Printable View
I'm in an apartment and my dog and two cats are allowed. They are however, supposedly breed restrictive here.
It would of been a $200 deposit and $25 a month here per pet... but the landlord waived them both. :)
It took forever to find a decent apartment because many places did not allow dogs or dogs over 30 lbs.
Some places only allowed cats if they were declawed.
Yes, I see that logic catland, real solid point there. I tend to agree with you. Thanks so much for contributing to this thread. You being an owner shows a whole different view here. That is what made me send another letter to my Senator explaing I saw the light on why the bill is stalled. With all the legal mumbo bs it takes a lawyer to understand anything anymore.I missed some points when reading the bill. Good thing PT forum is here! Thanks for the post Catland. I have not been to Oregon, will try to get there some day.................ps: you have the coolest avatar Ramanth
I'll be the bad guy here.
I have my babies in my home that I own. I used to live in an apt where I paid the deposit and pet rent. i also worked in the apt complex office and saw the awful condition some people let their homes be in with pets.
If I owned rental property, there is no way in this world I would rent to ANYBODY with a pet. No matter who or what or how. No pets.
Hi;Quote:
Originally posted by 2kitties
I'll be the bad guy here.
I have my babies in my home that I own. I used to live in an apt where I paid the deposit and pet rent. i also worked in the apt complex office and saw the awful condition some people let their homes be in with pets.
If I owned rental property, there is no way in this world I would rent to ANYBODY with a pet. No matter who or what or how. No pets.
Was the awful condition caused by the pet, or the humans living there? The bill is to prohibit companion pet discrimination. My definition of companion pet is a cat or very small dog or rabbit, snake, etc.We have to be realistic when dealing with an apartment or condo situation. If I had my input into this bill I would give the apartment owner the right to judge if the pet meets companion pet standards. So, in the bill a definition of companion pet should exist. I really do see your point 2kitties. As is the bill stinks concering Hawaii and will most likely become covered with mildew and forgotten.
I rent out my property in South Africa and I had a terrible experience with a pet owner.
The guy who rented kept 2 Jack Russells inside the house. Either they were not houstrained or they were locked inside for extended periods, but when he moved out I HAD TO REPLACE OVER 100 SQUARE METERS OF CARPETING. He also had a Maccaw (sp) Parrot which was not kept in a cage. I have meranti wood cottage-pane windows. Within 3 months this PET had destroyed most of the window frames in my house.
Standard practice is that the Landlord gets an additional month's rent up-front as a security/damages deposit. Believe me - the deposit didn't come close to cover the over $3000 damage to my house - never mind the two months it stood empty whilst we fixed it up before we could rent it again.
Admittedly they WERE the ultimate nightmare tenant, but I now do things differently - You can rent my house, but if you have pets I want TWO MONTHS rent as security/damages deposit and not one month.
I learned the hard way that not all pet owners are responsible
My parents own a rental property, and I must say that as much as we love animals, we have always kept that *No Pets* rule for our house. The reason? Several of our friends have had HORRIBLE experiences with renting their homes out to people with pets. In one case, the tenant's cat urinated in the house SO much, that the smell sunk into the foundation, and even after they changed the carpet, AND the padding in the house, they couldn't get rid of the smell. We had originally planned on living in our house, and bought it brand new from a builder.........and got the highest quality options for carpets, padding, appliances, etc. Unfortunately, my dad was unable to get a job there (its a bit far from where we live), and the commute would be unbearable if we DID move there, so we had to put it up for rent. We never allowed pets, and I must add, we prefered to rent it to a family with fewer children as well. So its not discrimination, but caring for the well-being of your property. When you spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on something, you don't want others ruining it, so the no pets rule was just to ensure the safety of our property. Same with too many kids. We never listed that, and WOULD rent the home to someone with more kids.........but we just prefered smaller families. You can't do responsibility checks on tenants when renting out your house, so you never know if they would be responsible pet owners or not. I know it makes it difficult for pet owners that rent, but.........its our house and we have to do whatever it takes to ensure its in good hands, and not at risk of getting urinated in, scratched, or destroyed..........things animals very commonly do if their owners are not responsible.
Refusing to rent an apartment to someone based on the number of children they have is discrimination, and is illegal in most states. However, given the amount of damage a pet can do to an apartment, even a well kept pet, and given the fact that a pet is a pet and not a person (sorry, lady) I can understand a landlord not renting to someone with pets, or charging extra. A law requiring landlords to rent to people with companion animals is a major violation of private property rights, especially if it leaves the property owner no legal recourse to take if the apartment is damaged by the pets. Even a small pet like a cat can do major damage to an apartment, and the scent from a litterbox can linger for a long time, making it difficult for the landlord to rent the apt again without a serious cleaning bill.
Hrm how ironic...
I've not been on PT for a while now *hectic at home lol* and I saw this thread first thing! I find it ironic because I am in the process of getting an apartment and it's REEALLLY hard in this area *Reno/Carson City Nevada* to find a place that will allow dogs/cats. Rodents *mice/rats etc.* fish and even Farrets don't generally fall in the pet category even in apartment complexes around here. I'm glad my mom decided to take my puppy because the average increase in rent from a home/apartment that denies pets *dogs in particular* and one that accepts them is roughly $100-$200 depending on the place. I know of only ONE apartment complex in town that allows dogs and that place is constantly a trashpile :( and is really unsafe *lots of crime* The dog owners there are really irresponseable too. The whole complex reeks of dog fecies and urine...ugh. I'ts people like that who basically force other complex managers/owners to say "No pets!"
Leave it to rotten apples....
When my parents had a rental property the renters TRASHED the place hardcore...and they DIDN'T have pets.
What I'm basically getting at is don't always blame the animals ;) Humans are the ones supposedly responseable.
Hello everyone;
To be honest, I was in the dark about this whole bill. I made the wrong assumption that people with pets are careful, etc,etc. I'm not a law maker, but I can see that letting people bring in any pet they wish would be a nightmare. By deffinition, I would say a companion pet is an animal that would keep an elderly person or housebound/sick person company. Not the casual pet owner who is gone all day at work, with no one to watch the pet. Thanks to this forum, I can really both sides of this issue, and see why the bill is stalled.
I recently moved into an apartment with a fellow PTer (veegan :D). It was definitely not easy finding a place that would not only allow our animals, but also have a good environment for our pets. Margaret (veegan) found the complex we decided to move into. It's incredibly perfect. There are so many other dog owners here, it's wonderful! We did have to pay a pet deposit and the complex is breed restrictive. However, we both know of a couple pit bulls (which are supposedly not allowed) that are living in the complex. So maybe they let them in after an interview and/or proof of obedience training or something. Both Ruby and Brock (our dogs) had to have an interview before they were allowed to come live in the complex.
I can understand why landlords would not want animals living in the building, they can cause a lot of damage. I just think the responsibility should be put on the owners of the pets. For example, Margaret and I had to sign a contract saying that if any permanent damage was caused to the apartment by our pets it will be OUR responsibility to fix/replace it. That seems more than fair to me. Although I highly doubt Ruby and Brock will cause any damage.
[I can understand why landlords would not want animals living in the building, they can cause a lot of damage. I just think the responsibility should be put on the owners of the pets. For example, Margaret and I had to sign a contract saying that if any permanent damage was caused to the apartment by our pets it will be OUR responsibility to fix/replace it. That seems more than fair to me. Although I highly doubt Ruby and Brock will cause any damage. [/B][/QUOTE]
Thanks RubyMutt! I agree 100% with the contract . Put the responsibility on the pet owners. A total ban on pet owners is not fair, but if there is a legal recourse to get damages paid for by the tenent there should be no objections from landlords. I would like to hear from a landlord(s) about this scheme, it's good and bad points need to be discused
Lat19
I can certainly see both sides of this issue.
As a pet owner, I know it is very difficult to find an apartment with pets. I think if you own a pet and are renting, you should expect, and not complain about, a deposit and slightly higher rent. I always found it a small price to pay for having pets. When I rented, I had one or two dogs, and a rabbit for a while. None were destructive at all.
However, some of my foster dogs that I have had since I have lived in my own house have been very destructive. I had one dog who peeled my wallpaper off the walls in big long strips, from about three feet up down to the floor. This was after she ATE a crate to escape - it's not like I left her unsupervised. I also had a dog that chewed one of the banisters of my 100+ year old spiral staircase almost in half. Not like I can easily replace that. I've also had dogs soil the carpet, and once I had a thirty gallon fishtank leak during the night. If I would have been renting when any of this happened, the cost to fix it would likely been more than my pet deposit - not fair to the landlord.
If I owned rental property, I don't think I would necesarily say "NO pets", but I would be VERY careful. I have seen the damage pets can do to houses. When the renters moved out of house on my block, I was talking to the owner about the house. He told me that they had left their dogs and cats in the house, with someone ONLY giving them food and water, for over a MONTH before they moved out. He had to not only, obviously, replace ALL the carpet, but all rip out the subfloor and replace it - thousands upon thousands of dollars.
A contract stating the renters are responsible is a great theory - but often they can't be found, and/or don't have the money to pay anyway.
Quote:
If I owned rental property, I don't think I would necesarily say "NO pets", but I would be VERY careful. I have seen the damage pets can do to houses. When the renters moved out of house on my block, I was talking to the owner about the house. He told me that they had left their dogs and cats in the house, with someone ONLY giving them food and water, for over a MONTH before they moved out. He had to not only, obviously, replace ALL the carpet, but all rip out the subfloor and replace it - thousands upon thousands of dollars.
A contract stating the renters are responsible is a great theory - but often they can't be found, and/or don't have the money to pay anyway. [/B][/QUOTE]
Hello;
Thanks Twisterdog for good points in your post. I have read of horror stories where renters moved but left the pets, only in the case I read about the renters could not be found!It's a shame people cannot use good judgement on issues like this. .... I think the main point we should try to stay with is the "companion pet discrimination bill". What defines a companion pet? Sounds like just one animal to me. Some dog, bird or cat to take the place of a human. I see an elderly person living in an apartment alone. The landlord says "no pets" . Having this pet for this person is all they have. It replaces a person. So why not make an exception here? The family with 4 kids and 2 dogs does not fit very well in an apartment. The lone person with a pet as a companion is what the bill is about(I think?) but maybe I don't see everything? Is the huge family trying to make a loophole here so they can have 4 kids and several dogs in their apartment, wailing "that old lady there has a cat, why can't we have all our dogs too?" You cannot please everyone, but someone living alone should be allowed to have companion pet. Just my opinion:confused:
\Quote:
What defines a companion pet? Sounds like just one animal to me. Some dog, bird or cat to take the place of a human. I see an elderly person living in an apartment alone. The landlord says "no pets" . Having this pet for this person is all they have. It replaces a person. So why not make an exception here? The family with 4 kids and 2 dogs does not fit very well in an apartment. The lone person with a pet as a companion is what the bill is about(I think?) but maybe I don't see everything? Is the huge family trying to make a loophole here so they can have 4 kids and several dogs in their apartment, wailing "that old lady there has a cat, why can't we have all our dogs too?" You cannot please everyone, but someone living alone should be allowed to have companion pet.
Now, in my opinion, THAT is discrimination. I do not think you can say that if Mary lives alone that she needs and loves her cat more than Mary and Sue love and need their cat, because Mary and Sue are roommates and live in the same apartment.
I don't have a problem with an apartment complex saying, "No pets, period." If you don't like it, don't rent there. I also don't have a problem with an apartment complex saying, "Only one pet per apartment." But I DO have a problem with them saying, "If you live alone, you can have a pet. But if more than one person lives there, no pets." That is NOT fair, IMO.
Usually, only little dogs are allowed for apartments and such and I think that's wrong. If I wanted something that tiny, I'd get a cat. I think the weight limit for dogs is 25 pounds. It's really hard to find a place to rent with large dogs. And, a lot of them say no pets at all. Don't anyone take this wrong but I'd rather them to say no kids or no kids under certain age.