Pet homelessness and the landlord issue: Study says landlord fears baseless
By Christie Keith
November 2, 2009
It’s the one law I keep coming back to as something I could get behind: Ban discrimination against pet owners in housing. And now I have some solid data to back up the fight.
The Petsavers Foundation conducted a study of the housing market for pet owners, and among their many findings were these:
The data suggests there is little if any difference in damage between tenants with and without pets. The biggest difference between damage from tenants with pets and those without was under $40, with an average of $323 in damage for tenants without pets and an average of $362 for tenants with pets. This was not a statistically significant difference (meaning that the difference is quite possibly due to random variation in the data rather than any real difference) and the amount is very small when compared to the extra deposit, rent, and other benefits received from renting pet-friendly housing.
Interestingly the $40 (at most) difference in damages for tenants with pets was much smaller than the difference found for tenants with children. Tenants with children on average had $150 more damage than tenants without children. If housing is divided into four categories based on whether children and/or pets are present, then for housing with children the people with pets caused on average $4 less damage. For housing with no children, the people with pets caused on average $25 less damage. In other words, when having children is accounted for, people with pets did not cause any more damage whatsoever on average than people without pets.
There’s a lot more, inc luding some measurable financial benefits to landlords who allow pets that, as noted above, actually outweigh the $40 loss in extra damage.
Since housing problems are the main reason people give up their pets, and it appears that landlords’ reluctance to rent to pet owners has no rational basis, what do you think? Should there be a law?
That doesn’t take into consideration the discomfort of other tenants… pets can be loud. I am a pet owner myself and I cringe everytime my dog barks or skids his chewy across the floor. He’s a really good dog but, I’m sure my downstairs neighbors hate it.
Comment by Jenna — November 2, 2009 @ 6:30 pm
Noise issues aren’t unique to pet owning tenants or neighbors, though. Loud music, loud parties, loud TVs, loud cars and motorcycles, lawn blowers, hedge trimmers… on and on. The issue is NOISE, not PETS.
Comment by Christie Keith — November 2, 2009 @ 6:31 pm
I’m not sure there’s a practical way to include pet ownership in a protected category for renting. For one thing — what pets? What species, how many, etc.?
It’s not really meaningful to “guarantee” the right to rent with “pets,” when the landlord can define “pet” as a single goldfish under four inches long. Nor is it reasonable to require a landlord to rent a studio walkup to someone with three obese potbelly pigs and a house goat.
What I’d like to see is an enlightened market that delivers consequences to anti-pet landlords, or as I’ve recently discovered is the source of much of the trouble, agents.
When my Mom was looking for an apartment locally, most of the rentals were tied up with the same management agency — and the agent is adamantly anti-pet. So the rentals are “no pets” not because the property owners want it that way, but because the agent made it “policy” for his lazy convenience, or maybe because he just hates animals.
Also, he was a total prick to my mother. Rude and unprofessional. The Murray Agency in Zelienople, PA, for all you googlers out there.
So I tell everyone to avoid that agency, which also is a regular realty. I know at least one couple who decided not to use the agency to sell their house and buy a new one based on that. Two big commissions kaput.
In the past few years I’ve seen more and more buildings and complexes trumpeting their pet-friendliness in advertisements.
I’d like to see the flip side — economic consequences from organized tenants for landlords who are unreasonable on pet policies. And I think it’s an appropriate role for local shelters and humane societies, to list both good and bad landlords. Why not “Tigger is homeless because Fred Zimbel the landlord won’t allow pets” on the kitty’s Petfinder listing?”
I’d like to see the big national humane organizations lead both outreach and PR on the issue of landlords and pet policies, with tie-ins and events that local shelters and rescues can promote locally.
Reforming the rental markets and then going after towns (and homeowners’ associations and condo boards) with restrictive limit laws, punitive licensing, no-pet parks — if those two giant anti-animal institutions could be eliminated, then the shelters would empty.
Pet ownership must not be a tenuous privilege only for property owners who happened to choose the right town.
Comment by H. Houlahan — November 2, 2009 @ 6:37 pm
I wish every single minute of effort spent on punitive and useless mandatory spay/neuter laws would be spent doing just what you describe here instead, Heather!
Comment by Christie Keith — November 2, 2009 @ 6:54 pm
In the past few years I’ve seen more and more buildings and complexes trumpeting their pet-friendliness in advertisements.
Comment by H. Houlahan — November 2, 2009 @ 6:37 pm
I’ve looked at some of those listings (in CA). “pet-friendliness” can be very similar to “cozy” in rental advertising. Small pets are generally what they’re after and weight limits tend to play in (under 25-30lbs). I had to laugh at the ones that said you could have multiple pets as long as they didn’t weigh collectively over 30lbs. At that point I started looking for houses in more rural areas or at least outside of defined town and city limits as they seemed more ‘real’ pet friendly and understood not all dogs fit in a purse. And pet limits didn’t play in as much, another key issue with some of us pet folks. Owning 3 cats can really freak some folks out . . .
I love your idea about saying a pet is at the shelter due to a LL :)
As far as the noise “issue” goes, my dog is much quieter than the infant downstairs! Apt living is what it is. We have laws here about dog barking and I think they are pretty reasonable. Most people do not let their dogs bark forever. Urban living tends to require a certain level of dog (and human) manners . . . and the general rule of thumb is you can’t be a problem for your neighbors. Most dog owners don’t want to face the ‘give up the dog or the apt’ consequence.
Comment by straybaby — November 2, 2009 @ 7:14 pm
I think there should be a law that says if they won’t allow pets - they can’t allow children either. :-) Or people who drink … or fight…. or have parties or play their tv’s or stereos or - oh wait there’s no one left to rent to.
Comment by cheryl — November 2, 2009 @ 8:27 pm
I had to rent my current apartment from afar and was stuck looking for “pet friendly,” reasonably-priced places without actually getting the chance to see them firsthand - what a nightmare it’s turned out to be. I found a place that has what appeared to be nice, single-unit apartments which are all on the first-floor level and has doors that open to the outdoors. I didn’t realize that would be a problem until I moved in; more on that later.
I have two young cats and had to pay an additional $300 deposit on top of my regular security plus $25/month on top of my rent, and only after I moved in was I made aware of the terms of the “Pet Addendum” which requires that you only have one pet (well, thanks for letting me know, but mine are both staying) and that your cats HAVE to be declawed and CANNOT go out unsupervised. Needless to say, I’m not declawing them - they’re too old and I frankly don’t believe in it - and as for going out, they’ve both been neutered and microchipped and have ID tags… not that I’m a huge proponent of letting them run around freely, but with small apartments which offer no barrier between you and the world when you open the door, it’s a rough rule to adhere to. Still, the rule is, indoor-only unless you’re using a leash.
This might make sense for dog owners (they allow dogs of a certain size), but cats?
Long story short, I agree that it’s ridiculous to require so much from pet owners when other non-pet owners get away with blaring music at 4am, having parties, slamming doors, etc. My cats are playful and young and make a little noise when they run around the place, but the ONLY reason they might be destructive is that they’re being forced to stay inside a tiny studio. I imagine the next-door neighbors might be causing significantly more damage to their apartment, are certainly making more noise, and I know they aren’t paying what I am to live here.
Just my $0.02. Pet ownership should NOT be seen as a liability. We pet lovers are more compassionate, peaceful and understanding than 99% of other renters out there!
Comment by Layla — November 2, 2009 @ 8:32 pm
This is a topic that of great interest to me. When we bought our house, it was driven mostly because we wanted to get a dog and could not find a rental that wasn’t already trashed (college town) where the landlord was agreeable.
I have also lived in Sweden, where the public housing (not equivalent to public housing in the U.S.; it is managed by not-for-profit entities, is generally less expensive than private flats but not subsidized and is in high demand) constitutes a large fraction of the housing stock and allows pets of all sizes. I think this is true of rentals in many other parts of Europe as well. I don’t know if it reflects cultural differences or simply the fact that apartment-living is much more common and if pets weren’t permitted few people would be able to have pets. I tend to think the latter may be more important as it creates more pressure on landlords to be accommodating of pet tenants. Also, consider New York City - lots of people living in apartments/condos with dogs of all sizes.
Speaking of Europe, many of the cities I visited allow pets on public transportation (although they are usually required to be muzzled). Of course, the pets I encountered were all very well-behaved.
Comment by Karlyn — November 2, 2009 @ 9:19 pm
I wish rude, clueless dolts wouldn’t get pets. Or apartments. Fair or not, it only takes a few rude, inconsiderate jerks to turn a landlord against all pet owners (or motorcyle owners or musicians). Especially if the the person is litigous to boot.
In today’s politically correct, “everybody needs to be treated exactly the same no matter how ignorant, lazy, rude, nasty or belligerent they are” atmosphere - a landlord can get trapped between a rock and a hard place if he lets one person have a pet and denies another the same “privelege”.
I know I’m preaching to the choir here, but we need to go back to the old fashioned idea that responsibilities come with rights.
Comment by Janeen — November 2, 2009 @ 9:33 pm
here is a brazen advertisement.. I have a lovely two bedroom home on a half acre ( fenced) in the Napa wine counry.. FOR RENT .. ONLY PET OWNERS NEED APPLY.. I love ‘pit bulls’.. or any large slobbery dogs..cats too. LOL.but OWNERS ( not guardians) must be responsible. I am serious..I have had a history of GREAT tenants by using my pet owners policy over the years..
Comment by bestuvall — November 2, 2009 @ 10:53 pm
Two things:
1) Noise with pets is rarely the same as noise of any other kind. Music and motorcycles tends to be episodic. With dogs, it can be all day long, and drive every other tenant (one of whom may be the landlord) crazy. A dog barking all day long is not the same as a kid cranking up the Rolling Stones on a Saturday.
2) I have bought and sold a number of houses and seen many others as part of purchase inspections, and the one thing you never forget is that pet urine permanently damages wooden floors. It never comes out, it leaves a blackened spot in the wood, and it cannot be fixed by spot sanding and staining. What’s the cost of replacing a wooden floor? A lot! When buying a house, a smart prospective owner moves every rug on a wooden floor looking for dog pee stain and it’s always there and its always a big liability.
P.
Comment by PBurns — November 2, 2009 @ 11:45 pm
Noise issues aren’t unique to pet owning tenants or neighbors, though. Loud music, loud parties, loud TVs, loud cars and motorcycles, lawn blowers, hedge trimmers… on and on. The issue is NOISE, not PETS.
Comment by Christie
I sooo agree. Children screaming and squealing (with joy), and we’re supposed to rejoice with joy at the sound. But Dog forbid a dog should BARK. Noise is noise, is noise….. There are definately double standards at work.
Comment by Alison — November 3, 2009 @ 1:25 am
Hey there are kids and pets in the most posh rental in the coutry-the White House.
Comment by Nancy Freedman-Smith CPDT — November 3, 2009 @ 5:28 am
I recently had to search for an apartment in Boston long distance. I needed to find a place that would allow pets and children. After 2 months we gave up and moved to a suburb. It was extremely frustrating.
I did find apartments that allowed kids or that allowed pets, but not both. The issue in Boston is that when landlords rent to a family with a child under six, the apartment must be certified lead free.
So, while many of the non ‘deleaded’ apartments were pet friendly, they were not child friendly. Landlords are able to get around the lead regulations by refusing (I suppose unofficially) to rent to families.
Even more frustrating, I had hoped to teach in Boston schools—my hope was to teach in a low-income school. And now I’m disqualified because teachers must live within the city limits.
Comment by Eliblu — November 3, 2009 @ 5:35 am
So, while many of the non ‘deleaded’ apartments were pet friendly, they were not child friendly. Landlords are able to get around the lead regulations by refusing (I suppose unofficially) to rent to families.
It’s illegal to refuse to rent to a family with children, except in designated senior housing. They’re required to de-lead if the tenant has children under six.
If they actually refused you, and admitted that the reason was your kids, you should have reported them.
Comment by Lis — November 3, 2009 @ 6:10 am
Eliblu did you try East Boston? I had two dogs there and all my neighbors had dogs and kids.
Comment by Nancy Freedman-Smith CPDT — November 3, 2009 @ 6:29 am
We used several different realtors and they all told us that some landlords would take children and others wouldn’t—same with the dogs. I also am not sure that I would have been able to report landlords who wouldn’t take kids because it seemed as if they could just say that they just “happened to prefer” the renters who didn’t have kids.
Also, the realtor would often say, “Well, this apartment takes pets but hasn’t been de-leaded—I doubt you would want to risk it with your two-year-old, would you?”
We tried many Boston neighborhoods-I’m not sure which neighborhoods would be considered East Boston?
Thanks for the responses ;).
Comment by Eliblu — November 3, 2009 @ 6:50 am
They don’t have the right to “prefer” renters without children, any more than they can “prefer” not to rent to people because race, color, national origin, religion or gender.
http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/FHLaws/index.cfm
Contact your local HUD office and start turning them in. They are in violation of federal Fair Housing law.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — November 3, 2009 @ 7:13 am
Elibu, East Boston is, very loosely speaking, the part of Boston that is harassed by the presence of the airport. If you heard phrases like “Orient Heights” or “Maverick Square,” or the insulation on any upper-floor apartments was referred to as a “Massport job,” you were certainly in East Boston. Although they might not have mentioned the “Massport job” insulation to someone from out of town, lest it cause you to ask awkward questions about why Massport would be paying for insulation on private homes. (All the locals know.)
Comment by Lis — November 3, 2009 @ 8:02 am
When this issue was discussed a few months ago, someone brought up the point that landlords have to buy additional liability insurance if they accept dogs.
Is that true?
Comment by Mary Mary — November 3, 2009 @ 8:11 am
Our renter experience in the Boston area was good. But we weren’t looking for an apartment in Boston proper, and we didn’t have kids.
Moving to Pittsburgh was a shock and revelation. Two professionals with one operational search and rescue dog and two cats. Stellar references from all our previous landlords, neighbors, and a real-estate agent. The dog had references from trainers, neighbors, and the president of MA Animal Control Officers’ Association. We were looking for a house. NO ONE would rent to us, anywhere. No one would even look at our references. Or accept an additional deposit for the animals. We looked at scores of rentals over the course of a week; landlords would let us come out to look with full knowledge of the three animals (we had Lilly with us so they could meet her and see how quiet and mannerly she was), and then offer us the place if we “got rid of” them.
We had already quit our jobs in Boston, but we returned and started to execute Plan Z — stay in Boston in our current apartment and find new jobs — when the owner of the very last place we had looked at called to offer us the place. He was a young cop who wanted to be a K9 officer, and had taken a shine to Lilly.
Two years later when he decided to sell we decided to buy, even though we had wanted to wait a while and save more for a down payment. Trying to find a rental was just too hard.
Comment by H. Houlahan — November 3, 2009 @ 8:50 am
Wow, Helen, that is horrific.
I wonder if the local media has ever covered this issue.
One of my fellow “rabbit people,” with many bunnies, has rentals and won’t let people have pets.
?????
Comment by Mary Mary — November 3, 2009 @ 9:10 am
When this issue was discussed a few months ago, someone brought up the point that landlords have to buy additional liability insurance if they accept dogs.
Is that true?
Comment by Mary Mary — November 3, 2009 @ 8:11 am
I’m a small landlord—just one rental unit—and I don’t know what the bigger guys have to do. I do know that I do have to have insurance—and not every insurance company will ensure the type of building I own, a duplex (two units side by side. I’ve been told “duplex” means what we in MA would call a “double-decker”—two units one on top of the other—elsewhere in the country.) So I’m limited in my choice of insurance policies. What I have, the company doesn’t care what kind or how many dogs or cats I have, as long as each dog weighs twenty pounds or under. Above that, there’s a List. I lost out on a potentially excellent tenant, because of the List.
We need to work on landlords, especially the big landlords, but we also need to work on the insurance companies.
Comment by Lis — November 3, 2009 @ 11:18 am
What I have, the company doesn’t care what kind or how many dogs or cats I have, as long as each dog weighs twenty pounds or under.
———-
AKA, puppy mill breeds.
That’s too bad.
[If I am getting a dog, I am getting a big wrestling dog. My friends’ Belgian Shepherd stays here when they travel … she is 90 pounds of fur and backtalk. I like big dogs. And she LOVES my rabbits.]
Comment by Mary Mary — November 3, 2009 @ 11:23 am
What I have, the company doesn’t care what kind or how many dogs or cats I have, as long as each dog weighs twenty pounds or under.
———-
AKA, puppy mill breeds.
That’s too bad.
Oh, puh-lease.
My dog is under twenty pounds, and does not come from a puppy mill. Nor was her breed created by millers. Nor were most of the small breeds. Well, none of the small actual breeds, dogs that you can breed one dog of that breed to another of that breed, and get puppies that will grow up to look and act like other members of that breed.
[If I am getting a dog, I am getting a big wrestling dog. My friends’ Belgian Shepherd stays here when they travel … she is 90 pounds of fur and backtalk. I like big dogs. And she LOVES my rabbits.]
Comment by Mary Mary — November 3, 2009 @ 11:23 am
Well, by all means, bask in the moral superiority of preferring dogs completely unlike mine. Just remember that your next landlord might actually like small dogs, and aside from any other considerations, won’t be coaxed into a friendlier, more welcoming frame of mind towards your “big wrestling dog…90 pounds of fur and backtalk” if you openly dismiss all small dogs as “puppy mill breeds.”
Comment by Lis — November 3, 2009 @ 11:48 am
This is the very reason I’ve decided not to take my service dog with me until I get accepted into an apartment. I know they can’t legally keep me out, but the housing available is not the great and I don’t want to risk it.
Comment by thetroubleis — November 3, 2009 @ 12:12 pm
Lis,
You misunderstood my post completely, but that is MY fault as the writer.
I’m sorry.
Comment by Mary Mary — November 3, 2009 @ 12:24 pm
I am a dog nut, a dog owner and a landlord.
When I got my first apartment building you could at that time legally exclude kids. I opted to take pets and not the kids. BUT pet owners often spoil it for themselves. One retired couple would just open the door and let the dog out even though they had been told to walk the dog OFF the property or pick up after it. When I spoke to them about it their comment was “oh but its just a small dog”. Unfortunately any loose neighborhood dog will add his deposit to it. I own 3 dogs ( all rescues )that I pick up after and neither I or my Gardner want to pick up after your dog. Apartments are not a good place for dogs since they often annoy other tenants. I take dogs in some rentals, mostly single family houses with yards. I expect the dog to be well behaved, house broken and obedience trained. No dogs just chained or stuck out in the yard 24/7. Too often tenants hear that I take pets and take that as a sign to run to the pound and get a dog that they bring back home and leave locked in the house all day while they are at work. The bewildered animal ends up in a strange place and barks all day or ends up doing damage to the inside. Frankly I prefer large dogs as they are usually not as noisy or nippy. I am tired of hearing about the mean landlords that won’t take dogs. By not taking dogs owners just avoid one more risk of damage or a lawsuit from a bite. That’s why many owners don’t feel they want to take the chance. Security deposits don’t begin to cover new carpeting or a new kitchen floor.
Anne
Comment by Anne Margaret Kee — November 3, 2009 @ 1:11 pm
Taking off pet owner hat and putting on pointy insurance person dunce cap…. Though I am not up to date on all states, I can speak for California. Most of the insurance companies ask about pet ownership, specifically dogs. Many companies now exclude or limit coverage for dog bites. As an aside, the “average” dog bite claim runs just under $25,000. Last year the insurance industry paid out over $387 Million in claims for dog bites. http://www.insurancejournal.co.....103790.htm
How does this relate to landlords? Well, if the dog’s owner - a renter - doesn’t have a tenant’s homeower’s policy, very often the injured party’s attorney goes after the property owner as a deep pocket. They often win by alleging the property owner knew or should have known that renting the premises to a tenant with a dog might result in a dog bite. Therefore the landlord is “negligent” and becomes liable. These same questions regarding pet ownership are asked on the landlord’s application for insurance on the building as well. More and more it is becoming very difficult to write coverage for landlords who allow pets. In addition, those who admit to renting to tenants with pitties, rotties, akitas, etc will be turned down flat or all pet exposures will be excluded from coverage.
The other problem for landlords is property damage. Most property policies for dwellings and small buildings do not cover damage to the building done by tenants or their pets. I had a client who worked in rescue group and rented one of her properties to another rescue group volunteer. The tenant was an idiot and locked the dogs up in various areas of the house when he was at work or out. The dogs did several thousand dollars in damage to stairway railings, window sills, door frames, floors, etc. none of which was covered by insurance.
In my personal opinion, landlords should not be liable for the behavior of the tenant’s dog but our judicial system doesn’t always agree with me. The way to change it? Renters need to be proactive in pushing for agreements with professional property managers to accept canine good citizen and other obedience training as acceptable for tenancy along with purchasing their own renter’s insurance to cover the possibiity of an injury caused by their dog. For renters with cats, perhaps request the landlord to remove the drapes and blinds and supply your own if you have climbers. As stated above, do clean up after your own animals and walk them on leash or under direct supervision. Often it isn’t the lack of training of the dog, but the lack of knowledge of the dog owner. Which doesn’t apply to the regulars here, but does reflect on all of us as pet owners.
Comment by Moira — November 3, 2009 @ 2:46 pm
Frankly I prefer large dogs as they are usually not as noisy or nippy.
My fifteen-pound ball of fluff is so noisy that one tenant was astounded to see me walking her; she’d thought I’d been kidding about having a dog because she never heard her. She’s also so nippy that we stop for every group of little kids we see on our walks so that they can pet her and give her treats, do pet therapy visits at a nursing home, and informal visits with some of the other residents in my mother’s senior housing complex.
The dogs that “entertain” the neighborhood with extensive barking are the two GSDs in the house diagonally behind me.
Comment by Lis — November 3, 2009 @ 3:26 pm
Good Grief!
Comment by Snoopys Friend — November 3, 2009 @ 3:44 pm
Just to bring the conversation around a bit: it appears as though most, if not all, LLs’ pet policies are drafted around the idea of tenants potentially owning dogs. What about other animals? Usually, cats and small mammals are mentioned in policies, but often those policies don’t make sense for those animals. I speak as an animal lover generally and cat owner specifically.
I refer back to my earlier comment about having to have pets on leashes at all times on my property - even cats and, yes, ferrets, rabbits, and any other animal that might want to get outside. Owners are, of course, required to pick up after their pets (really, have you ever seen a cat on a harness defecate outdoors?), and there are clauses about uncontrolled barking.
In terms of pets being noisy, my cats absolutely are not. Most of the dogs I’ve met are not, even if they can and do bark if people walk by their windows when their owners aren’t home. Again: the people are the noisy ones. It really seems to me that the pet addendum I have pays no attention to the needs or habits of cats… except for the clause about having to have them declawed.
Is it fair to expect a LL to write a pet policy that takes different types of animals, and their lifestyles, into account?
Comment by Layla — November 3, 2009 @ 4:48 pm
I moved into a single family house as a rental with my two medium-sized senior dogs. It was tough to find and I was glad that the landlord wasn’t particular about number or size of dogs.
However, living in this rental left me with the firm conviction that if I ever own a rental, that I will never rent it out to a cat-owning family. Two of the rooms smells like cat pee no matter what I tried. (The previous renter had cats.) The landlord chemdried the carpet. I steam-cleaned using my own cleaner. It still smelled. I used UV lights and located the kitty corners. I dumped concentrated vinegar over the spots, saw brown liquid lift up (gross!) and sucked that out. It still smelled when everything dried. I used gallons of cat-specific urine products to try to neutralize the smell and left it in to dry. It didn’t work.
Short of replacing all the carpet and padding, I suspect nothing would remove the smell. That is something more than a security deposit expense.
Comment by Dog owning renter — November 3, 2009 @ 9:23 pm
And yet, Dog owning renter … my cats have never once caused significant damage. Back when we still rented, we always got our cleaning deposits back. Always.
So, do you think it would be fair, to deny a tenant like myself and my husband, because one tenant sometime allowed hir cats to pee on the carpet? I wouldn’t, any more than I’d advise someone to refuse all dogs because I once knew a woman who let her chihuahuas pee in the living room because they were ‘impossible to housebreak.’
Comment by Eucritta — November 3, 2009 @ 10:23 pm
Well, I’m not sure if this would work but … why can’t it be a conditional thing?
For example, you will let me live in your rental with my two dogs. But you will do inspections once every three months or something. To see if the yard is full of dog poo or if they are eating the walls.
I can see how this could be abused.
Comment by Mary Mary — November 4, 2009 @ 6:34 am
As a renter, I resent any policies that treat me as a second class citizen. For example, I value my right to privacy. I should be no more subject to regularly-scheduled invasions of my privacy (i.e. “inspections”) without cause than would a homeowner living in their own residence. Yes, I understand that I am living in a property owned by someone else. However, the monthly rent I pay entitles me to more than simply a place to sleep every night. I’m paying for the enjoyment of my *home*, and as long as I have not committed egregious violations, my right to privacy in my own home is as important as someone who owns the dwelling in which they live.
Renters are NOT second class citizens!
Comment by The OTHER Pat — November 4, 2009 @ 7:23 am
My view of renting out to cats has not changed. Dog pee can be drawn out, but cat pee can not. I’ve asked around, asking home-owning cat owners what to do, and they all say the carpet and pad needs to be replaced.
I’ve been coping by putting a thick layer of baking soda on the kitty corner with a plastic mat on top of that. I have several sachels of baking soda around the room, particularly near the clothes closet. Still, it’s absolutely horrible when there’s just a little bit of humidity in the air.
I would not rent out to a cat owner unless the entire house was tiled, or if I was planning to tear out the carpet anyways after the renter moved out. Otherwise, it’s financially not worth it.
Comment by Dog owning renter — November 4, 2009 @ 6:11 pm
Personally, I think carpets are overrated. If a LL wants to rent to pet owners, why not just leave the carpets out next time they are replaced and let the tenant be responsbile for floor coverings? It’s a lot easier to clean up anything on a bare carpet (little kids throw up a lot, too!) and if people bring their own carpets (if they want them), they can be responsible for cleaning or throwing them out if they wish.
Comment by Dorene — November 5, 2009 @ 6:05 am
Dorene,
That is an excellent suggestion.
Comment by Mary Mary — November 5, 2009 @ 8:30 am
Wall to wall carpet is a disaster. No one should live with it, whether they have pets or not. It cannot be effectitvely cleaned, it’s a haven for molds, dust mite feces, and other allergens, as well as bacteria and even viruses. It’s basically flithy from a few days after you install it until it’s ripped out.
It’s also nearly always environmentally catastrophic, and full of disgusting chemicals both used in its manufacture and as stain resisting and repellant agents.
Soft surface floor coverings need to be able to be pulled up, deeply cleaned, and aired out on a regular basis, whether there are pets in the family or not, whether those pets aren’t house-trained or not. That stuff should be not in our homes — rentals or owned.
Not that I have an opinion or anything.
Comment by Christie Keith — November 5, 2009 @ 8:47 am
What Christie said. That crap is an eco-disaster from concept on, and then a Petri dish for disgusting things to grow willy-nilly. Ugh.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — November 5, 2009 @ 9:28 am
Christie, how do you really feel?
disaster … feces … filthy … catastrophic … disgusting …
ha ha!
I closed on my house and did not move in until maybe 10 days later, I can’t remember. In that time, the sellers let their elderly dog — the one with kidney disease — sleep in their bedroom. Uh, I mean MY bedroom. Where dog decided to use the carpet as a pee pad.
When I moved in, on the first humid day the house reeked like dog urine. I was so mad. I called the sellers and the woman casually said, “oh, the older dog had accidents.”
Ugh!
Comment by Mary Mary — November 5, 2009 @ 9:30 am
I have bought two homes (so far). Before moving in to either, I had all the wall-to-wall filth magnets removed.
On the other hand, I once had a long-term housesitting gig (two years) for a person who was overseas. She had beautiful, third-generation rugs around the house (you know, the kind hand-made by child slave labor in third-world countries, previously known as “colonies”). They were durable, cleanable and beautiful.
Of course, I’m not sure you could get something like that anymore, at least not without avoiding problems with child slave labor, that is.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — November 5, 2009 @ 10:54 am
Here’s a place you can get rugs that are made by a women’s cooperative:
http://d2ssd.com/www-source/index.html
You can also get nice rugs at auctions and estate sales that have “stood the test of time” and are cleanable. My mother-in-law even found me an “all wool” rug for our dining room at Macy’s.
The wall to wall stuff is horrible — I finally finished getting rid of what was in this house last year and it’s MUCH better to have hardwood floors with natural rugs or tile in “high spillage” areas.
Comment by Dorene — November 5, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
I am always amazed at the resources that turn up on this blog.
Rugs, bison genetics and gerenuks. You peeps are so smart!
:)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — November 5, 2009 @ 12:23 pm
Re: the smell of cat urine - two good points were brought up. First, it sucks to have carpeting in apartments, period. I do, and I was wary about it from the day I moved in, but beneath it is just old rotting wood. Lose/lose there. Second and more importantly: my cats have never, ever urinated on the floor or the carpet, not these guys who are fairly young nor my previous cats who grew to be as old as 18. Never. Why discriminate against all cat owners, as someone said, based upon the fact that some people have had cats cause problems? That’s like refusing to let any mother rent because some kids are prone to fingerpaint on the walls.
Comment by Layla — November 6, 2009 @ 1:46 pm
I agree with so many of you here. Why is it considered a LUXURY to have my dog live with me? I know the law doesn’t require landlords to allow animals, but WHY doesn’t it?
My neighbor across the hall is a chain smoker. I am forced to breathe her second-hand smoke ALL day long (she doesn’t work) and no matter how much I complain, the management has done nothing to resolve it. My neighbors have kids upstairs that drop toys on the floor all day. My neighbor to the left of me blasts music all day.
So WHO pays the most to live here, you ask? I do, because I have a 6 lb dog. I’m also told that this is a “luxury” to have her live with me. Never mind the cigarette smoke I breathe all day… isn’t it going to cost more money to completely refurbish that apartment when my neighbor moves out? Oh, and I have wood floors. My dog doesn’t pee inside but even if she did, it wouldn’t ruin the carpet because there isn’t any. Not only that, I work from home and am with her all day, so I can guarantee you that she doesn’t make a peep.
My point is that bad renters will be bad renters. They don’t need an animal to cause damage. I understand that sometimes there IS damage done by animals, but that is why we have security DEPOSITS (not non-refundable fees), and that is why we can also be billed for damages after we leave; should there be any. How about this: just like EVERY OTHER issue out there (whether it be parties, etc.), why don’t we deal with pet “issues” as they happen instead of punishing the 90% of pet owners who are now financially responsible for the 10%’s mistakes?
You know who else causes damages? People. Kids. Accidents. Damages are not limited to animals. Why aren’t all of THOSE people charged unethical amounts of money to have their kids live with them?? Because they can’t due to the law. Where is the law that protects MY rights? Does living with an animal not contribute to my pursuit of happiness? If my dog does damage, I will pay for it. If not, why should someone else have the right to make money off of her for nothing? What is protecting ME here?
I had to pay $350 (non-refundable) plus $35/month to have my dog here. By the end of my 12-month lease, that will be $770… which, by the way, is NON-REFUNDABLE to me; regardless of whether or not my animal does any damage. This is on top of my 1 bd apt that I pay $2,000/month + $125 parking to live in. Landlords know that damage happens, which is why rent is so outrageous these days. Not only that, they have charged a deposit, pet rent, and if I move out, will charge for damages. I’ve already paid more than twice for any damage that COULD have been incurred (which hasn’t happened as of yet) and if damage DOES occur (and I hear landlords fraudulently charge for damage by pets that never really occurred all the time) I will have paid 3 times.
Let’s say my pet does damage (which she won’t, because I’m home with her all day and she has been professionally trained). Let’s say they charge me around $300 (I hear this is not uncommon). I will have paid $1,070.00. That is more than I paid for my dog, and according to this article, the typical damage done to an apartment with a dog averages is $362. Can you say SCAM??
We need to remember that discrimination against pet owners isn’t limited to ONLY no-pet housing. It also is very much applicable to the unfair charges that pet owners must pay to have these members of their families live with them. Is this not my home? Should I not be allowed to have anyone/anything here with me as long as I am being law-abiding? When I signed that lease, the management signed over temporary ownership to me! Why must I be punished for the mistakes that others have made? Why must I pay for “possible” damages, and if there is NO damage, why can’t this be refunded to me? This is my money, not theirs.
Does anyone know of any groups that are forming to end this ridiculousness? I’m interested in what is being done to fight outrageous airline fees, as well (but that’s another story). Why is everyone capitalizing on my animal??
Comment by Marley Thomas — November 8, 2009 @ 4:57 pm
There really should not be an issue about pets if you keep your pet under control. Noise is the bigger issue.
Comment by Saint Paul Apartments — November 9, 2009 @ 3:18 pm
Noise is almost never an issue with cats. I say ‘almost,’ because I suppose it’s possible, though I’ve never known it to be so. That’s with roughly 50 years in multi-unit rentals.
*Neighbors,* on the other hand, are sometimes noisy and occasionally *really* obnoxious. Humans. Can’t take ‘em anywhere.
Comment by Eucritta — November 9, 2009 @ 5:05 pm