Need help comparing the suburbs in the South Hills (Pittsburgh: apartment complex, for rent)

[erieguy]

What atlbraves49 said...and according to the aspca, 37-47% of households have a dog.

[guy2073]

I would never allow a dog in my rentals, why should I. I have nice places that I can pick and choose my tenants. One of the worst smells to me is going into a home and smelling a dog.

[Goinback2011]

Originally Posted by guy2073

I would never allow a dog in my rentals, why should I. I have nice places that I can pick and choose my tenants. One of the worst smells to me is going into a home and smelling a dog.

There's the answer. The rental market is so tight, owners don't have to.

[Merge]

You seemed confused as to why landlords didn't want to rent to dog-owners, and I responded with some reasons why that might be. These reasons are pretty commonly cited. I wasn't looking for a point-by-point refutation.


Anyway... you seem to overuse the word "rare" and interject it as if you were actually proposing facts. Your perception of potential damages as "rare" doesn't hold any weight as it is purely subjective. Here's one example:


You called dog bites "incredibly rare" and insinuate that I am a dupe of the media. It's actually pretty ridiculous for you to make such an assumption. My concern with dog bites is based upon two factors: 1. Personal experience. 2. Facts.


To wit:


"Each year, more than 350,000 dog bite victims are seen in emergency rooms, and approximately 850,000 victims receive medical attention. Data that the CDC collected in the USA between 2001 and 2003 indicated there were 4.5 million dog bite victims per year, but that figure appears to be rising."


Dog Bite Statistics


Regardless of how "rare" you consider such dangers, I don't think a landlord who faces liability in such instances would agree.


The one place you do cite an actual statistic is with pet allergies. But you didn't source your contention. After a 30-second internet search, I found this site (Allergic to Your Pet? Learn about Dog and Cat Allergies), which says that 3 in 10 people are allergic to household pets. It does say that 2X as many are allergic to cats, but my mathematical computation suggests that would result in 10% of the population being allergic to dogs. Why would a landlord want to eliminate 10% of his prospective clients? That makes no economic sense.


You also guesstimated that "Maybe 1% of them do lol " chew things and cause damage. What are you basing that on?


You tell me that dogs are as smelly/dirty as some people. So what? That's no reason not to exclude dogs. And people are more annoying and loud than dogs? Again... your biased perception. It suggests you are flat out "anti-people". Unfortunately for your position it is a lot easier (and more legal) to discriminate against dogs, rather than people.


Finally, you repeatedly mention nonrefundable pet deposits as a source of extra income for landlords. Maybe they simply don't want to deal with the hassles of cleaning up after your pet afterwards. Or maybe they don't want to get into arguments about further damages. Why deal with that kind of hassle when it is a renter's market, which the Pittsburgh region is? If landlords en masse had any difficulty finding quality non-dog-owner tenants, then you wouldn't be having the difficulty that you are experiencing.

[atlbraves49]

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

There's the answer. The rental market is so tight, owners don't have to.

That actually might explain it. Pittsburgh's rental economy must be a lot different. Lots of rental options in other cities so landlords lose a lot of potential customers when they refuse pets. Must not be the case in Pittsburgh.

[_Buster]

Originally Posted by atlbraves49

That actually might explain it. Pittsburgh's rental economy must be a lot different. Lots of rental options in other cities so landlords lose a lot of potential customers when they refuse pets. Must not be the case in Pittsburgh.

Also, there are still a lot of lower cost houses available to buy in the Pgh area, due to housing age and other factors, so there are probably a lot fewer dog owners who are forced to rent because they can't buy here.

[corpgypsy]

Originally Posted by guy2073

I would never allow a dog in my rentals, why should I. I have nice places that I can pick and choose my tenants. One of the worst smells to me is going into a home and smelling a dog.

Cat smells are equivalent, IMHO. Not turning this into a pet hating post;I happen to think dogs and cats can be adorable...but I agree with the list previously posted and lets face it dogs will be dogs and cats will be cats. High maintenance creatures.

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by guy2073

One of the worst smells to me is going into a home and smelling a dog.

This is still America, if you don't enjoy the smell of a dog, or a cat, or even a fine cigar, you don't have to let it go on in your private private property.

[guy2073]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam

This is still America, if you don't enjoy the smell of a dog, or a cat, or even a fine cigar, you don't have to let it go on in your private private property.

This is not a hating dog thread, I own rentals and I was letting the op know why I don't allow pets.

[corpgypsy]

I was wondering if OP had a successful visit on his apartment/house hunting trip this past week-end? I hope he had an opportunity to see Regent Square because I thought that was a solid recommendation by RogersParkTransplant.