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