Discrimination against pet owners (apartments, tenant, rental, deposit)

[asimegusta]

The building where I live with my cat has been sold and the new owner is asking tenants to leave. I have begun the search for another apartment, and have found the situation for pet owners has just gotten worse since I last looked. I would estimate that 1% of rentals accept pets of any kind.

I liken this to discrimination, in this instance against pet owners. It's a practise that cannot be fought since pets are considered "property" . I'm surprised the animal rights people haven't got a hold of this issue, after all aren't we all "animals".

[carnivalday]

There is a reason that many apartments are going "no pets". Many pet owners are completely irresponsible and cause thousands of dollars of damage to apartments. Who wants to deal with that?

Ive gone into too many apartments that reeked of cat. Its awful and very difficult to eradicate.

[life4orce]

There are just too many variables with pets, I don't blame anyone not renting to a pet owner. Dogs barking at every noise, pet owners not cleaning up after their pets, not only inside but outside. Not to mention aggressive animals that bite others. Even if the owner is careful, dog claws do a lot of damage to hard wood floors just from them walking. Don't get me wrong, I love pets but I can see why someone wouldn't want to deal with them in a rental.

[Vectoris]

Every tenant I've had, with a cat, has left me with something to deal with - fleas, urine soaked wood floors, scratched doors. I don't allow dogs but in 12 units over 7 years I have had to ask tenants to get rid of dogs they're 'babysitting' and had to clean up dog poop from common hallways and replace wood trim and flooring chewed up by dogs.

So based on history of personal experience, it makes sense for me to choose non pet owners. It's a shame, really, because I'm sure there are some very responsible pet owners out there.

[Minethatbird]

If all those no pets apartments sat vacant month after month my guess is you'd see a change mighty quick.

Why do landlords do it? Because they can.

[FelixTheCat]

if very few are allowing pets, then the few who do can charge more. that's supply and demand. the increased rent may offset the possible damages done by pets. also, landlords could charge a larger deposit in case of damage. fleas aren't a big deal. just bomb the place when vacant. or use a few bottles or raid flea spay which cost about $9 each,would eliminate the problem in a days.

i rented to dog owners and they paid on time every month and caused me no problems. landlords should reconsider pet owners, because I think they are more grateful for having a place to keep their pets and want to maintain a good relationship because of that.

[emm74]

Owning a pet is not a right, nor is being a pet owner a protected class. So no, there is no discrimination here, at least not in any legal sense. I'm sorry you are having a tough time finding a new rental, but I also understand why property owners don't want to risk damage to their property. If you haven't already, maybe try posting in the section for your local area asking about pet friendly rentals.

[oldtrader]

As someone that entered the commercial/investment real estate brokerage business in 1972, I will answer the question. I was also the president of the county wide Rental, Owners, and Managers association for 3 years, as well as managing a lot of rentals, so I know what I am talking about.

Our association found that renting to cat owners was a problem in the making. The maintenance cost and the cost to get the rental ready to re-rent when a tenant left, was considerably above what it was for non cat owners. (I did not rent to dog owners either for the same reason.) Cats are the worst animals to rent to.

They do damage to the units, and it is almost impossible to rent to a cat owner, and not end up with a stinky unit. It simply costs too much to keep the unit in condition to rent, after a cat owner leaves.

I only know of one man (a Realtor), who was happy renting to people with cats. He saw an ad for a 32 unit apartment house. He went and looked at and as the former owner (deceased) had liked cats and allowed cats. The place stunk of cats, and no one would buy it from the estate. He bought it for about half it's value, so it was what one calls a cash cow. A fantastic profitable investment.

He named it the "Cat House" with a big sign over the door (downtown nice area high rise). He would only rent to little old lady cat owners, as cat owners cannot smell cat pee, and other cat odors. He filled up in a matter of days, and no one left till they died or went into nursing home, so he cut out a lot of expenses that most rental unit owners suffer with.

It was the most profitable 32 unit apartment house I have ever seen.

[katie45]

Aside from the damage a dog or cat can do to the interior of an apartment; one of the issues many tenants complain about is having neighbors with dogs that bark too much. Living next door to a yapper is as bad as living next door to someone who plays the bass of their music or surround sound too loud.

And people who allow their dogs to poop and don't clean it up. . . .dogs who attack other dogs and/or people.

[rrah]

I suspect this problem is localized or related to the cost of the rental. Both of my children recently rented apartments in different parts of the country. It seemed that every single apartment my son looked at allowed pets. Daughter also had no problems finding an apartment with her cat.