"pet friendly" rentals in SF and the bay area ?? Really?? (Fortuna: landlords, living)

[CSD610]

This thread was started a couple years ago and I would venture to guess that the issue has been resolved a long time ago.

[millerz22]

People have been so brainwashed by the media that they dont know any better about dogs and they call themselves dog lovers. Disgrace. Whenever there is a pitbull attack, the breed is front and center in the title. If its another dog, no mention of the breed. This is like saying "black man robbed store" hence all african Americans are theives. WRONG. People are to quick to judge. ALL DOGS CAN BE DANGEROUS. ALL DOGS HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO SERIOUSLY HARM. Until you have owned a pitbull, you shouldn't speak out about their behavior. Period.

[beb0p]

Originally Posted by millerz22

Whenever there is a pitbull attack, the breed is front and center in the title. If its another dog, no mention of the breed.

I keep hearing this from the Pit Bull lovers but it is just plain false. News reports have no quip mentioning non-Pit Bull breeds. The reason why Pit Bull mentioned more than other breed is because... Pit Bulls are involved more than other breeds. There might be a reason why that is but to say that the media is biased against one breed is not supported by facts.

Originally Posted by millerz22

This is like saying "black man robbed store" hence all african Americans are theives. WRONG. People are to quick to judge. ALL DOGS CAN BE DANGEROUS. ALL DOGS HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO SERIOUSLY HARM. Until you have owned a pitbull, you shouldn't speak out about their behavior. Period.

Again, I keep hearing this, "All dogs can be dangerous, blah, blah". True, all dogs can be dangerous; but that statement is disingenuous because all dogs are NOT equally dangerous. A Pomeraninan is not as dangerous as a Pit. Some dogs are more dangerous than others, live with it. That doesn't mean all Pits are evil, it does mean pretending Pit is the same as a Pom or blaming their attacks on the media is stupid strategy; it doesn't work.
.

[3rdGen SFan]

I'm not sure if family or acquaintances of the woman who was mauled to death by another tenant's pitbull here in SF filed any lawsuits against the landlord, but I can believe some might. Landlords might be worried about the possible aggressive incidents between tenants' dogs and between dogs & people when they don't rent to people who have pitbulls.

There's also the fact that very active dogs, especially large ones, can scratch up floors. If the dogs are gnawers, they might chew up doors, door trim, etc.. A lot of pet owners can't afford to stay home to keep their pets from causing damage.

I'm not against people owning pitbulls myself, I love animals, including pit bulls, despite being mostly a cat person, but when it's another person's property pets may damage and possibly cause problems between tenants--possibly money out of their pockets--I think it's understandable for landlords to be discriminative.

I can also understand the landlords who don't even want tenants to have cats. I don't rent, but I'm sure a lot of snooty landlords wouldn't appreciate the fabulous, distressed, shabby chic interior design my cats gave a lot of the woodwork in my house.

[bentobox34]

I learned the hard way that in the Bay Area, the words "pet friendly" in an apartment advertisement are code for "we charge monthly pet rent."

Your best bet is to find a human property owner who has the ability to be flexible rather than a corporate complex. The ads that say nothing about pets are the most promising. It takes more work but it's worth it.

[catharsis]

news flash to those who are in a similar situation. There's now this law(?) or trend where people claim their dog is a "therapy" dog and therefore cannot be refused. I have lived in three different highly rated complexes in the East Bay and I've seen Pit Bulls in all of them. Two previous ones I've challenged it and asked the office. That's how I know about the "therapy" clause. Now I'm paying about $2000 and find myself living next door to a pit bull that has charged me once by surprise. I've asked up front if they allow pits because I didn't want to live around them. The office said they disallow. What they don't tell people is about the "therapy" dogs who they allow. And don't ya know, they're all therapy dogs aren't they?

So my point is, not a problem. Just say your dogs are therapy dogs. There are pits at just about every apartment complex. I've asked at work and most people I know say the same. The caveat though is they usually charge about $50 per month extra.

[Ceece]

Originally Posted by catharsis

news flash to those who are in a similar situation. There's now this law(?) or trend where people claim their dog is a "therapy" dog and therefore cannot be refused. I have lived in three different highly rated complexes in the East Bay and I've seen Pit Bulls in all of them. Two previous ones I've challenged it and asked the office. That's how I know about the "therapy" clause. Now I'm paying about $2000 and find myself living next door to a pit bull that has charged me once by surprise. I've asked up front if they allow pits because I didn't want to live around them. The office said they disallow. What they don't tell people is about the "therapy" dogs who they allow. And don't ya know, they're all therapy dogs aren't they?

Service dogs, not therapy dogs, have standing.

[catharsis]

Originally Posted by Ceece

Service dogs, not therapy dogs, have standing.

I've been told by apartment managers that they're called therapy dogs. I've also seen service dogs, but they're typically golden retrievers. Therapy dogs can be pit bulls. In fact, was told most therapy dogs are pits bulls. That's no surprise. Some need a note from the doctor, but not immediately.

[Ceece]

Originally Posted by catharsis

I've been told by apartment managers that they're called therapy dogs. I've also seen service dogs, but they're typically golden retrievers. Therapy dogs can be pit bulls. In fact, was told most therapy dogs are pits bulls. That's no surprise. Some need a note from the doctor, but not immediately.

They have to be specially trained to do a task.

Some people don't know the difference but things are working their way through the legal system to help prevent this type of behavior. "therapy dog" is a meaningless term.

[john3232]

Originally Posted by Dancsipok

So my husband and I are trying to relocate from Jacksonville, FL to San Francisco... We are awesome tenants. For real... Never been late with payments, never been late with bills, I'm an engineer and he's a chef, we have no kids, we are super quiet and have a slight OCD ergo we are extremely neat and clean. For gods sake we spent our own dollars to put new paint in our rentals and fix little things you know... We are athletes, he's doing BJJ and I'm an MMA fighter. We don't smoke, we don't drink...

But we have one major sin... We have two dogs. What's so sinful about that is one of them is a pit bull. The other one is a vizsla. We are strict dog owners and both of our pups are well behaving, social and clean. They are adorable, especially the pitbull. Anybody meets him falls in love with him, he's not just handsome but he's calm and loving. Not to mention we exercise them a lot, every day.

We used to own ours home so it never occurred to me that some people might ban my precious animals from their rentals.

Last month when i got laid off and we decided to move to Cali I took a quick look at Craigslist and rent.com and saw a gazillion pet friendly rentals, so I called my landlord, cancelled my rent and we were ready to move to SF on the first of July.

Then I got a reality check...
Pet friendly in the bay area means cats, small dogs, and basically every kind of dogs except pitbulls and "aggressive breeds".
Who the hell put pitbulls in the agressive category anyway? Oh well, he does do agressive licking on your face sometimes... Maybe this is it...

I called several apartment complexes, private landlords, etc., but they've all said the same thing : oh, yeah yeah, we're super dog friendly, if it says woof we love it to death..... Say what? A pit bull? Oooooo, nooooo sorry, no pits.... They don't thrive in community environment.

Are you effin kidding me? Who are you to know where my dog thrives?

How the heck can I prove that my dogs are just like two cats... Better actually because they don't shed and don't **** in the house... (no comments on this one please, I love kitties, I used to have one when I was younger. But they do stink and when you walk through a door yes you will know a cat lives there, but you will never smell my dogs, you will never see dog hair on anything and they don't touch anything in the house)

So here we are, we have 6 more weeks and it seems absolutely impossible to find something real close to the city..

I'm done complaining and explaining how wonderful dogs pitbulls and vizslas are... The only question remains: are they going to turn me into one of those cold hearted bastards who put their pit in the pound for saving her own family?

It's a vicious circle...

- Save pitbulls from euthanasia! - you're the good guy
- Own a pitbull - you're the bad guy
- Go extra miles (and miles and miles) to find a pitbull friendly rental - you're a good guy
- Put your pit back in a pound because you haven't found one - you're a bad guy

What the hell am I supposed to do?????????

If anybody can help PLEASE HELP!!!
I'm desperate and we are running out of time. I've been researching for a month now and not a single place approved my dogs...

As a landlord my answer would be no.

You might well be correct with regards to your pet but we're talking SF and in this city forget it.

If trouble developed (even away from the property) as sure as I am typing this I'd probably get dragged into it a potential lawsuit.