Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-12-2014, 11:10 PM
 
Location: az
13,426 posts, read 7,794,735 times
Reputation: 9311

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by catharsis View Post
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.

Last year an applicant pulled the "therapy dog" exception to my no pet’s policy. She was quite adament about this and could provide a letter from a doctor if need be.

Fortunately, she didn`t qualify on other grounds so I didn`t have to accept her.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-13-2014, 01:10 AM
 
113 posts, read 216,107 times
Reputation: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by john3232 View Post
Last year an applicant pulled the "therapy dog" exception to my no pet’s policy. She was quite adament about this and could provide a letter from a doctor if need be.

Fortunately, she didn`t qualify on other grounds so I didn`t have to accept her.
So you're saying you'd be bound to accept her had her other qualifications had past? Interesting. I travel a bit and I always ask if they accept dogs over 20 pounds and they ALWAYS say no. Yet every time there are neighbors with these dogs. The managers should be accountable to enforce the rules if this is the case. I challenged it a couple of times and the "therapy dog" excuse came out. So I'm not sure if it's a law or not.

Anyway, thanks for posting your story. I would not want to be a landlord in NorCal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2014, 03:22 AM
 
Location: az
13,426 posts, read 7,794,735 times
Reputation: 9311
Quote:
Originally Posted by catharsis View Post
So you're saying you'd be bound to accept her had her other qualifications had past? Interesting. I travel a bit and I always ask if they accept dogs over 20 pounds and they ALWAYS say no. Yet every time there are neighbors with these dogs. The managers should be accountable to enforce the rules if this is the case. I challenged it a couple of times and the "therapy dog" excuse came out. So I'm not sure if it's a law or not.

Anyway, thanks for posting your story. I would not want to be a landlord in NorCal.


The applicant called and started by specifically asking about my pet policy (which is no pets)

She explained her dogs should legally be allowed because they were "emotional support pets" and had a letter from her doctor backing this up.

It wasn’t necessary to go much further with the conversation because she then asked about using a co-signer on the lease which I also refused.

At which point she hung up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2014, 07:39 PM
 
Location: Alameda, CA
578 posts, read 1,291,163 times
Reputation: 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by catharsis View Post
So you're saying you'd be bound to accept her had her other qualifications had past? Interesting. I travel a bit and I always ask if they accept dogs over 20 pounds and they ALWAYS say no. Yet every time there are neighbors with these dogs. The managers should be accountable to enforce the rules if this is the case. I challenged it a couple of times and the "therapy dog" excuse came out. So I'm not sure if it's a law or not.

Anyway, thanks for posting your story. I would not want to be a landlord in NorCal.
Therapy dogs are not the same as service dogs. Therapy dogs are more for learning disabilities, anxiety, etc while service dogs are more towards medical uses e.g. sight help, blood sugar, PTSD, etc.

Which makes sense given the names ... dog for therapy or dog for service.

(TLDR: While I abhor the fact that so many landlords are anti-dog in the Bay, therapy dog =/= service dog.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2014, 12:01 PM
 
Location: Liminal Space
1,023 posts, read 1,545,909 times
Reputation: 1324
Quote:
Originally Posted by felinius View Post
Therapy dogs are not the same as service dogs. Therapy dogs are more for learning disabilities, anxiety, etc while service dogs are more towards medical uses e.g. sight help, blood sugar, PTSD, etc.

Which makes sense given the names ... dog for therapy or dog for service.

(TLDR: While I abhor the fact that so many landlords are anti-dog in the Bay, therapy dog =/= service dog.)
Agreed. This "therapy dog" thing, while silly, sounds like a workaround that wouldn't have had to be invented if Bay Area landlords weren't such ***holes about pets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2014, 05:49 PM
 
113 posts, read 216,107 times
Reputation: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by john3232 View Post
The applicant called and started by specifically asking about my pet policy (which is no pets)

She explained her dogs should legally be allowed because they were "emotional support pets" and had a letter from her doctor backing this up.

It wasn’t necessary to go much further with the conversation because she then asked about using a co-signer on the lease which I also refused.

At which point she hung up.
haha! good for you. Dodged a bullet that time. I never knew how awful people could be until I started to rent out my house. It didn't take long at all for me to opt to sell instead.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top