I really don’t understand where people are getting the idea that state laws exempt visiting animals from no-pet clauses in leases.
That is not the point, with all respect. I was just pointing out that the DEFINITION of the no-pet clause has to be determined. A service dog is not a pet. A visiting dog is not a pet. This is a legal terminology that is completely separate. Before getting worked up about a situation, the exact definition of the rule should be clearly understood.
As to source, the fact that visiting animals are exempt was published in our local daily here in California under the section where questions about renting are published. I am not sure what state you are in but I have lots of friends who rent with pets here in California and for that reason I am very familiar. It is generally very difficult for landlords to “require” visitors who have their pets with them to leave. Again, this is southern California, so it may be different elsewhere.
Many people are under the impression that dogs cannot enter coffee shops, restaurants, etc. because of “health laws”. In California, it is up to the discretion of the restaurant owner whether or not to allow dogs, both outside on patios and indoors; not a “health law” requirement. Varies by state. Just pointing out that a lot of imprecise information is out there.
We are talking about laws. We are talking about monetary effects/damage. Then we are talking about being comfortable with conscience. They are not all the same. There are unjust laws. Just look at the recent HHS mandate! Which is more important, money and the very small risk of damage, which can be mitigated by sufficient diligence and care, or the noble work service dogs do? Just something to think about. And children, in my experience, cause at least as much damage and noise, if not more, than well behaved dogs. Everywhere. Service dogs are well behaved. I’m just throwing this out as a reality check. Why so much obsessing on money? I mean in relation to conscience? It just seems to me some people just don’t like dogs, for whatever reason. That’s fine, since they have the right to their opinions, which should be respected, but it doesn’t make service dogs bad, or any dogs for that matter. And in my opinion the risk of the service dog doing materially significant damage, or causing a disturbance, is minimal. This derived from lots of exposure to service dogs, and even dogs that have completed certification programs required as part of service certification, that aren’t even employed as service dogs.
Here’s why it would be very unfair for you to bring an animal in when the landlord is counting on no pets. 1. It only takes one accident or one chewing incident for an animal to cause hundreds of dollars worth of damage to a unit. That’s probably more than your deposit would cover.
What do you mean by unfair? All this is same for kids. Do we prohibit kids? They are not all potty trained. Some can be horribly undisciplined. I have had kids do tons of damage to my house because of lack of supervision by their parents.
If this person can supervise the dog, what’s the problem?
And just last week I had the most unbelievably “gross” experience of having a child sitting at a table in a restaurant put the salt shaker into his mouth, and the parents thought it was cute. Just put it back down. I won’t be using salt in a restaurant for a while
.
Also, many places in Europe, for example Britian, dogs are permitted everywhere. There is even a special law regarding King Charles Spaniels. These people have somehow survived for thousands of years.
- The next residents may very well have severe pet allergies. That’s one of the reasons people choose to rent at pet-free apartments. If that dog has an accident on your carpet, even if the carpet is pulled up and cleaned and the carpet pad is replaced, the urine damage to the concrete underneath can cause a severe allergic reaction and the residents won’t even know why. Furthermore, you will never get every last hair out, which once again can cause allergies. That is very unfair to the next renter.
–Same thing for other allergens, but they are not prohibited. This discriminates against dogs. We just went through a long process removing allergens in a property we rented - they had nothing to do with dogs. Point is just that there is no way to avoid all of this. It seems only the dog issues have people so exercised. This person is assuming the risk.
As for it being a service dog. Service dogs cannot go everywhere. They do not have a right to go everywhere.
No one talked about animals having rights. This is kind of a basic legal issue. Animals cannot have rights so this is not a relevant comment. Yes, they can go practically anywhere.
PEOPLE who need service dogs have a right to take them everywhere. I cannot walk in to a coffee shop with a service dog for a blind person, however a blind person can if the dog is registered to them as a service dog.
–Yes, you can, in California.
At all of the pet-friendly properties I have ever run we have allowed residents without pets to have pets visit them-as long as they pay the several hundred dollar pet deposit. Why? Because it only takes a few hours for serious damage to be done. At the no-pet communities I have worked at we have not allowed visiting animals at all, ever, period.
–Does not apply in California, as a general rule, and may not elsewhere. With respect this is the choice made by the properties you chose to work at. Why try to upset this poor person??
Now a private landlord may be more lenient than a company, because a company is under more scrutiny when it comes to fair housing laws.
–Not necessarily. A private landlord is also subject to litigation. God bless,
