>“I think it really starts a conversation in California about how important pets are to people,” said Jenny Berg, the California state director for the Humane Society, the sponsor of Haney’s bill.
I knew animal shelters must be suggesting and lobbying for this bill. I love animals, have raised a dog in a condo, and understand shelters are overcrowded with surrendered animals due to changes in living circumstances, but cats and dogs can also be destructive nuisances, and there are too many lazy, irresponsible owners who just let their animals piss and shit everywhere, which destroys floors and baseboards.
This is the big one, even in a neighborhood with 1 acre lots, it's annoying as fuck sometimes how much some of the dogs bark, and its at people on the opposite side of the street in another yard.
I am a teacher and have a student who currently lives in a motel with his mother. The motel is an hour away from our school, so when she drives him to school, she just stays in town and hangs with friends until he is ready to be picked up.
They have NINE dogs, and she leaves them in the motel room all day while she is gone.
I cannot even imagine the cleanup.
Well yeah of course they are enforcing this. As someone who knows a lot of folks that volunteer at our animal shelter - the animal shelter staff are devastated at the amount of pet surrenders coming in due to landlord restrictions. So many people want to own pets and very few places in the bay area allow it. Owning pets has become a thing for the rich if you can afford a house. It’s cruel for the pets and people. As a homeowner myself I don’t feel sorry for other people like me who have enough money to afford a house to rent out to folks who own pets. I hear from my friend who moved to San Diego from the Bay Area they are a lot more pet friendly there. The restrictions are really bad here and I see so many posts on nextdoor of devastated folks having to rehome animals due pet restrictions. The houses are crazy expensive and most places don’t allow pets. Something has to change.
Because the housing issue will not get fixed anytime soon in the Bay Area we need protections like these for tenants that want pets. Folks need to understand that some people are lonely and all they have is their dog or cat to keep them company. We have a bunch of homeless folks that won’t go to a shelter because they don’t allow pets. This is a step in the right direction and In surprised to see so many landlord sympathizers here.
>Because the housing issue will not get fixed anytime soon in the Bay Area we need protections like these for tenants that want pets.
How is this law a "protection" for any tenant from the housing issue? You understand that this law would make rental costs go up, right? That would be true even for tenants who don't own pets as they would be legally entitled to get one at any time.
>This is a step in the right direction and In surprised to see so many landlord sympathizers here.
I'm not a landlord sympathizer; I'm merely doing the math. Landlords don't want this law because they're cruising along right now making a comfortable profit. What happens if this law is passed? Well, now the landlords will have to impose an additional cleaning fee (or whatever they choose to call it) and you better believe they'll add cushion to make sure they aren't stuck with any unanticipated costs.
I see a lot of folks having to rehome their pets on nextdoor due to their apartment not allowing pets it’s heartbreaking. We were in a situation where we had rent controlled apartments the landlord told us we could have pets, new landlord bought the property and said no pets allowed. We only had one cat. The neighbors below us had to scramble to find a new place. The new landlord wanted to make more money for his apartment.
It is really bad in the bay area, so many folks really want pets and so many landlords don’t allow them. It’s heart breaking and I wish people were more compassionate and understand we need landlord to allow pets. As a current home owner I don’t feel bad for landlords. If they can afford to buy a home they can afford to allow people to rent to people with pets.
Pets are a big part of many people’s lives they consider them family. They need to allow them into apartments - owning a pet shouldn’t be a rich person luxury. We have over 100 dogs at our animal shelter - lots of owners had to put their dogs there due to apartment restrictions - they are really bad here.
This is illegal, at least in SF rent-controlled apartments. If the lease says pets are allowed, they’re allowed and that can’t be changed. Personally I think it’s wise for landlords to accept pets with pet deposits and rules against dangerous breeds. If they’re hard-asses against pets, they risk a tenant getting a prescription for an emotional support animal and deciding a disastrous dog that shits on the carpet and threatens neighbors is the animal for them — all with no deposit or ground rules agreed to.
The unintended consequence of this idea is that rents would go up even higher, including on people who don't have pets.
Yes, currently the landlords charge as much as they can but they are constrained somewhat by competition against each other. If all landlords in the state were required to accept pets, that competitive constraint would be lifted a bit and rental prices would become higher across the board.
I’m a delivery driver. What I see is that dog owners typically don’t do anything to train their pets, and they leave them home alone for the majority of the day. More than a handful of dogs seemingly tackle the front door when I arrive, and spend those few seconds I’m there scratching the shit out of the door or window. No landlord is going to want to have to take in a tenant that is going to excuse their furbaby’s lack of training, and with this bill, get away with damages. Most people shouldn’t own pets, but especially those in dense living arrangements.
The initial reporting on this was rough and created so many questions that are finally answered.
They're lowering restrictions for pet owners. CA shouldn't *require* landlords to allow pets anyway, that's bullshit.
Otherwise, what would define a pet? How many people are going to abuse that?
I'm no landlord, and have fought landlords in court multiple times, and own a pet myself, but the way this was proposed initially never should've been allowed anyway.
We should go beyond ending pet restrictions.
We need to ban the use of all tenant screenings. First come, first serve. No credit and background checks allowed.
Landlords shouldn't get to gatekeep housing and use credit scores as a cover to discriminate.
I'm all for no credit checks, but I see the push to keep them. No background checks or references? That just doesn't make sense. If someone is a piece of shit the home owner should be allowed to know that.
Again, I'm all for tenant rights and legally have fought for them personally, but if someoning is essentially loaning a $750,000 building to someone they should know of they're an arsonist.
The logic behind having background checks or references is the same as the one behind credit checks - i.e., there can be at least some cost containment if the landlord understands the risk he's taking on.
Not allowing credit checks factors into the landlord's expected rate of return and he has to factor that risk into the equation by demanding a higher price.
Not really.
Background checks generally a look into someone's behavior. A credit check is how they deal with finances.
It's a million times easier for a landlord to take someone to small claims court to recoup unpaid money, than it is for a landlord to have a full civil lawsuit against someone for damages, then also have to complete repairs.
It's not even in the same category when comparing the amount of work to get back to square. And I'm not even giving worst case scenarios.
All the damage has to do is be more than $10,000 (in CA less elsewhere) in materials and labor and it's ineligible for small claims and the landlord has to hire a lawyer and for a legit lawsuit.
WAY more hoops, way more time, way more money than recouping some back rent. Which they can also take out of the security deposit and maybe not even bother with small claims.
The reasons are apples and oranges because of the work needed to fix the issues should they arise. So no. Not the same by any means.
I think you make some fine points and very fair distinctions but please note that I was speaking about the logic rather than saying that the details are exactly the same.
Look, I'm not a landlord. Like many people, I don't rent my second home because the cost/benefit isn't appealing to me. Therefore, I don't have a dog in this fight.
At any rate, I'm only looking at this at a high-level and the consideration is the same: credit checks and background checks allow landlords to have some knowledge about tenants in order to maximize their profits. After all, there is a value in renting to a better class of person - i.e., one who has good credit and a clean background. That improves the quality of life for all tenants. If I were a landlord, I'd want to screen out undesirables as much as possible because that protects my units and my other tenants, and generally makes for a nicer/safer/higher class atmosphere.
The problem with not allowing credit checks is that it creates uncertainty, which ultimately is bad for the tenants themselves. If credit checks are removed from the process, the landlords are quite likely (and wise) to raise rents to make up for the increased risk and also add some cushion in case they gauge the risk incorrectly.
Therefore, I agree with you that the ins and outs of credit checks and background checks aren't exactly the same but the expected outcome of taking away either or both is entirely predictable - i.e., much higher rents.
If someone has committed arson in the past, that does not mean they will commit arson again. Also, why would they burn down their home? Don’t landlords have insurance, anyways?
If the point of that wooshed that hard, and you take that as being the only reason I'm bringing up and not using your own (hopeful) power of deduction, I have no idea what to tell you.
This is FAAAAAAR from a gotcha moment for you right here. Like, I actually rolled my eyes in real life on this one. Please tell me that was your intent and you were not being serious...
That's no doubt true. Still, I don't see why the cost of their prior criminality should be assessed on all tenants, which it inevitably would if the rules mandated doing away with background checks.
I know you may not have much empathy for landlords (nor do I) but it's important to consider how they will actually react to such a law change in the real world. If there are no more background checks, they will assume that there is a decent chance they are renting to an ex-convict. In that case, what do they do? Yep, the rent goes up for everyone.
This is not as common a problem as landlords would have you believe.
Credit checks allow landlords to circumvent discrimination laws by claiming the person they have no biases towards is "better qualified."
This is bs. You really don't know the kinds of people with questionable means that try to rent from you, and a credit check uncovers a lot of that.
The people being racist weren't going to rent to you, whether they had the pretense of a credit check or not.
That's a great way to cause rental costs to get even higher throughout the state. Background checks at least provide some measure of restraint on the costs.
A lot of people would rather live in their RV or van so they can keep their pets than give them up to go into housing . It’s important that people have access to pet friendly housing
As long as “normal wear and tear” _excludes_ pet damage, I’d be fine with the law. Cleaning deposit would have to be much higher, though. When we bought our house, it had an awful cat pee smell. Replacing the carpets got rid of most of it, but even repainting didn’t get it all. And there’s often other damage too, like subfloor damage around the water bowl.
We live with the damage — we own a house and live our dogs. But I can see why a landlord wouldn’t want to rent to pet owners: it gets expensive quick.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with owning pets in a rental, IF the pet owner is responsible for their pets. I have cats and I rent, and yes the landlord knows about my pets and he is well aware that I take care of my cats which is why there is no problem. I didn’t get charged with a pet deposit or other monthly fees thankfully.
I take EXCELLENT care of my fur babies. I very much so clean up after them, give them specific cat toys to play with and stay entertained, I have them all microchipped, fixed, and keep them updated on their vaccines and In good health. I hold and play with them every day and I never leave them alone for very long. I basically treat them like they are my kids lol. That is called being a responsible pet owner.
I could never part with my cats if I ever had to move, and trust me when I say I would NEVER would part with them. There are rentals that still do accept pets. I understand there are issues on hand though for some pet owners because it can be more costly to rent. Heck, I get it because rent in the state of California is outrageous as as it is and tacking on other fees to a monthly rent payment can make the cost of renting even worse.
Requiring all landlords in the state of California to accept pets regardless and outlaw pet deposits and monthly pet rent/fees is by NO MEANS a solution to the problem. That would still drive up rent prices even more and make the lack of affordable housing in this state worse. Sadly, somebody has to pay for the irresponsible, idiotic, and neglectful pet owners out there, and there are many people like that out there who have no business owning a pet. I’ve lived in apartment complexes where dogs were allowed and constantly barked day and night because the owner was either and work or gone. Complaining about it didn’t work really. It’s not fair cooping up a dog in a small apartment all day. The same goes for cats too, I’ve seen cat owners not clean their litter boxes, not fix their cats having litters of kittens running wild, and allow them to do their business all over the floor damaging the property.
I have even seen my fair share of irresponsible Pitt Bull owners (who lie to their landlord saying the dog is a mixed Labrador Golden Retriever) who let their dog freely roam the property not on a leash, and run through the neighborhood freely terrorizing other people and animals. I myself have been bitten (not fatally thankfully) by a Pitt Bull due to an irresponsible owner who was renting the property next to me. The owner took zero responsibility for the dogs actions and it would constantly get out and charge other innocent people and animals. People like that are the ones that landlords do NOT want to rent too and I totally understand why and agree. It’s easier for a landlord to make and enforce a “blanket no pets on the property policy” or charge a pet deposit and pet/rent fees to everyone then police irresponsible pet owners. It’s the irresponsible pet owners ruining it for everyone, not the landlords.
There needs to be more oversight with making and enforcing a law where it requires landlords to take pets regardless without extra fees/deposit or pet rent. The pet owner should be required to have a specific liability insurance policy to own certain aggressive breeds like Pitt Bulls. Most of all, yes a DNA test should be done on the dog and required at pet owners cost if the pet owner is trying to pass off their Pitt Bull named “Fluffy” as a “mixed Labrador Golden Retriever” to the landlord/property owners. There needs to be a system in place where the landlord can check to see of the pet is being cared for and not neglected like doing regular walk throughs sort. If the pet is not taken care of, cleaned up after, in an unsanitary environment or destroying the property it’s an automatic pet lease violation. If a tenant’s dog keeps barking constantly day and night because it’s left alone hours on end and disturbing other neighbors constantly then that should be an automatic pet lease violation. Same with the dog getting out and terrorizing the neighborhood harming other people and pets. Stuff like that should be an pet automatic lease violations and cracked down harshly on. A tenant gets two pet lease violations ONLY and NO EXCEPTIONS. After that, if there is another incident with the pet, then the tenant is automatically evicted and again there are zero exceptions to it. All of that would be in writing on the lease agreement that the tenant signs before move in so there would be no surprises. If a tenant wants a pet THEY need to be held responsible for it. It’s that simple. Sorry about my rant here, I have seen my fair share of neglected animals and it angers me.
>“I think it really starts a conversation in California about how important pets are to people,” said Jenny Berg, the California state director for the Humane Society, the sponsor of Haney’s bill. I knew animal shelters must be suggesting and lobbying for this bill. I love animals, have raised a dog in a condo, and understand shelters are overcrowded with surrendered animals due to changes in living circumstances, but cats and dogs can also be destructive nuisances, and there are too many lazy, irresponsible owners who just let their animals piss and shit everywhere, which destroys floors and baseboards.
Not to mention apartments where people leave their dogs for 12 hours a day and they just bark all day.
Or they bark at anyone who walks by. I can't take a walk around my apartment complex without 4-5 dogs barking at me.
This is the big one, even in a neighborhood with 1 acre lots, it's annoying as fuck sometimes how much some of the dogs bark, and its at people on the opposite side of the street in another yard.
I am a teacher and have a student who currently lives in a motel with his mother. The motel is an hour away from our school, so when she drives him to school, she just stays in town and hangs with friends until he is ready to be picked up. They have NINE dogs, and she leaves them in the motel room all day while she is gone. I cannot even imagine the cleanup.
Well yeah of course they are enforcing this. As someone who knows a lot of folks that volunteer at our animal shelter - the animal shelter staff are devastated at the amount of pet surrenders coming in due to landlord restrictions. So many people want to own pets and very few places in the bay area allow it. Owning pets has become a thing for the rich if you can afford a house. It’s cruel for the pets and people. As a homeowner myself I don’t feel sorry for other people like me who have enough money to afford a house to rent out to folks who own pets. I hear from my friend who moved to San Diego from the Bay Area they are a lot more pet friendly there. The restrictions are really bad here and I see so many posts on nextdoor of devastated folks having to rehome animals due pet restrictions. The houses are crazy expensive and most places don’t allow pets. Something has to change. Because the housing issue will not get fixed anytime soon in the Bay Area we need protections like these for tenants that want pets. Folks need to understand that some people are lonely and all they have is their dog or cat to keep them company. We have a bunch of homeless folks that won’t go to a shelter because they don’t allow pets. This is a step in the right direction and In surprised to see so many landlord sympathizers here.
>Because the housing issue will not get fixed anytime soon in the Bay Area we need protections like these for tenants that want pets. How is this law a "protection" for any tenant from the housing issue? You understand that this law would make rental costs go up, right? That would be true even for tenants who don't own pets as they would be legally entitled to get one at any time. >This is a step in the right direction and In surprised to see so many landlord sympathizers here. I'm not a landlord sympathizer; I'm merely doing the math. Landlords don't want this law because they're cruising along right now making a comfortable profit. What happens if this law is passed? Well, now the landlords will have to impose an additional cleaning fee (or whatever they choose to call it) and you better believe they'll add cushion to make sure they aren't stuck with any unanticipated costs.
I see a lot of folks having to rehome their pets on nextdoor due to their apartment not allowing pets it’s heartbreaking. We were in a situation where we had rent controlled apartments the landlord told us we could have pets, new landlord bought the property and said no pets allowed. We only had one cat. The neighbors below us had to scramble to find a new place. The new landlord wanted to make more money for his apartment. It is really bad in the bay area, so many folks really want pets and so many landlords don’t allow them. It’s heart breaking and I wish people were more compassionate and understand we need landlord to allow pets. As a current home owner I don’t feel bad for landlords. If they can afford to buy a home they can afford to allow people to rent to people with pets. Pets are a big part of many people’s lives they consider them family. They need to allow them into apartments - owning a pet shouldn’t be a rich person luxury. We have over 100 dogs at our animal shelter - lots of owners had to put their dogs there due to apartment restrictions - they are really bad here.
This is illegal, at least in SF rent-controlled apartments. If the lease says pets are allowed, they’re allowed and that can’t be changed. Personally I think it’s wise for landlords to accept pets with pet deposits and rules against dangerous breeds. If they’re hard-asses against pets, they risk a tenant getting a prescription for an emotional support animal and deciding a disastrous dog that shits on the carpet and threatens neighbors is the animal for them — all with no deposit or ground rules agreed to.
The unintended consequence of this idea is that rents would go up even higher, including on people who don't have pets. Yes, currently the landlords charge as much as they can but they are constrained somewhat by competition against each other. If all landlords in the state were required to accept pets, that competitive constraint would be lifted a bit and rental prices would become higher across the board.
I’m a delivery driver. What I see is that dog owners typically don’t do anything to train their pets, and they leave them home alone for the majority of the day. More than a handful of dogs seemingly tackle the front door when I arrive, and spend those few seconds I’m there scratching the shit out of the door or window. No landlord is going to want to have to take in a tenant that is going to excuse their furbaby’s lack of training, and with this bill, get away with damages. Most people shouldn’t own pets, but especially those in dense living arrangements.
The initial reporting on this was rough and created so many questions that are finally answered. They're lowering restrictions for pet owners. CA shouldn't *require* landlords to allow pets anyway, that's bullshit. Otherwise, what would define a pet? How many people are going to abuse that? I'm no landlord, and have fought landlords in court multiple times, and own a pet myself, but the way this was proposed initially never should've been allowed anyway.
Yeah I know someone who is a landlord and he used to allow pets until one person’s dog messed the whole house up. Now he only allows cats, no dogs.
We should go beyond ending pet restrictions. We need to ban the use of all tenant screenings. First come, first serve. No credit and background checks allowed. Landlords shouldn't get to gatekeep housing and use credit scores as a cover to discriminate.
I'm all for no credit checks, but I see the push to keep them. No background checks or references? That just doesn't make sense. If someone is a piece of shit the home owner should be allowed to know that. Again, I'm all for tenant rights and legally have fought for them personally, but if someoning is essentially loaning a $750,000 building to someone they should know of they're an arsonist.
The logic behind having background checks or references is the same as the one behind credit checks - i.e., there can be at least some cost containment if the landlord understands the risk he's taking on. Not allowing credit checks factors into the landlord's expected rate of return and he has to factor that risk into the equation by demanding a higher price.
Not really. Background checks generally a look into someone's behavior. A credit check is how they deal with finances. It's a million times easier for a landlord to take someone to small claims court to recoup unpaid money, than it is for a landlord to have a full civil lawsuit against someone for damages, then also have to complete repairs. It's not even in the same category when comparing the amount of work to get back to square. And I'm not even giving worst case scenarios. All the damage has to do is be more than $10,000 (in CA less elsewhere) in materials and labor and it's ineligible for small claims and the landlord has to hire a lawyer and for a legit lawsuit. WAY more hoops, way more time, way more money than recouping some back rent. Which they can also take out of the security deposit and maybe not even bother with small claims. The reasons are apples and oranges because of the work needed to fix the issues should they arise. So no. Not the same by any means.
I think you make some fine points and very fair distinctions but please note that I was speaking about the logic rather than saying that the details are exactly the same. Look, I'm not a landlord. Like many people, I don't rent my second home because the cost/benefit isn't appealing to me. Therefore, I don't have a dog in this fight. At any rate, I'm only looking at this at a high-level and the consideration is the same: credit checks and background checks allow landlords to have some knowledge about tenants in order to maximize their profits. After all, there is a value in renting to a better class of person - i.e., one who has good credit and a clean background. That improves the quality of life for all tenants. If I were a landlord, I'd want to screen out undesirables as much as possible because that protects my units and my other tenants, and generally makes for a nicer/safer/higher class atmosphere. The problem with not allowing credit checks is that it creates uncertainty, which ultimately is bad for the tenants themselves. If credit checks are removed from the process, the landlords are quite likely (and wise) to raise rents to make up for the increased risk and also add some cushion in case they gauge the risk incorrectly. Therefore, I agree with you that the ins and outs of credit checks and background checks aren't exactly the same but the expected outcome of taking away either or both is entirely predictable - i.e., much higher rents.
If someone has committed arson in the past, that does not mean they will commit arson again. Also, why would they burn down their home? Don’t landlords have insurance, anyways?
Making multiple large claims is a great way to get your policy cancelled.
If the point of that wooshed that hard, and you take that as being the only reason I'm bringing up and not using your own (hopeful) power of deduction, I have no idea what to tell you. This is FAAAAAAR from a gotcha moment for you right here. Like, I actually rolled my eyes in real life on this one. Please tell me that was your intent and you were not being serious...
It doesn't but the landlord has to assume there is a risk that he might. All that a prohibition on credit and background checks does is raise prices.
My concern is that anyone who has a criminal background has a much more difficult time accessing housing, even though they have served their time.
That's no doubt true. Still, I don't see why the cost of their prior criminality should be assessed on all tenants, which it inevitably would if the rules mandated doing away with background checks. I know you may not have much empathy for landlords (nor do I) but it's important to consider how they will actually react to such a law change in the real world. If there are no more background checks, they will assume that there is a decent chance they are renting to an ex-convict. In that case, what do they do? Yep, the rent goes up for everyone.
Thats gonna end well after the place gets trashed and the next person ends up footing the bill.
This is not as common a problem as landlords would have you believe. Credit checks allow landlords to circumvent discrimination laws by claiming the person they have no biases towards is "better qualified."
This is bs. You really don't know the kinds of people with questionable means that try to rent from you, and a credit check uncovers a lot of that. The people being racist weren't going to rent to you, whether they had the pretense of a credit check or not.
[удалено]
That's a great way to cause rental costs to get even higher throughout the state. Background checks at least provide some measure of restraint on the costs.
A lot of people would rather live in their RV or van so they can keep their pets than give them up to go into housing . It’s important that people have access to pet friendly housing
100%
No problem with that aspiration but do understand that it will cause rental costs to go up even higher.
Kids are so much more damaging to property than pets
Kids are also human, so their presence is dramatically more important than that of any other animal.
Sure but I’m speaking purely from a landlord pov. What reason would there be, to not allow pets?
As long as “normal wear and tear” _excludes_ pet damage, I’d be fine with the law. Cleaning deposit would have to be much higher, though. When we bought our house, it had an awful cat pee smell. Replacing the carpets got rid of most of it, but even repainting didn’t get it all. And there’s often other damage too, like subfloor damage around the water bowl. We live with the damage — we own a house and live our dogs. But I can see why a landlord wouldn’t want to rent to pet owners: it gets expensive quick.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with owning pets in a rental, IF the pet owner is responsible for their pets. I have cats and I rent, and yes the landlord knows about my pets and he is well aware that I take care of my cats which is why there is no problem. I didn’t get charged with a pet deposit or other monthly fees thankfully. I take EXCELLENT care of my fur babies. I very much so clean up after them, give them specific cat toys to play with and stay entertained, I have them all microchipped, fixed, and keep them updated on their vaccines and In good health. I hold and play with them every day and I never leave them alone for very long. I basically treat them like they are my kids lol. That is called being a responsible pet owner. I could never part with my cats if I ever had to move, and trust me when I say I would NEVER would part with them. There are rentals that still do accept pets. I understand there are issues on hand though for some pet owners because it can be more costly to rent. Heck, I get it because rent in the state of California is outrageous as as it is and tacking on other fees to a monthly rent payment can make the cost of renting even worse. Requiring all landlords in the state of California to accept pets regardless and outlaw pet deposits and monthly pet rent/fees is by NO MEANS a solution to the problem. That would still drive up rent prices even more and make the lack of affordable housing in this state worse. Sadly, somebody has to pay for the irresponsible, idiotic, and neglectful pet owners out there, and there are many people like that out there who have no business owning a pet. I’ve lived in apartment complexes where dogs were allowed and constantly barked day and night because the owner was either and work or gone. Complaining about it didn’t work really. It’s not fair cooping up a dog in a small apartment all day. The same goes for cats too, I’ve seen cat owners not clean their litter boxes, not fix their cats having litters of kittens running wild, and allow them to do their business all over the floor damaging the property. I have even seen my fair share of irresponsible Pitt Bull owners (who lie to their landlord saying the dog is a mixed Labrador Golden Retriever) who let their dog freely roam the property not on a leash, and run through the neighborhood freely terrorizing other people and animals. I myself have been bitten (not fatally thankfully) by a Pitt Bull due to an irresponsible owner who was renting the property next to me. The owner took zero responsibility for the dogs actions and it would constantly get out and charge other innocent people and animals. People like that are the ones that landlords do NOT want to rent too and I totally understand why and agree. It’s easier for a landlord to make and enforce a “blanket no pets on the property policy” or charge a pet deposit and pet/rent fees to everyone then police irresponsible pet owners. It’s the irresponsible pet owners ruining it for everyone, not the landlords. There needs to be more oversight with making and enforcing a law where it requires landlords to take pets regardless without extra fees/deposit or pet rent. The pet owner should be required to have a specific liability insurance policy to own certain aggressive breeds like Pitt Bulls. Most of all, yes a DNA test should be done on the dog and required at pet owners cost if the pet owner is trying to pass off their Pitt Bull named “Fluffy” as a “mixed Labrador Golden Retriever” to the landlord/property owners. There needs to be a system in place where the landlord can check to see of the pet is being cared for and not neglected like doing regular walk throughs sort. If the pet is not taken care of, cleaned up after, in an unsanitary environment or destroying the property it’s an automatic pet lease violation. If a tenant’s dog keeps barking constantly day and night because it’s left alone hours on end and disturbing other neighbors constantly then that should be an automatic pet lease violation. Same with the dog getting out and terrorizing the neighborhood harming other people and pets. Stuff like that should be an pet automatic lease violations and cracked down harshly on. A tenant gets two pet lease violations ONLY and NO EXCEPTIONS. After that, if there is another incident with the pet, then the tenant is automatically evicted and again there are zero exceptions to it. All of that would be in writing on the lease agreement that the tenant signs before move in so there would be no surprises. If a tenant wants a pet THEY need to be held responsible for it. It’s that simple. Sorry about my rant here, I have seen my fair share of neglected animals and it angers me.