a crate",  "never barks", "elderly dog", right up there with "but WHY do you need a security deposit", and "can I pay the security deposit in two weeks". 

I'm a terrible judge of character, that's why I check references.  Any responsible person will have no problem renting with a pet, if their references check out, that is, they had the dog for a while and the previous landlords didn't have any trouble with them or their dog.  Not saying you'll get any house you want in a tight market, but there are plenty of landlords who will rent to a  responsible applicant with references, but won't take any excuses in most other cases. 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m with you, Margaret. Landlords should not have to allow pets. The owner of the property gets to decide how they want to use it.

Edited by Mom0012
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, barnwife said:

Landlord red flags:   "american stafordshire terrier", "emotional support service dog", "always in a crate",  "never barks", "elderly dog", right up there with "but WHY do you need a security deposit", and "can I pay the security deposit in two weeks". 

I'm a terrible judge of character, that's why I check references.  Any responsible person will have no problem renting with a pet, if their references check out, that is, they had the dog for a while and the previous landlords didn't have any trouble with them or their dog.  Not saying you'll get any house you want in a tight market, but there are plenty of landlords who will rent to a  responsible applicant with references, but won't take any excuses in most other cases. 

 

I'm the worst at judging people. The young couple who has been renting our home for a few years? I got a call from the neighbors that the guy had been charged with a felony for drug trafficking over a year ago, and the only reason anyone found out was because his probation officer went to the wrong house by accident. Everyone thought they were great until then. Took care of the house, no parties, nothing out of the ordinary. 

They do have a dog and it hasn't caused any damage that was noticeable the last time someone did a walk through of the house. I went back and forth about allowing pets, but that part of things has been fine. I would rather have the dog in the rental than the boyfriend! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not required, but it's nice if they can and do. And it is also nice if they can possibly have policies for pets other than dogs or cats. It is extremely hard to find a place to rent that accepts a corn snake or leopard gecko  that lives in a 20 gallon terrarium and causes absolutely no mess or noise-and such pets are not uncommon and can provide a lot of emotional value for an individual.

And, if it were easier to rent with pets, it would likely provide less incentive to try to get a pet labeled a service animal, and be less damaging to those who really DO depend on their animal to do more to help than just be there.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Landlords should NOT be required to allow pets. And further, if a potential one says it's ADA, you can actually require that the show that it was trained to perform the specific duties needed. I didn't think you could but a lawyer explained to my sister that she could ask and then require proof. If it's truly a trained service animal, they do have proof.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Melissa in Australia said:

o landlords should NOT have to allow pets.

 I am a landlord of  1 house/ We have a no pet policy. we have made an exception ONCE for a tennent that promised that their dog was an outside only dog - only for them to then bring the dog in to have pups and keep the pups inside. We don't charge enough rent to replace floors and walls because of people who cannot keep their animals outside.

 

 

My niece though her giant dog was a half human and of course it should be inside her rental house. all the plaster had to be replaced in the living room when she moved out of her rental house because the dog not only urinated against some walls but chewed the plaster off one wall when everyone was at work 

 

Why should landlords be forced to have animals in THEIR houses? Why? 


Totally.   I have a big dog that is sometimes discriminated against.   She has never caused wear and tear on our home, so I was open to dogs, even big dogs.  

Because of that:

  • a 15 year old live oak died because the dog chewed the bark
  • Two curtains were tossed because the dogs had peed on them so much they fell apart in the wash.   
  • We had to replace the padding int he living room because it was soaked with urine.   They had at least removed the padding.  
  • they scratched up the inside of the front door.



Kids don't do that sort of damage. 



 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

Having always had pets for the last 25 years (being in the military for 15 of those) and in 8 different private rentals during that time, I have greatly appreciated those landlords who allow pets.  But, not every pet owner is a responsible one and the damage pets can easily do by just being a pet (without a responsible owner) is greater than the damage a person does by just being a person. Also, not every dwelling is ideal for pets.

We had excellent pet references that began when our first landlord agreed to let us on a 6 mo contract with a new puppy (as a trial period).  He was so impressed with how well we cared for the house and yard, and with the dog’s behavior, he let us extend the lease and get a second puppy. His glowing reference helped us get our subsequent rentals.  Perhaps there can be a legal contingency for a short lease with guaranteed extension at the same rent if during the short lease the property is well taken care of.

We are considering investment properties near us, and have a great desire to allow pets. But we also have a great desire to protect investments and do not think anyone should be forced to take an unnecessary liability - whether that be a water bed, extra vehicles, a BBQ outside, or a pet.  As far as service dogs which are trained, that’s different and I think they should by law be allowed - BUT these animals are trained and fulfilled in a job and pose very little liability for the land lord.  ESAs are pets, and I would treat them as such.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Targhee said:

ESAs are pets, and I would treat them as such.

Well.

I'm extremely reluctant to wade in here, for multiple reasons I'll get to in a moment. But, legally, this isn't quite right.

Quote

What Is an Assistance Animal?

An assistance animal is an animal that works, provides assistance, or performs tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability, or that provides emotional support that alleviates one or more identified effects of a person’s disability. An assistance animal is not a pet.

Obligations of Housing Providers

Individuals with a disability may request to keep an assistance animal as a reasonable accommodation to a housing provider’s pet restrictions.

Housing providers cannot refuse to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when such accommodations may be necessary to afford a person with a disability the equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

The Fair Housing Act requires a housing provider to allow a reasonable accommodation involving an assistance animal in situations that meet all the following conditions:

  • A request was made to the housing provider by or for a person with a disability
  • The request was supported by reliable disability-related information, if the disability and the disability-related need for the animal were not apparent and the housing provider requested such information, and
  • The housing provider has not demonstrated that:
    • Granting the request would impose an undue financial and administrative burden on the housing provider
    • The request would fundamentally alter the essential nature of the housing provider’s operations
    • The specific assistance animal in question would pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others despite any other reasonable accommodations that could eliminate or reduce the threat
    • The request would not result in significant physical damage to the property of others despite any other reasonable accommodations that could eliminate or reduce the physical damage

Examples

A reasonable accommodation request for an assistance animal may include, for example:

  • A request to live with an assistance animal at a property where a housing provider has a no-pets policy or
  • A request to waive a pet deposit, fee, or other rule as to an assistance animal.

The bolding is mine; source below.

https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/assistance_animals

 

Now, my own objections here: I do have a strong sympathy for property owners. Perhaps a small-scale landlord could make an argument, as described above, that the cost of potential pet damage is too high. And there are limits to the Fair Housing Act:

Quote

The FHA doesn't apply when a single-family house is sold or rented without a broker, so long as the owner doesn’t own more than three houses.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/does-the-federal-fair-housing-act-apply-your-rental-property.html

So maybe this doesn't apply to you.

 

More to the point, as a parent of a disabled child who is heavily dependent on her emotional support dog, I think the category in U.S. law of "emotional support animal" does no favor to disabled individuals or the rest of society. This is a soapbox I've gotten on before, so pardon me if you remember how this goes.

First the terminology: as you see in the quotation above, "assistance dog" is a category which includes both service dogs and emotional support dogs. Both help their owners. Therapy dogs are a separate category, trained to help people other than their owners.

The idea in disability law is that service dogs are trained, first, for good behavior in public, and, second, to do specific tasks for disabled people.

Emotional support animals simply provide support. They have no special training. The law does require them to be allowed in planes and in rental housing, because people do legitimately depend on them.

Except -- we all know the system is abused. So people understandably view ESAs with very jaundiced eyes, which is not fair to the people with real disabilities who don't abuse the system.

I wish the law could be altered to define emotional support *as work*, just like service dogs do, but require emotional support dogs to be trained for public access like service dogs are. At a minimum, something like the canine good citizen test, which iirc also stresses responsible owner behavior.

I also wish our country had some sort of testing and certification for service dogs and emotional support dogs. This would protect people with disabilities and the general public as well.

So, Margaret, I'm sympathetic to your position. I know pets can do a lot of damage. I don't know the nitty gritty of how the law is applied to small-scale landlords with, say, four houses. I would never demonize you for preferring to avoid the whole business.

But I also know that not every emotional support dog indicates an owner who's trying to abuse the system. Sometimes the need is real and valid, and people try to take responsibility. I think a poorly conceived law has created problems here.

Edited by Innisfree
  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason service animals are allowed is that they are necessary medical devices/ability aids, that happen to be breathing and living creatures.  They are not pets, first and foremost.

 

And absolutely no, landlords should not be required to allow pets.  They own the property, they make the rules.  Renters may be extended a contractual privilege of living there,  but the landlord is not subsumed to the demands and preferences of the renter, provided the home is in good working order and safe as the law requires.

Edited by Arctic Mama
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

The reason service animals are allowed is that they are necessary medical devices, that happen to be breathing and living creatures.  They are not pets, first and foremost.

My point is that, legally, the same is true for emotional support dogs. As the HUD discussion states, assistance dogs in general, including both service dogs and emotional support dogs, are not pets. Both, equally, are necessary medical devices.

Furthermore, the emotional support animal category is so frequently abused that it is troublesome to disabled people who genuinely need their ESAs.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Innisfree said:

My point is that, legally, the same is true for emotional support dogs. As the HUD discussion states, assistance dogs in general, including both service dogs and emotional support dogs, are not pets. Both, equally, are necessary medical devices.

Furthermore, the emotional support animal category is so frequently abused that it is troublesome to disabled people who genuinely need their ESAs.

I am not in favor of ESAs as a category, actually. Because it is abused so heavily.  But I do think there should be more uniform certification, or at least required testing to obtain papers and documents and a company or landlord being given freedom to make policy about animals if these documents aren’t produced.

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, landlords should not be required to allow pets.  While there are (rightly) certain anti-discrimination laws in place, a rental property still belongs to the landlord and the landlord has a right to protect their investment.  I love animals but I have seen more than my share of renters who have trashed our houses by letting pets use the floor as a bathroom etc.  A pet deposit can be one way to let pet owners (who hopefully actually take care of their pets) rent, but it isn't always adequate if you have to replace an entire subfloor because it was permeated with urine and feces, as I have had happen in one of our rentals. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why on earth are deposits not required for service animals? There is still the risk of damage. No landlord should have to assume the cost of fixing the extra wear & tear, etc of any animal. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, QueenCat said:

Why on earth are deposits not required for service animals? There is still the risk of damage. No landlord should have to assume the cost of fixing the extra wear & tear, etc of any animal. 

Because, right or wrong, it would be considered disability discrimination.  It’s legally akin to charging extra for a wheelchair user or an insulin pump, to charge someone with a seizure service dog or seeing eye dog extra for the animal.  They’re protected by under housing discrimination laws.  But this is why I’m no fan of ESAs.  If there were a certification for service dogs and it was applied to a psychological disability as well - so your animal was a service animal, just with a different set of training - it would go a lot smoother I think.  

The real flaw is the lack of standardization and accreditation, so the laws have plenty of room for abuse (like the fake service animals biting children on planes and such).  It’s not that ESAs aren’t justified,  but that the oversight and training and legal allowances for them are grey or just plain absent.  It’s frustrating for owners AND landlords.

Edited by Arctic Mama
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, landlords should not have to allow pets.

But when looking at listings, I always think to myself that any extra damage deposit for pets should also apply to toddlers. 😄

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO a pet is a luxury.  We didn't have any pets for the first 20 years we lived here (in the house we own), nor ever in any rented home.  We now only have 2 small pets, always caged when not held in our hands (a parakeet and a guinea pig).  We won't have a dog or cat unless/until we have the right combination of able and willing to properly care for an outdoor dog.

I do not understand people having pets they can't properly care for.  But obviously such people exist.

Property owners should have the right to say no to pets.  If I wanted to be nice and rent to pet owners, I would only do it in a structure that is designed to take the kind of behavior / problems that occur with some pet-owning families.  Some homes can take that a lot better than others.  If we had a rule that all renters had to rent to pet owners, then many nice houses would have to be taken off the rental market.

ETA I am not talking about trained service animals, which (a) are a need and not a luxury and (b) are presumably trained well enough that one's house is not going to be destroyed by it.

Edited by SKL
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a lifelong pet owner, but I don't think a landlord should be forced to allow it. We once rented with 3 big dogs, we had to find the right house, thankfully not out of the price range. 

At my house with my mom and son, we have pets, but when I moved to school I specifically looked for apartments that were no pets. 1. I don't want to move into a place that smells like cats, I know how hard it can be to get rid of the odor completely. 2. I miss my pets when I'm at school, seeing others have them makes me sad. I'm at school too much to bring my dog and the cats are bonded to each other, so we don't want to separate them. 

We had to rent houses for years because most apartments wouldn't take dogs over 30 lbs. I see a lot more options for large pets owners lately. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • No.  The people with allergies need a safe place to live; when looking for apts recently with our young adults we saw over and over that landlords were not replacing the flooring and walls damaged by pet urine.  We had one place tell us the smell was their cleaning chemical.  Well, if they lie about that, what else are they lying about?

Also pet owners were not keeping their pets under control, which made even walking in the parking lot dangerous for the elderly.I

I don't feel people are owed housing, with or without a pet. Plenty of towns that need people. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Margaret in CO said:

We had renters abandon a dying cat in a kitchen closet, another abandon a dying dog in a back bedroom (necessitating replacing the entire floor), a renter who had a litter of puppies on the living room carpet, and one who kept chickens in the basement! We're a bit touchy about animals. One of my dd's had a dog who chewed through the sheetrock (she had paid a large dog deposit) and she paid a pretty penny to fix the wall. I don't understand the stance that landlords should be REQUIRED to take pets! But I was informed today that I was an idiot that just didn't see things "fairly". 

 

Good Grief! I consider this extreme. These were different people??? 

And the old adage "Life is not fair" is unfortunately still true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pets are a privilege, not a a right or entitlement.  A landlord should not be compelled to take on the inconvenience of your pet because the pet gives you good feelings. 

I love animals.  I was a vet tech for years.  I have a cat and a big 90 lb dog, and at one point, I had 5 cats.  They are a LOT of work and responsibility, (and every time my dog wakes me at 4 am to go out, I swear I will never, ever get another dog).  Most people do not want to deal with the work of training bad behavior out of their pets and modifying their lives so that others are not impacted by their pet's bad behavior.  Example: my dog is a complete knucklehead, and forgets every command he has been taught when new people are around. Since I can't trust him not to jump on visitors, he has to stay in his crate when people are over.  Do I like the look of his giant crate in my kitchen? No, but it's non-negotiable if I want people over.   

My pets don't pee and poop on the floors, they don't eat doors or moulding, they don't eat drywall, they don't chew on walls.  This is the stuff that I hear friends laugh about their own pets doing, stuff I heard clients joke about, stuff I heard other techs and veterinarians chuckle about with their own pets!  Ha ha ha, it's so funny that my dog destroyed the laundry room door!  Ha ha ha, my dog jumped through the patio door screen and destroyed it.  Ha ha ha, my dog always poops on the floor and we didn't think about that when we got a Roomba and now the carpets need professional cleaning, but the landlord is crazy if he thinks *I'm* paying for that because this carpet is old anyway.  Ha ha ha, my cat peed all over the carpeting next to the litter box; he's such a little stinker! (And you will *never* get the stink of cat pee out of your carpeting with regular carpet shampooer).  Ha ha ha, my dog and cat have fleas but I think that flea prevention is "toxic" and refuse to use it.  Now there's a major flea infestation in my home, but I don't care, because I'm moving in 2 weeks, so whatever, not my problem after that, ha ha ha.  These are all true events from people I know. 

Why would you ever put up with that!  Why should your landlord have to put up with that?!       

Edited by MissLemon
Typo
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not extreme at all. 

 I know someone who has her companion service animal inside with her.  it is a goat. 

a friend of one of my older boys had a pet rabbit in her rental house with her. When she left some of the electrical wiring had to be replaced because it loved chewing the insulation off wires.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not think they should. 

One rhing, we as landlords just ran into with ESA is that they do not have to be trained and you can’t require a deposit.  You do need to provide a letter from a mental health care professionals, but there are online places that will interview to do that.  I think that all service animals should be trained just like ones for the blind. I also think landlords need some protection.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Animals can do significant damage to property.  I just had a conversation  with someone about training small dogs.  Yes, they need to know to do the Sam things as large dogs, but the overwhelming attitude of small dog owners is they're wonderful just how they are and don't need to be trained.  Ime: those are owners I don't want anywhere near my property. 

Legit service animals, yes - but their owners are more likely to be responsible and the animals are trained.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...