No pets allowed!

[blas87]

This really gets my panties in a knot.

You cannot look up any apartments/rentals around here without it being a "no pets" allowed, or several hundred extra a month, and no large dogs allowed, only cats, etc etc. And that's IF you can find anywhere that even allows pets period.

Sorry to sound rude and ignorant, as I don't have any children, but I don't think pets are any more messy than children. Cats and dogs don't draw on the walls. Sure, cat urine is foul and hard to get rid of. I understand completely. But can kitty put a hole in the wall? Maybe if it tried hard enough.....sure, kitties can tear up the couch, and puppies can chew......but just as much, children can be just as destructive.

I understand the reason being is it's illegal to discriminate against children, and animals are not protected by discrimination laws....but I think landlords are over paranoid about animals and messes. Maybe if they required ALL cats to be spayed/neutered, declawed, and be up to date with all their shots (and the same for dogs, save for declawed), that would be just fine with me. I would have no problem with that. That would cut down on spraying and damage from cats tearing stuff up.

I know some parents will get upset over this....I just don't see why animals are such a big deal. Some of my friends who have children live in very messy, unkept homes. I understand most parents make an effort to keep a nice place and make their children do their part.....I just NEED to rant because I cannot have Baby anywhere I go because landlords seem to think she'll destroy my apartment.

Edit to add: Besides, in the end, it will come out of the security deposit.......whatever damage a pet or a child makes.

[radiocerk]

Kids vs. pets

I happen to agree that pets, once they are past baby stage (a year tops) are less destructive than children, who remain destructive for years on end. I would take severe offense to the idea of anyone telling me I had to get my cat declawed, the same way most parents would if someone suggested they remove their children's fingers to make them less likely to make a mess.

[tropicsgoddess]

You're not the only one here. My fiancé and I have a 14lb. 2 year old intact male Schipperke and no kids. Sure the pets can spray and it's hard to get out or even take a dump in the house,chew up stuff, but they're not as messy,noisy and destructive as children. Children write on walls, break things,spill stuff and cause a ruckus. It pisses me off how some places can charge an extra fee for the first month's rent and security for EACH pet and then charge you that pet fee onwards every month! What I really get pissed off about is how some of the landlords REQUIRE that pets must be spayed/neutered and/or de-clawed. Sorry,but that sort of thing is something that the pet's OWNER decides NOT the landlord. We refuse to move anywhere that has that sort of requirements.

[Sylvia727]

My landlord required a second security deposit of $150 for carpet cleaning. If our dog hadn't pissed on the carpet (or if we had cleaned it up in time), we would have gotten it back. That doesn't bother me. I don't have pets of my own yet, but when I go apartment hunting I'm damn well making sure there won't be unreasonable pet surcharges.

I get what you're saying about pets vs. children, but I think the expectation is that children will be better behaved. Often, especially nowadays, they're not, but that's the prevailing myth.

[Amethyst Hunter]

Totally agreed. I doubt I will ever move into an apartment (and if I did, I'd either hold out for a pet-friendly place or break some rules as I REFUSE to live anywhere without my pets) because of that BS notion. I agree that kids are far more destructive (and more of a nuisance in regards to noisemaking and the like) than most animals. Not all kids, but too damn many of them (which of course can be traced to their handlers for not teaching them to respect property).

I have read that some 'non-pet' places can be persuaded to allow individuals to bring in pets (with proper care observations), but it takes a helluva lot of work and you have to suss out the landlord's general receptiveness before even making the attempt. Some have that clause in there as a general CYA measure; others are absolutely ironclad on it. Some general tips if you try it:

- Bring supportive documentation: vet papers proving vaccinations/sexual altering, obedience class training, general behavior observation (i.e., "Fluffy is very good with people and is kept on a leash/confined at all times")

- Offer to introduce the landlord to said pet(s) so that Landlord can see for themselves what Fido is like (May not work if Landlord happens to be allergic to specific pets)

- If no deposit fee is required concerning said pet(s), offer to work out one that is reasonable to both parties - yeah, I know having to pay extra money sucks, but it might help persuade Landlord that one is serious about negating any nuisance factor and will be a trustworthy tenant.

[Amethyst Hunter]

What I really get pissed off about is how some of the landlords REQUIRE that pets must be spayed/neutered and/or de-clawed. Sorry,but that sort of thing is something that the pet's OWNER decides NOT the landlord.

The only thing I would take issue with is the declawing - it's a cruel practice and I strongly discourage it; it's akin to chopping off a human finger at the topmost knuckle. Very painful, and declawed pets will often resort to biting as a result of losing their primary defense.

Spaying/neutering I would agree with, if only because it's healthier for the pet and will in most if not all cases eliminate the risk of an intact animal spraying (and thus risking Landlordian displeasure). If I was a landlord, I would gladly allow in pets, but I would require that they be fixed prior to moving in (if they weren't already).

[Dreamstalker]

The building my mom is in now is technically no pets, but she was able to bring McGriff. When mom inquired about the policy, the landlord/management company guy was very nice and said the no-pet clause was mainly for large/messy animals. An elderly indoor cat posed no problems.

I too would draw the line at being told my cat "had to" be declawed. I abhor the practice...if you can train kitty to not scratch the furniture/rug (or provide a ratty rug just for them to destroy) and learn to clip the claws properly or have a vet's office that will do it (ours does for free) what's the problem? Spaying/neutering is something I would do anyway.

[Boozy]

Honestly? Property management companies know damned well that children are more destructive and disruptive than pets, but they can't ban them without breaking a whole whack of laws in most areas. Otherwise, they might.

My current landlord has some sort of theory that cats are less destructive than dogs. I told him I was getting a dog, and he said, "No way. You can have a cat."

My husband laughed at that and said, "Are cats some sort of consolation prize? That's insulting to both species."

We got a dog. Renter's laws around here prevent me from getting evicted because of it. My landlord now loves my dog and brings treats for him in his pocket whenever he comes over.

[Seshat]

Honestly? Property management companies know damned well that children are more destructive and disruptive than pets, but they can't ban them without breaking a whole whack of laws in most areas. Otherwise, they might.

They can't change the default deposit for them, either. The rules must be the same for any human, pretty much.

[Saydrah]

I hear you- I've not had trouble finding a place to rent that accepts pets, even with count 'em 16 that live with me (most are rats) but I rent from private owners- not big property management companise. I think every state should pass a renters' bill of rights that prohibits discrimination against pet owners in leasing, with provisions to allow for requiring a security deposit of a maximum of a certain percentage of the monthly rental, in addition to the security deposit normally charged. I think requiring spaying/neutering by two years of age is reasonable, since intact animals are more likely to spray, wander, and reproduce than spayed/neutered animals; however, speuter earlier than 2 and dogs intended for canine sports can have a higher risk of joint or muscle injury.

[Rapscallion]

I suspect if you asked a group of landlords, they'd have plenty of horror stories about negligent pet owners who forced them to increase rates to cover for damage done by unattended and untrained animals.

A few bad apples spoiling the barrel as usual, I guess.

Rapscallion

[Saydrah]

That's true, Raps, but think of it the way the OP framed the question. If you asked a landlord about having to raise rates after severe property damage due to children or college students partying, they might entertain a few fantasies about banning humans of certain ages from living in their rental units, but they'd probably chalk it up to irresponsible tenants and rage about inconsiderate people for a few minutes. And that's the same reason pets can cause damage: Not that the nature of pets is to cause damage, but that the nature of irresponsible HUMANS is to cause damage. If they care so little about damage to their home that they refuse to take steps like buying a scratching post or using crate training with a puppy in order to prevent damage, they probably would damage the unit whether they had pets or not.

Responsible pet owners get the shaft because of irresponsible pet owners- but like the OP said, nobody is allowed to ban children after one bad experience with parents.

I think it would be interesting to see an apartment complex allow only dogs who've earned their CGC (Canine Good Citizen- an American Kennel Club program that rewards dogs with a title and certificate for performing a test that includes greeting strangers politely and lying quietly in a down position while the owner leaves for a few minutes having handed the leash off to a stranger). There would likely be a net decrease in damages in the apartments rented by owners with CGC dogs versus damage to apartments rented by dogless parents.

[blas87]

I didn't mean to make it appear as though I posted and ditched...my Internet was out last night and all of this morning so far...don't even get me started on the cable company....

Back to my rant now.

Because humans have rights and we can't discriminate, of course they will never have "child free" properties. What landlords/companies CAN do is make their property undesirable for certain people or certain age groups. In my hometown, there were some college kids moving in to some apartments that were occupied by mostly senior citizens, and one old lady wrote a letter to the editor of the local paper screaming "Outrage! We do not want these wild kids living there!"....which of course, you cannot refuse someone because of age alone a place to live. However, a landlord or company can make an enviornment not desirable or suitable for young folk. Or a property can be situated nowhere near a park or playground, making it less desirable for those with kids. Kind of like an owner of a restaurant not providing booster chairs or high chairs.

I don't really know if I made a point there....but I was kind of taking my original rant (about having to cater to people with kids) away a bit, because I did kind of take a good look and thought about it. There are ways of trying to only have certain tenants....but it's not illegal to discriminate.

If only pets were covered by discrimination laws.

I'll just go back to being pissed now.

[myswtghst]

Responsible pet owners get the shaft because of irresponsible pet owners- but like the OP said, nobody is allowed to ban children after one bad experience with parents.

I think that this is the key. Having had too many tenants who either had more pets than they could handle, or who simply didn't care enough to clean up after their pets, can cause enough damage to sour landlords on pets. This is part of the reason I've stayed in the complex I'm in so long - they've actually cut me a deal with my girls. Since I have two small, spayed, indoor girlcats, they only charge me "pet rent" for one pet - so, about $20 per month, instead of $40. I never brought up the fact that they're not declawed, and they've never asked, which is fine by me, as I refuse to have it done. (I do keep their nails trimmed)

Yes, they've done some damage - in spite of the 10-20 scratching posts and various cat furniture items I've bought them, in spite of the mass quantities of cat toys, and a well-maintained litter box - they do occasionally decide to pull up some carpet, or pee on a chair, but it's my responsibility, as their owner, to either clean it up, or pay for it later. *shrugs*

I don't mind the deposits, so long as they're fair in refunding it if there is no damage. And since I chose to have the cats, knowing that they may cause damage, I'm willing to pay for repairs/cleaning.

[AFPheonix]

You could always get your kitties Soft Paws. They're little covers that go over their claws so they can't damage stuff, and you can get them in an array of colors too

I left my pets back at the farm so I wouldn't have to pay pet deposits on them. I did sneak one of my barn cats in surreptitiously for a month, though, while I was treating an upper respiratory infection with antibiotics. It was easier to bring him here rather than trust my mom to dose him properly. He kind of dug being an indoor kitty who didn't have to compete with other pets for attention.