Forcing landlords to accept people with pets. Good and bad consequences.

There are good and bad consequences to laws which force landlords to accept people with pets - normally cats and dogs. I've always supported laws forcing landlords to allow pet owners to rent but I'm not sure I was right. I have been a landlord. If I'm honest I'm not sure I would allow a pet owner to rent from me. It all depends on the person. But it appears there are too many cat and dog owners who are irresponsible. There are too many tenants who just don't respect the landlord's property.

People tend to misbehave when they don't own the property in which they live.  A new California bill seeks to bar landlords from banning pets in their rental units.

And if a landlord can rent to a person who isn't a pet owner without too much difficulty because there are a lot of tenants looking for homes then why should they allow someone with a cat or dog?

You could argue that there is a social necessity to allow cat and dog owners to rent properties from landlords in San Francisco simply because there are people out there with cats and dogs who need a home and the jurisdiction, the local authority, should ensure that pet owners have somewhere to live. I think that is a fair argument. It's about being fair towards pet owners and indeed their pets.

The bill would prohibit “no pet” clauses in rental housing, prevent landlords from asking about pets until they have approved the rental application, and prevent them from imposing pet rental fees. The Assembly’s Judiciary Committee approved the bill, which now heads to the floor for a vote by the entire Assembly. If passed, it will be taken up in the Senate.

 

I was interested to note that on social media and I'm referring in this instance to Reddit.com, most people think a law forcing landlords to allow pets as an overreach. They think it's going to far. This information comes from the San Francisco section of Reddit.com

Here are some points that they make in my words:

The general mood on the Reddit.com website is that a law forcing landlords to allow pet owners is the wrong thing to do. They think it's going too far.

Users on that platform say that there are good examples of very poor tenants owning cats and dogs who have allowed their companion animals to pee and crap all over the apartment. And they've been there a long time.

The urine and faeces get into the fabric of the apartment. Some of them have some terrible stories of the need to strip out the apartment and even pull the floorboards up to ensure that the smell disappears.

The general tenor of the response to this new legislation in California, which by the way is said to be a AB 1226 (not sure that is correct), is that it puts too much pressure on the landlord. It may force landlords to get out of the market and if so there would be less properties available that happen rather than more.

And if landlords are already subject to a limit on the value of the deposit they can demand, to add this new law would mean that they couldn't increase the deposit to protect their property if it is damaged by pee and dog crap and by scratches from dogs and cats. If that is the case - and I don't know the laws of San Francisco - it would be very unfair and it simply would not be workable to operate the rental market like that.

Laws governing landlords and tenants is all about balancing the needs of business against the rights of individuals. It is about the right wing in political terms versus the left wing. It's about big commerce against little individual. It's about controlling the powerful and helping the needy.

This kind of stuff requires a lot of balance and compromise. It requires a very careful and nuanced balancing act between these competing forces. As far as I can see the people on Reddit.com think that this legislation has gone too far in favour of the tenant and it will be too detrimental to landlords.

----------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Landlord-imposed pet restrictions in the United States are widespread

Young man and his dog companion. Image: Nathan Winograd.

OPINION: Nathan Winograd, American's great animal shelter expert and advocate, tells me the following about landlord-imposed pet restrictions in America,

In a nationwide survey of landlords, approximately 47% of rental housing did not allow pets and only 9% of pet-friendly units allowed pets without limitations on type or size. Large dogs were welcome in only 11% of rental housing. Meanwhile, pet-friendly rentals had a 20 to 30% rent premium, costing on average $222 more per month than rentals that did not allow pets.” In some cities, the situation is worse: more than half of all rental units in Los Angeles did not allow any pets at all. In one survey, “only 212 out of 612 apartment listings allowed dogs.

The California legislature is debating a bill called AB 1226 which would prohibit no pet clauses in landlord tenancy agreements i.e. rental agreements between the landlord and a tenant. 

The politicians are working out the drafting of the legislation. Winograd says that it is sorely needed because stopping tenants having pets in their apartments negatively impacts adoptions, it increases the relinquishment of companion animals to shelters and causes animal homelessness as well as people homelessness. 

It also results in wasteful expenditure as those that rent properties must pay a premium for housing which allows them to live with their companion animals.

Winograd's No Kill Advocacy centre has, for a very long time, called for "state and federal legislation to ban housing discrimination for families with animal companions."

The landlords and others who are against this kind of legislation are apparently concerned about "allergies, noise and property damage" when companion animals live with renters. 

Comment: but these concerns which are not entirely unjustified can be dealt with with a properly drafted agreement between landlord and renter and by taking an added deposit which would cover any damage to the property when the renter leaves.

Also, leases always contain a clause concerning "quiet enjoyment" which would encompass a dog barking. Neighbours have recourse under the lease and/or under the rental agreement which would refer to the lease to reinforce good behaviour.

I know that it is not great having to enforce good behaviour but if it's made abundantly clear to the person renting that they have to comply with certain strict terms of their agreement and the lease then they are reasonably likely to comply with those terms provided the individual is vetted properly.

Landlords who allow pets open the door to far more clients and therefore their business is likely to be more profitable and it is said that they pet owners are often long-term tenants resulting in less 'voids' -  reduced vacancy rates.

In general, Americans are overwhelmingly in support of allowing animals in residential properties.

Winograd refers to a "housing discrimination ban" nationwide i.e. a federal law which "will allow over 8 million additional animals to find new homes yearly, roughly ten years of killing". 

Allowing pets in landlord owned homes reduces the number of dogs and cats killed at animal shelters.

------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

King Charles bans cats from his Sandringham estate

NEWS AND OPINION: The King owns a large estate around Sandringham which is in the south-east of England, near the Norfolk coast. Incidentally, the Royal family and the UK have far too many properties and it is a bit of an insult to the ordinary citizen in tough times to see the Royal family with so many palaces. Anyway that's another topic and I'll stick to this one which is that on the Sandringham estate there are houses which the King rents out to 'ordinary' people.

King Charles bans cats from his Sandringham estate. Image: MikeB

And I'm told that in all of these properties domestic cats are banned. He is one of those landlords that bans pet cats from his properties. I think the policy is short-sighted and unfair but apparently the rule came into play when his mother was the Queen, Elizabeth II, and it said that she might have been allergic to cats and preferred dogs. We know that she loved corgis. Dogs are allowed ('considered') on a house by house basis.

Perhaps the primary reason for this ban on domestic cats in these properties is that on the Sandringham estate they like to shoot birds. Another objectionable pastime as far as I am concerned. It's a game bird shooting estate of 20,000 acres.

And the Queen, it is said, was frightened that a pet cat would kill game bird chicks and upset the business. If that is true, it's probable that the gamekeepers advised her to ban cats from these properties to avoid any disruption to the business. 

Game bird shooting is big business in the UK but fraught, as far as I am concerned, with ethical problems and conservation issues. It also fraught with animal welfare and animal cruelty issues. 

The whole thing should be shut down but the Royal family is very much steeped in old-fashioned ways in the UK and they stick to those traditions religiously with little desire to modernise although King Charles has expressed a desire to slim down the Royal family which would be welcome to many people.

-----

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Map showing location: