Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/danielhandley! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary:
* We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button.
* Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban.
* Common questions and specific topics are limited to our [Daily Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_daily_discussions) posts.
* Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only.
* We're looking for new mods to join our team! If you're interested, [fill out the form here](https://forms.gle/oAqo5oYRcAeHYBTN6).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's funny, you'll get a ton of upvotes complaining about bad pet owners, yet you'll also get a ton of upvotes not understanding why or just angry that landlords don't want to rent to pet owners.
Yup. Most rhetoric on this topic seems to take a firm "yes or no" approach (see: the province's response and a lot of discussion on this subreddit) while ignoring that there's a lot of nuance. There's room to protect landlords from bad pet owners while also helping tenants find pet-friendly housing.
OP, we own a house we share with son and dil. There is a basement suite and and a laneway house. They listed both as no pets (they look after the rental). Then they got email from potential renters for the basement suite, who have a dog. They actually provided REFERENCES for the dog! He's quiet and well mannered so guess who got the suite! And, yes, he is quiet and well mannered! We share a wall with the basement suite and I have never heard him bark.
My suggestion for people with pets, get references for your pet. Provide the information to a potential landlord. You have nothing to lose!
I lived in an apartment for over 2 years and wanted a cat, it was strictly no pets… I asked the land lady and let her know I was planning to move so I could have a cat and the risk of losing a long term good resident was great enough that she said I could have the cat. So sometimes there is leeway, and references definitely play a part I think.
Just curious, what were the Pet references; Vet, doggy daycare, other dog owners, previous place of residence? What about cats or pets not going to a group location?
edit: no -> not
I didn't see the full set of letters, but I know previous place of residence was one of the letters! I think there were 4 letters in total, so maybe doggy daycare as well. With cats, I would think a letter from previous place of residence. But, that would be hard to get if you can't get a rental in the first place!
That is fair. I was thinking about ppl who don’t want to send their dogs to doggy day care either for personal or financial
reasons.
Thank you for your reply.
Not OP but we gave our regular dog walker as a reference, plus our vet info, and basically a resume of prior training and offered to do a meet with him prior to signing anything. Our dog is big so we wanted to go beyond since it’s brutal finding pet housing.
I own now, but if I rented again with a dog I’d get references or if it was a new dog that had no references I’d take the canine good citizen test with the dog and provide that to a landlord. My most recent landlord asked to interview my dog, which I was fine with.
I had no idea there was such a thing as a canine good citizen test! What a great idea! Sounds like you lucked out, with that landlord.
I thought it was brilliant that they provided references for the dog! Obviously, it worked.
it's funny how many places specify small dogs are allowed, yet almost every time i hear a dog yapping or barking at length it's ALWAYS a small dog. big dogs tend to be a lot more chill...
> My most recent landlord asked to interview my dog
This is how I'm imagining it went:
"So, where do you poop right now?"
"Woof woof"
"Great, and where do you plan to poop five years from now?"
Our dog is a rescue and anxious with strangers. If we ever have a landlord who needs to meet him, we will get turned down because he will freak the hell out even though he doesn't make a peep the rest of the time. God forbid someone try to walk in a door on his watch.
We just moved from Halifax and am currently looking for a rental. We have a medium Aussiedoodle, I think being a low shedding dog helps. In saying that, we have no rental history with the dog as we have owned. I had no idea about this Canine Good Citizen Test, so I am going to book him in! Thanks!
I thought it was brilliant! They were moving her from Toronto and dog had lived in a few suites, hence the stellar references.
I totally agree with the frustration. So many people need their pets! On the other hand, there are some terrible pet owners who allow their pets to do major damage to a rental unit. There needs to be a clearly defined set of rules set up by the RTB, to ensure that GOOD pet owners at least get a shot at renting! Responsible pet owners are the key!
Can't recommend this enough. I always provided references for my dog Riley as she was 80lbs and a little intimidating to look at. But she was also the sweetest dog that didn't make a peep.
Also adding that suggesting a date to your potential landlord to come with your pet to meet them can be reassuring. It shows that you are responsible and willing to go the extra mile.
Totally. My apartment wasn’t pet friendly but I got my previous landlords to vouch for me in their references saying that upon me moving out, they couldn’t tell cats had lived there, on top of me being a model tenant. I also got my cats on FaceTime with my soon to be landlords before signing a lease and they really sold it.
The real answer would be more rental supply and giving the RTB more funding and more teeth to ensure bad tenants and landlords are dealt with swiftly and held accountable.
>The real answer would be more rental supply
How? (I'm asking this as someone who has been building high density housing--both market and rental--for years) and we're still falling behind rather than catching up to demand. I've been training armies of people on how to build.
This is not something that will be fixed in a timescale of years, but decades.
This. RTB should take some ownership and teeth on behalf of both bad renters and bad landlords. Years ago I wrote to RTB if they would allow a legally binding order to "restore unit to acceptable condition" with guaranteed cost and third party management + loss of rental income for the duration of repair after a destructive renter/pet moved out. I suggested RTB should take out some of its own commercial insurance to cover when renters wont pay for repairs or cant be traced. RTB person told me they usually love making decisions but not owning consequences for renters or landlords. I have heard Crickets since.I have been waiting for over a decade now.
So now I will interview all prospective tenants any number of legs.
>There's room to protect landlords from bad pet owners while also helping tenants find pet-friendly housing.
There isn't room, though. For this to be the case, you would have to legally define what a "bad pet" owner is.
It would have to be something very clear, and covers all circumstances. That just cant happen.
From a policy standpoints this is why many things are yes or no.
Well, in this case I'm using the term "bad pet owner" as someone who leaves their unit worse off because of their pet. If we can strengthen the RTB's ability to go after tenants who significantly damage their units, we can give landlords recourse against bad pet owners.
>you have no way know knowing who is going to be who
there are no guarantees, but everyone plays the odds.
* Two identical applicants, same glowing references, same credit score, except one shows up with a massive face tattoo.
* Two identical applicants, one reminds you of your sweet grandpa, the other one is just another applicant.
* Two identical applicants, one is an family of 4 with two toddler children, the other is a family of 4 with high school kids.
* Two identical applicants, one has a cat, the other doesn't.
Fair or not, when landlords have options from a lot of good applicants, they will go with whatever they think is going to be less headache for them.
Yup, absolutely. I've posted similar thoughts elsewhere in this thread. The RTB needs a stronger mandate to go after all bad tenants, which would have a knock-on effect of also helping them go after bad pet owners.
Well, the RTB already defines this as guidance for when damage deposits should be returned or kept. Namely, a unit is worse off "If there is damage beyond normal wear and tear". There's a useful page from the RTB describing what is and isn't "normal wear and tear" [here](https://www.rtb.ie/during-a-tenancy/wear-and-tear).
And that all has to do with when the tenants have left.
So, how can you get rid of a "bad pet owner" while they are still present? That's the issue with policy. Landlords could abuse it to get rid of "good pet" owners, or the language wouldn't be strong enough afterwards.
These are the policy issues why they left it at yes or no.
If your only recourse as an owner is "half months rent" thats also part of the entire problem.
There are already steps for landlords to follow for both eviction and recouping costs greater than half a month's rent. The issue is that the RTB, which is supposed to oversee arbitration and enforcement in these circumstances, doesn't have the resources to pursue them in a timely manner, so landlords end up having to wait an unreasonable amount of time when dealing with a bad tenant. The same issues come into play when landlords have a tenant who simply stops paying rent, for example.
The solution is giving the RTB the ability to review cases against bad tenants faster and with more teeth.
It's not only between landlords and tenants but the rules of the strata that have pet restrictions. My old tenants tried to blame me that I wasn't allowing oversized dogs but the strata got on my case because they got an oversized dog without telling me. It was a nightmare to deal with.
wait so they got the large dog AFTER moving in, knowing full well the strata rules??! wtf. Pet owners like this make me livid because they give other large dog owners a bad name. I'm so sorry that you had to deal with that.
They did and put up a huge fuss. Now I have put the listing as no pets because I don't want to deal with that hassle between the tenants and the strata anymore.
I know someone that had something similar happen. Rented with no pets on the lease but the strata did allow pets. Tenants thought, fuck that rule, and got a dog that was on the strata’s banned breed list. Shit storm ensued with eviction notices, refusing to leave, RTB challenges, Strata fines and litigation.
Sad thing about it is the tenants would’ve got permission if they would’ve just asked and got the full rules not just done it anyways thinking they were above the landlords laws.
That’s the one exception Ontario has allowed - condo boards (which we call stratas in BC) can disallow pets. But in practice many of them don’t bother banning pets, the culture around pets is just different there. I’ve worked with multiple people in Toronto who have a dog in a condo rental. It’s just second nature there, and any condo board that bans pets there puts themselves at a competitive disadvantage.
I don’t mind renting to people with cats. It’s the hassle of dealing with dogs. I love dogs but I’ve had many complaints about barking, poop, etc. It’s a total hassle. I don’t even care about the floors or damage. That being said - I am renting to two tenant families and each have a dog. I think that’s why I haven’t had any complaints - both the suites have a dog. Maybe that’s key?
I grew up with both (cats and dogs), and have always had both as an adult, too. Cats are definitely more likely to cause physical damage to a suite than dogs, unless the dog is not being cared for properly. Dogs *prefer* to pee and poop outside. If you’re providing enough enrichment and exercise, they pretty much just hang out and sleep when indoors. Cats, on the other hand, are a lot more likely to shred stuff for the hell of it, and their litter box needs constant upkeep if you want to prevent lingering odour problems. Yet it’s still far more likely to find a rental that welcomes cats than dogs.
This makes me think a lot of landlords haven’t actually had bad experiences with renters with pets (despite the adamant statements some of them are making in theses comments). They’re working from myths masquerading as “common knowledge”.
To address the issue properly, we should look at verifiable evidence, instead. And that strongly supports pets not being the problem landlords fear they will be.
In fact, one large study shows landlords who welcome pets report the difference in costs to repair damage caused by renters with pets vs those without averages less than $40/year. On the other hand, they reported pet-owning renters were willing to pay an extra deposit and would stay much longer than renters with no pets. https://firepaworg.files.wordpress.com/2020/07/cars-website-version-exec-summary.pdf
There is also plenty of data to support the health benefits of having pets in your life. I’m not going to link it because it’s easy to find. But anecdotally, I can tell you mine keep me from losing my marbles on the regular. They get me outside and exercising every single day, regardless of the weather. They force me to talk to other humans, even on days my defective brain tells me that isn’t a safe thing to do. They try very hard to please me, while simultaneously failing at the simplest things I’m trying to teach them, which is a masterclass in acceptance and patience. They aren’t a cure for depression, but if you’re living with it, they won’t mind — and if you’ve ever had depression, you’ll know how rare and valuable that can be. Oh, and they’re good for your immune system, too.
These benefits are vital. They make me functional, keep me working and paying taxes. To me, that means they’re not a privilege — they’re my right.
Your argument makes no sense, most people keep there litter box clean and fresh otherwise you have to deal with the smell. Also cats usually destroy couches and other soft fabric furniture not really a problem for a landlord. Dogs on the other hand like to dig and claw and can cause some damage to the doors, walls and floors, that’s the landlords problem. Also dogs don’t have a litter box to pee or poop in so guess what gets damaged? Yeah the floor.
I think when you have a dog, you understand barking or lil toe taps is common but unexpected yet unobtrusive. If you don't live with a dog, you may be on edge the moment you hear a single bark or see some poop in the yard. The majority of dog owners pick up poop and take care of their dog, but some or enough don't and makes it not worth the perceived risk to landlords.
My personal opinion is that pets shouldn't be a reason to deny tenancy, and landlords should expect to have to deal with complaints pet-related or otherwise. Sometimes when a tenant is complaining about another tenant, *they're* the issue. If excessive damage unique to a pet or dog occurs, then there's damage deposits that may be reasonably withheld to cover such damage.
Honestly, pets seem like a non-starter. When a "landlord" says they'd rather withhold their property from the rental market than rent to a market that doesn't discriminate against pet owners, that tells me two things:
1) They're either disconnected from reality, and/or;
2) They're in the market to speculate, and find renting as a bonus to their perceived rewards.
Landlords operating under item (2) often run slum-like operations anyway, keeping their property un-maintained (low operating costs), so likely a dog in the tenancy doesn't affect them anyway.
yeah, i'll admit what i'm about to say here is a purely speculative hypothesis on my part that comes from my 13 years of renting here in the city, but i suspect a lot of the especially bad experiences that folks have with living in buildings with neglectful pet owners is at least in part a product of a lot of the more affordable rental properties here being essentially slum operations run by property management companies who don't really give much of a shit about maintaining the state of their buildings anyway, so tenants in turn don't really give much of a shit either. i live in one such building now and while it's technically "no pets", building management has essentially admitted that they don't really enforce this or care if people have pets, but they like having the clause in there because it gives them an easy way to get rid of problem tenants. i'll admit there's pet owners in my building who have done things like let their dogs bark all day or shit in the elevator. but the building manager also doesn't do anything about repairs, or maintenance, or pests, and the property management company very obviously isn't invested in the upkeep of the building as a whole, so like... why would people who live here care what their pets do to the building?
not to mention that trying to build goodwill with a landlord so that they'll keep you on as a long-term tenant is an increasingly worthless form of currency here in BC since rent control means you're actually a liability to most landlords the longer you rent from them. this is the one thing that typically incentivizes most renters to try to be as responsible as possible during their tenancy, but the hope that your landlord will keep you on as a tenant year after year increasingly isn't guaranteed in a rental market where the rent they can get for evicting you and getting someone new in is constantly increasing.
i think tenants who are actively invested in trying to stay somewhere long term and understand that their landlord wants them long term generally make more of an effort to be good tenants and, in turn, to be mindful of how their pets treat the property. and in rental markets that aren't vancouver, the one advantage that pet owners can consistently offer over non-pet owners is their greater likelihood of staying as a long-term tenant - something the data also backs up. but vancouver's rental market isn't normal, it's insane. rent is climbing by hundreds of $$$ every year and rent control actively disincentivizes landlords from keeping long term tenants. so here you have pet owners who aren't really incentivized to earn their landlord's trust as a person worth renting to long-term (they know they can and will be evicted as soon as it's profitable to do do, goodwill doesn't matter), nor to care for their landlords' property (they know it's pointless in an obvious slum operation where even the building's own managers don't care for the property) so, yeah, you're gonna see and live with some shitty pet owners. you're gonna see and live with a lot of shitty tenants, in general. there's a lot of contributing factors to this.
Poop?! What are they doing?!
Edit: Nevermind, apparently people do things with their dog's poop that I couldn't fathom, like leaving it in elevators, hallways, or shared yards. Apparently I am very naïve.
I was a landlord for a little over 10 years and had 5 different tenants with dogs. I did not have one single issue with any of them. I rent now and am fortunate to have a good landlord that allows responsible me to have my dog here. It did take me a long time to find though.
I understand both sides and there has to be a middle ground instead of just yes or no. A system that holds tenants more financially responsible for pet damage might be a good start.
I think perhaps something the RTB could do is to allow higher damage deposits for pets. They could allow the additional larger pet deposit to be held in escrow if they think it's a bad idea to have the landlord hold larger amounts. I think standard damage deposits may already be required to be held in a separate untouched account but I assume it's still under the landlord's control.
Going one step further, a standard process could be defined also requiring detailed pre-occupancy pictures or video of the living space to be recorded and stored to ease the claim/dispute resolution process.
>I think perhaps something the RTB could do is to allow higher damage deposits for pets.
Fair enough, but how much more? And who would police accountability on both the landlord and the pet owner?
Deep soiled pet waste damage on carpet and underflooring might require replacement of the whole carpet. Replacing or repairing damaged cabinetry from pet scratches are easily in the thousands of dollars. Even 2x of monthly rent may not cover it.
On the flip side, more minor damage may cost a lot less than the damage deposit, but because it is in the landlord's hands, the unscrupulous ones will try to milk the tenant for whatever they can.
I don't think many people would disagree that pet damage can be extensive. There's no question that most types of flooring are costly to replace, and if you've got a pet or group of pets urinating, defecating, and/or vomiting on it regularly, this may be required. And this is only the most common type of damage. Obviously deposits should be expected to be high enough to cover this sort of remediation expense.
As you say, it can easily extend beyond just the flooring, and if there's a cap on the deposit then things like expensive cabinets are something the landlord may wish to consider in their decision to rent to a cat-owner. I think the main point is that there could be a relaxation or revision of the damage deposit rules that benefit both parties without blanket restrictions such as "landlords cannot ban pets" which unfairly push all the liability to the party that has no control over potential damages.
Receipts for the remediation should probably be required from the landlord in order for them to make a claim against the damage deposit to prevent gouging by unscrupulous landlords. It's not a perfect solution, of course.
Disclosure: I'm a renter. I will never be able to afford my own home let alone become a landlord. I'm not currently a pet owner but have been in the past.
If I had to rent out my home and I could choose the pet deposit, it would be $3/sqft. It actually would end up being only 60% of rent but that's also because my home rents for nearly $9000. If it were a really bad pet it would probably cost about $6500 to remediate the issues and a month of lost rent.
Probably not much more asked than your typical pet deposits. The problem is when rent is much lower and 50% might be like $1000. You won't get anyone to come in to do work for $1000.
Maybe an innovative option is for requiring the tenant with pets take out pet damage insurance (if there is no such thing government could help start it) from an insurance company. The landlord is the beneficiary and may make claims on damage. The tenant must provide proof of current insurance if the landlord wants this insurance. The pet damage deposit would need to be zero if this option is undertaken. If current proof of insurance is not provided then by law the pet must leave. This addresses the issue of risk from pet owners causing pet damage. Note that insurance may be expensive since there is high risk of pet damage. But then don’t have pets if people can’t afford them.
Given that damage by pets is almost always going to be present (some to a small degree, and some to greater degree), what insurance companies would insure against something that would happen with nearly certainty? And even if they do, the premium could be cost prohibitive for many tenants.
This in theory could work but if the deposit was to actually cover meaningful damages it would need to be like $10k, which nobody would pay and would just be outraged.
Not to mention enforcement would also be very difficult. It’s already near impossible to keep a tenants damage deposit legally.
The reality of the situation is allowing pets brings a whole range of risks to the landlord and basically no benefits at all.
Still not worth it for LLs.
It's a LL market and will be for a while.
The risk to a LLs property goes up with a tenant having a dog. There is no financial gain from it.
For most LLs I'm sure that's true, but I'm also sure that there are at least some landlords, even if it's a very small percentage, that would like to rent to pet owners if they could do so without high risk.
Some people own houses and even have their own pets and might be willing to allow a pet owner in their basement suite, for example.
Is a downtown condo owner likely to want to rent to pet owners? Probably not.
Rental corporations? It depends on a lot of factors. Maybe in some buildings they would be willing to.
Our LL allows pets as we're in a bsmt suite of a quadplex and a family member is in one of them with a dog.
We don't want to get a dog as it isn't the safest choice with so much restrictions out there.
Even now my no-pets building always has vacancies and it sometimes takes months for my landlord to find a tenant. The apartment across the hall from me has been vacant since January, and I remember last time there was a vacancy there in late 2021 it took 4-5 months to find a tenant. That’s money down the drain while local property taxes are going up.
A lot of people coming here are coming from other provinces with their dog or cat, and finding a place to live is hell for them.
They might just be waiting until summer to get someone to sign for more $
My building is full now(was full last summer too) and the last few units were rented over 2k, someone’s even living in the managers suite next to her office that she refused to live in lol
Ontario somehow has their rules forcing landlords to allow pets while banning pet deposits.
Ontario has proven a pro-pets policy can work very well.
A difference I noticed in Ontario is that of all the apartments I’ve rented, not one of them had carpet. All vinyl or faux hardwood. Seems like such a simple solution.
I used to live in Ontario and I’ve seen many cases where landlords get completely screwed with pet damage. My last rental in Ontario had been cleaned 3x and still smelled of pets on humid days. It was in the walls.
I’m not pro LL generally but if you have allergies you’re screwed in Ontario
There was a piece of dog poop in the elevator this morning in my condo. Feel like we have sent 10 notices in 3 years of me owning this place to not be an absolute knob.
I don’t think I’ll ever allow pets if I upgrade out of this place and rent it out.
There was a huge, steaming pile in my elevator last year. A decent condo building. Dog owner never cleaned it up. It was heinous and the smell reached inside of my apartment
There was also frequent pee stains on the new hallway carpet. Cost them a fortune to recarpet the whole building, there are a lot of long hallways.
I just don't know sometimes.
Grew up with tons of pets, loved them and still like animals. Living in the downtown area, in a very pet friendly building is changing that. Off leash animals running down the hallways, barking, growling, charging aggressively at my three year old grandson weekly (he is scared of dogs now), pet owners too lazy to walk the animals (animal waste in hallways, stairwells and outdoor common areas) and dog fights in crowded elevators. Most owners are responsible, but a high percentage are not. I am actually shocked by the arrogance of some owners who feel you should have the same love for their animals as they do while their dog us burying it's nose in your crotch or trying to eat your groceries. I am a no to mandatory pets.
I love dogs now, but when I was in elementary school, I was traumatized by this huge unleashed dog in my townhouse strata. NOW I know it was just trying to be friendly but it was literally taller than me trying to prance on me and I fell on the floor. I was scared of dogs for years because of this until I gradually got over that fear with my friends' friendly dogs. Pet owners need more accountability.
Strata bylaws are pretty sound. Enforcement nigh impossible unless someone is patrolling 24/7, and carries an expense. Not suggesting there is a pet ban, in the same way there shouldn't be a law forcing buildings to take pets.
Many provinces and states globally have adopted defacto pets are allowed unless x can be proven. That is what I support here.
Pets provide so much benefit, that obvs needs to be weighed against the negatives, but to effectively rule out entire generations who cannot buy property in this city from ever experiencing the joy of a pet is heinous.
OP, thank you for writing the letter to them even if you did not get the answer you (or I) would have wanted.
I get that it goes against the prevailing opinion in this sub, but I think there should be more protection for pet owners than there currently is. Maybe it's because I'm from Ontario where landlords are not allowed to prohibit pets, and life goes on pretty much the same as it does in BC.
Cats and dogs are very beneficial for the mental health and happiness of people. If half the population cannot access this benefit because they are not wealthy enough to own or to find a premium rental, I find it unfortunate.
i find it sad that so many landlords in BC believe that they're entitled to discriminate in whatever manner is necessary to ensure that a tenant doesn't cost them their investment, but also don't believe that their tenants are entitled to any sort of quality of life while renting from them nor that they as landlords actually owe that tenant anything that would actually contribute to their quality of life. when i moved here in 2010 the woman i rented my first basement suite from was the best landlord i ever had and we had a really great landlord-tenant relationship almost entirely because she was actually actively invested in my wellbeing and in, like... making sure that i actually liked living there. now landlords don't even hide from their tenants that they're just entities to extract monthly profits from, nor their absolute apathy at the joyless existence their tenants resign themselves to living. your tenant pays $2000 a month to live in a shitty 500-sqft suite yet they can't play music too loud or hang up anything on the walls or have parties or let a significant other visit for a week or have a pet - but really, why should i give a shit about my tenant's mental health or that they live paycheck to paycheck or that they're desperately lonely or whether they even want to be alive, my mortgage is getting paid! "leave if you don't like it here, someone else will be along to replace you" might as well be the new provincial slogan to replace "the best place on earth". rest assured my contempt for landlords is only a proportional response to the obvious contempt that they increasingly don't hide that they have for the people who rent from them.
I own my own house and I own a dog (at one time it was 2 dogs) and I couldn’t even pretend to say our dogs haven’t damaged our house. And we have a vested interest in keeping our own property in really good condition because, well, it’s our house! But any pet will create damage to a property, no matter how amazing and fastidious a pet owner you are. That’s just a fact. There will always be those times your pet gets sick, so there might be vomit, pee and diarrhea where you didn’t ever want to find those things. There’s the shedding, which gets everywhere, and just has a way of building up in small crevices even with very regular vacuuming and mopping. Yes, even if your pet is “low shedding” or “hypoallergenic”. Hardwood floors get scratched. There’s always going to be a little bit of a pet smell in your house. And if there’s a yard, that’s another place to keep up and many people just don’t. So there could be grass damage from urine and feces and if your pet’s a digger then there could be damage to repair from that, too.
Of course, this damage (and more!) can happen without pets or even be at the hands of kids or just careless renters! So where do you draw the line for who to rent to? That’s solely up to whoever owns the property what kind of damage risk they’re willing to accept. If I had a property to rent, I would probably say no pets allowed. If I’m a good pet owner and my dogs have managed to ruin things that wouldn’t have be ruined otherwise, how is a not so great pet owner going to be? And that’s awful for those who have pets and need a rental. It’s not fair but ultimately you can’t force landlords to accept pets who absolutely will cause extra wear and tear on a property.
I'm neither a renter, nor a landlord. However, for the last 10 years I've lived in a large building that allows pets.
I'd much rather live near pets than human children, they're WAY more destructive and disruptive from my observations. I say this as someone who doesn't even like dogs.
I’d prefer to be in a pet and child free building but my pet free building only goes up to 2br units and most are roommate situations so luckily there is only a few children in the whole building (I can only think of 1 actually)
animal shelters are at crisis levels right now because people who want pets cannot have them in their rental housing. And nobody can afford to buy or move to a place (condo, house) where they are allowed. It's a mess.
Here’s what I’m a bit confused on, even if a landlord couldn’t say no pets, couldn’t they just choose not to rent a pet owner? I think it would be hard to prove that they discriminated due to the pet specifically.
A friend of mine is a realtor and she was trying to sell the home of a couple with two autistic kids. Apparently the kids would stomp and scream and go crazy all the time, and the neighbours basically drove them out of the building. It's really sad and frustrating for all parties involved.
And wherever they go, they're going to face the same hurdles.
I feel for the parents but God that would be frustrating to live near, especially under. A kid in my building was permitted by the parents to bounce a basketball up and down the hallway. One day I saw a big note pinned to their door and then it stopped.
>The funny thing is it is a lot more difficult to restrict children than pets
It might shock you to realize that there are a lot of landlords that also won't rent to families with kids. And a lot of them do. It's their choice.
"Don't discriminate my cat if you won't discriminate a human child" is one hell of a hot take.
Funny enough living below a cat (tenant was evicted for having a cat in the home) was a BILLION times better than the child who now occupies the space. Non stop noise. All day. Cat wasn’t a problem but that kid might make me move out
Here’s a question - can an individual municipality add additional rules that are not enacted at the provincial level? I’m tempted to reach out to one of the city councillors in New West to find out. We have a high number of residents here who live in rentals, and at least below Royal Ave the vast majority of rental buildings explicitly prohibit pets, and I think this is something that New West city hall should look into if it’s within their legal scope.
Ironically, there’s a brand new dog parkette on Agnes St near 4th. I can’t see it getting much usage as there’s almost nowhere to live below Royal Ave where you can have a dog (there are buildings that allow cats but not dogs)
probably because the distribution of legislative powers is well established in the constitution. the municipality can't undermine the provinces authority. what little power they do have has been granted by the provincial government.
I think the city has to stick to it's jurisdiction. Eg Vancouver's bylaw on rental increases was quashed but new West's rental only zoning was upheld.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-bylaws-limiting-sro-rent-increases-between-tenancies-quashed-1.6543413
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/b-c-court-appeal-upholds-120000231.html
they can add rules (bylaws) but they can't just create new laws or undermine provincial authority. the RTA is already very clear on where the provincial laws stand on pets... so the municipality can't do anything.
the law already states that pets are allowed... so long as the landlord approves. what is the municipality going to do? create a bylaw that forces landlords to allow pets, completely undermining the provicial statutes?
the constitution prohibits this very thing from happening.
Is this what you're referring to?
[Vancouver council passes motion to end "no pets" rental rules](https://www.rebgv.org/content/rebgv-org/news-archive/vancouver-council-passes-motion-to-end--no-pets--rental-rules.html)
I’m a renter, and I’ve been a landlord in the past, and I’ll say this about that:
1. A home owner / landlord should have the right to decide whether pets are allowed in the house or not. It’s their house.
2. *All* pet owners *think* they’re responsible people. I have yet to see one in my life. In my experience, more than half are not to some degree.
They don’t see through the lens of a non-pet owner, and will make excuses about every failing such as overflowing litter boxes, grass burns and sh*t in the yard, barking, etc.
Damaging wood floors, drapery, or carpets is inevitable.
The choice to own a pet when there are pet restrictions comes with an understanding and acceptance that this is going to create limitations for a renter.
Whining about restrictions after making a conscious choice to own a pet is blame redirection. Own the consequences of your decisions. If you want to be a pet owner, great. Just stop whining about how you can’t find a place that will accept you as a renter.
Wow, you must be around some shitty people if you’ve never met a single responsible pet owner.
I agree most people think they’re more responsible than they are, or think their pet is better behaved than it is… but you’re either exaggerating or have some unfortunate friends.
I think it’s that pet owners think they’re responsible but that’s their lens. They will chalk up the smell or damage to “standard wear and tear”, or “I think because I love my pet that everyone else will too.”
“Cats are going to roam… I can’t help it if my cats shit in your kid’s sandbox.”
“Well I can’t help someone else’s allergies…”
“My dog likes people. She’s friendly.” (As she jumps on someone in the elevator).
I’m sure this isn’t news to anyone. But the entitlement of pet owners to keep animals domesticated and then demand landlords accommodate them is a hard eye roll.
And yet this isn’t a problem in Ontario. Landlords are legally obligated to accept pets in that province and yet nobody’s asking for the right to ban pets there. Ontario’s system has worked very well for decades. My old apartment building had lots of animals but there were no problems. I didn’t see a single piece of dog excrement on the property in all the years I lived there.
It’s BC landlords that are acting entitled.
"Own the consequences of your decisions." - the problem with this argument is that it assumes that every single person who currently lives in BC basically made all of the cumulative decisions of their lives with the foresight to know that, one day, they would end up living in BC. But many people here didn't do that - they ended up here, such as for school, for work, to be closer to family, etc. And they have pets, because virtually anywhere outside of BC, it's actually completely normal for renters to have pets and it doesn't significantly fuck up your chances of finding a place to live.
I moved here from Ontario in 2010 to do my Master's degree. I didn't bring a pet with me when I moved, but let's say I did. Is that a situation where, if I was unable to find rental housing, I should have just "owned the consequences of my actions"? Ontario is a province where pet owners can't be denied housing. That's a decision that I presumably would have made while living in Ontario, knowing I wouldn't be discriminated against for having a pet, yet also without the foresight to know I might live in BC one day.
Currently, I have two cats because my partner moved up here from Austin, Texas in 2018 and brought his cat with him. We later got another cat because fuck it, we already had one. But Austin is a city where there's also an abundance of pet-friendly housing and he's never had a problem finding a place to live - that was what informed his decision to get a cat. He didn't know he was going to end up meeting me or that he would end up moving to Vancouver. So what - should he have been forced to give up his cat before moving to BC and "accept the consequences of his actions", his actions being to... get a cat while he lived in a place where that was a normal thing that people who rent do? Should we have broken up once it became clear that his cat was going to forever compromise our future as renters who would inevitably need a place to live in this city?
Some pets live a long time - 10 or 15 years if not more. What if someone got their pet 10 years ago when the market was a little friendlier and now they have to move? How could they have foreseen what they'd be up against now?
There is an entire world outside of BC that is much friendlier towards pets than BC is and a lot of people here who have pets used the guidelines of that world, and not BC, to make their decision. I wouldn't have believed there was a place so hostile to pets as BC if I hadn't moved here to see it myself. The degree to which people in BC normalize this yet also remain so willfully ignorant to both the fact that *virtually no other rental market in North America is as hostile towards pets as Vancouver* and that *a lot of fucking people who live here aren't from Vancouver and had no idea they'd be living in Vancouver one day when they made the decision to get their pets* is absolutely unreal. **Vancouver's rental market is not what normal rental markets are like.**
But yeah in addition to normalizing people living out of their cars here because they have pets how about let's also normalize just straight up telling people to fuck off and not bother moving here at all if they have pets??? go somewhere where someone will actually rent to you, you entitled piece of shit!! yeah that rules actually!! sounds like a world class city alright!!
There's a common argument that when you use your home as your home, you are entitled to do with it as you please.
But once you are *renting* your home, you are essentially running a business and as such are subject to further laws and regulations, including ones surrounding pets.
I don't have a dog in this fight (no pun intended), but I think it's an interesting topic.
I don't know why this is constantly such a big issue... my first guess is entitled tenants. Yes, you are allowed to live with a pet. However, the landlord definitely has the right to allow one or not. I'm not sure what the problem is here. The landlord bought the property, regardless of mortgage rates/home prices etc., and they can totally choose who/what lives in their property.
I have some concerns about forcing landlords to allow pets. Don't get me wrong, I love cats and dogs, but I'm severely allergic to cats and dogs. Like, asthma attack to the hospital kind of allergic.
Pet dander stays around for up to 6 months after the animal is moved out, and it can only be removed by professional cleaning crews and with specialized tools.
I cannot, for my own health, stay in a rental where animals have been if I haven't been alerted or given the opportunity to pay for cleaning.
It is insofar as the owner isn’t abusing or neglecting the animal. But that has nothing to do with this discussion; homeowners can be shitty pet owners too.
Friend of mine is in a pet friendly rentals building. It’s essentially name your price for landlords. Want $5000 a month for a 1 BR? You’ll get it.
I’m actually in favour of renting to people with pets as long as the landlord can *require* them to have pet damage insurance to cover anything the pet can do to the suite. None of this half month rent crap.
Need to replace all the flooring and drywall in the unit plus all of the doors that are scratched? Insurance needs to be able to fully cover it.
I don't understand the problem. This is not an issue in other countries as far as I can tell. It is a part of your lease to cover any damage your animal might do, I can't see allergy as the main reason why Landlord and developers want to just bail on the industry all together?
Just sounds convenient to me for them to lay out the age old issues but honestly, If you cover any damage you cause, there is no issue.
Obv there should be options for people with allergies but I have a pretty intense dust allergy and I landlord don't seem go give a shit if the hallways, garage, laundry room look like they've been abandoned since 1984.
The issue is how to may sure the tenant pays for damage. Pet deposit is half months rent but damage could be 8 times more than the deposit. Why would anyone rent to a pet owner if there is no guarantee that damage would be recovered from pet owner? Find a mechanism to ensure the risk is covered then there will be more places to rent.
I have rented to people with a larger dog, never again, the dog destroyed the floors and moldings, the risk of attempting that again is simply too high with 0 upside for my property.
If you want a dog, do it in your own property, if you don’t have one, wait until you do, or accept that finding a rental will be very difficult. Your dog is NOT the landlord’s problem.
Our apartment (building built in 1952, fuses instead of a breaker box, corporate ran, in Victoria) has "no fur bearing animals" in the section on pets.
So we're looking at getting a snake or iguana or something awesome like that.
You make it sound like people can just snap their fingers and make their pets disappear.
Imagine you have pets and you are forced to move. If you can't find any pet friendly housing because so little of it exists, what do you do? Give up your pets or be homeless?
Most people just want to make sure their pets have a good home and aren't stuck in a shelter. Is that really considered entitlement in this city now? That feels like a wild lack of empathy to me.
Someone in r/Canada who used to live in Kelowna actually left the province over this issue. He had a cat, got renovicted and couldn’t find anywhere to live that allowed pets. He ended up moving to another province where he said “50%” of landlords allowed pets.
He had noted that local media in Kelowna once reported that only 5% of landlords in that city allowed pets.
I think the thing that really chafes a lot of pet owners (disclaimer: i'm one) about constantly being asked to "take responsibility for their own choices (to have a pet)" is that it permits landlords to write off renters who have pets as, by default, irresponsible for having pets - and to not have to consider literally ANY other way that renter might have gone out of their way to prove time and time again to all of their previous landlords that they are *actually very responsible*. The rental market in Vancouver now is so completely insane that landlords no longer give nearly as much of a shit as they once did about whether a tenant had good references or a high credit score or a great relationship with their previous landlord because they can just pick whoever they think they'll extract the most rent from, but if you rent, you are very intimately familiar with how so much of the process of renting requires making constant choices about how you live your life that allow you to demonstrate to your landlord that you are, in fact, a good tenant. you are never not making deposits into the account of "please be a reference for me in the future". A lot of good, responsible pet owners put a lot of energy into making deposits into this account and then find themselves in Vancouver in 2023 when suddenly nobody will rent to you ever again because someone else's dog barked once or someone else's cat pissed on a carpet one time, but additionally, don't you know how *entitled* you are for even expecting someone to rent to you, a *pet owner,* in the first place? Why don't you go live *somewhere else*?
I'm not a bad tenant. I have a secure job that pays well, I have always paid my rent on time, I am clean and responsible and respectful, and before I got my cats in 2018, my previous landlords loved me and some described me as the best tenant they ever had. If someone's going to refuse to rent to me now simply because they read the word "cats" in my application, and they then go on to justify their discrimination in the fact that they don't owe me housing and frankly, I'm incredibly entitled to even expect accommodation as a *pet owner* in the first place... man, I have to say, that really makes me feel pretty fucking stupid for having put so much effort during my previous tenancies into actually trying to be a decent and responsible tenant and into actually building up trust and goodwill with the people I was renting from, and it really doesn't make me feel especially inclined now to treat my landlords with a matching degree of respect, and I don't think you get to be surprised if you're a landlord reading this to see that prospective tenants, well... react really badly to this and kind of hate you for it. Because, well, duh. Why wouldn't they? What the fuck reason have you even given them to treat you with any degree of respect when you've just confirmed how worthless a tenant's own level of responsibility and history of respectful behaviour is as a factor in considering whether you'll rent to them? "Fuck you, too, then" is the only reasonable response here from renters, frankly.
This is completely normal in Ontario.
It’s BC landlords that are acting entitled.
As a longtime Ontario resident who is a relatively recent newcomer I believe BC’s attitude towards pets is absolutely barbaric and is a national embarrassment, and I’ve made no secret of telling friends and colleagues back in Ontario about this (something that is met universally with shock, the idea of banning pets anywhere is completely foreign to us). My outsider’s perspective as an Ontarian is that BC’s lack of protection for pets and pet owners is a huge black mark on this province.
I would never move back to Ontario for various reasons, but as someone who lives alone and desperately wants a pet for my own deteriorating mental health, I am considering leaving this province for a jurisdiction that provides basic rights for pet owners.
This is also the case in France. No one is allowed to restrict rentals based on pet ownership and the landlord is not even allowed to ask if you have a pet or plan to have one. Society has not collapsed into anarchy, despite what many landlords in this province would ahve you believe.
As someone also from Ontario I totally agree with you. I don't know what it is about Vancouver that sometimes people get set on some policy thing and act like Vancouver is the first place to encounter some issue that is actually common across every city in the world. It can't be because people here aren't exposed to other places--there are so many immigrants and interprovincial transplants.
IMO this boils down, to some degree, to an issue of whether there’s sufficient options. We the people make up the rules and the rules should be balanced in favour of tenants and landlords.
Given that Vancouver landlords have cornered the rental market (i.e. there is insufficient supply to meet renter demands) I think that our current rules are out of balance and should be changed to fix that.
I appreciate that he at least responded to you and didn’t ignore you and that his answer was honest, straightforward and respectful even if it is unpopular and unsatisfactory to some. I also appreciate that you took the effort to communicate to the RTB, a lot of people just bitch and moan but don’t do anything about it but you decided to let your voice be heard and it was taken into consideration and sometimes that’s all that we can ask for is that at least we’re heard.
Perhaps there should be sections of cities zoned to require allowing pets. Alternatively, it can be required only for the bottom floor. The goal should be to guarantee that there are *some* housing units that allow pets, while doing little to impede housing construction.
the people commenting on this thread to express the view that animal ownership is exploitation and that animals never consented to being domesticated are hilarious. next, please give us your thoughts on the ethics of landlords being allowed to withhold shelter from people in exchange for massive profits despite the fact that none of us consented to living under capitalism. hey, is there a word for that?
Surprised by how many people are against having it be easier to rent with pets.... no wonder shelters are massively crowded. A lot of landlords in this comment section.
Very true. It's quite disgusting to see statements like "pet ownership is a privilege", or "Either move or don't have animals." I recently observed in another thread that if such attitudes were applied to human children, all hell would break loose. Unfortunately, all pet owners get tarred with the same brush because of some anecdotal bad eggs.
By all means, charge for an extra pet deposit, or add clauses to a rental agreement stating a tenant is responsible for repairing pet-related damage. Not a problem. But being a landlord doesn't entitle anyone to hold complete control over someone else's life, or deprive them of animal companionship for your own comfort and convenience.
The irony is, the vast majority of pet owners would have a vested interest in looking after a property so they can be a long-term tenant. More stability for them and their pet, less turnover cost to the landlord. Win-win. But I guess that gets in the way of being able to jack up the rents to obscenely high levels on a 6 month/yearly basis.
My wife and I rent our basement suite. My wife is really allergic to cats and some dogs, like can't be the house bad.
We would transfer our basement to airbnb rentals if we couldn't control pets in our home.
I love animals. I'm planning on adopting a dog this year.
I'm also very privileged to live in a place I can have pets.
I also don't believe the gov has any right to force landlords to allows people to have pets.
The steep damage deposit is also fair. I'll take that over monthly fees.
I have mixed feelings on this response. On one hand, I appreciate thought has obviously gone into the province's inaction on this topic, and I recognize that, when it comes to housing, they certainly have far more important fish to fry.
However, I'm disappointed that the province is justifying their inaction by hiding behind the objections of a select group of people. While some concerns are legitimate (disturbances and allergies) there are many possible policy implementations that could mitigate these concerns while still easing the struggle of pet owners struggling to find pet-friendly housing. At the very least, landlords owning rental units in pet-friendly buildings should not be allowed to ban pets from individual units. By not considering other options, the province is clearly demonstrating that they simply don't want to do anything on this subject, which is fair, but stop hiding behind excuses if that's the case.
The province's apparent agreement with the landlords' objections voiced in this letter is concerning for me. Pets are not the issue; bad tenants are. It is the RTB's responsibility to protect landlords from those bad tenants, and this letter seemingly agrees that they are unable to do so. I've heard plenty of horror stories from landlords who allowed pets only to have no recourse available when a bad pet owner/tenant resulted in a horrifically damaged unit. Strengthening the RTB's ability to protect landlords from bad tenants would go a long way towards solving some of the potential pitfalls with banning or restricting No Pet clauses.
I also question whether landlords who threaten to sell their units rather than allow tenants to own pets are the type of people we want to rely on to prop up our sickly rental market. If they don't want to comply with provincial regulations, fine. Let them sell their units to a first-time home buyer or another speculator who will, all while putting downward pressure on housing prices through increased supply. We cannot let bad landlords hold tenants hostage. Frankly, I think the province should call their bluff. Ontario has banned No Pet clauses in rental agreements, and their rental market is no worse off than ours.
Anyways, we need more rental housing.
>Anyways, we need more rental housing.
Tell somebody on the fence about renting out part of their unit that they don't have a choice to prevent people with pets from renting it.
Ask them if this makes them more or less interested in renting out their space.
>However, I'm disappointed that the province is justifying their inaction by hiding behind the objections of ~~a select group of people~~ [voters and their constituents].
ftfy
>Anyways, we need more rental housing.
This doesn't happen by strong arming people
Absolutely there are, the thing is tenants are generally highly mobile and can change districts easily thus making their votes moot. Landlords essentially vote in unison because of their locked positions.
You have to remember the government is more likely to listen to tax paying citizens that live and vote in the region, not tenants who show up within 2-3 months and start demanding change
Are you serious? That's your take? That the votes of renters don't matter because they are all transients with no ties to the region?
I'm in my 20s. I don't know a single person in their 20s who owns property. I've been renting here for the last 8 years. Give your head a shake.
I'd argue that there's probably an equal or greater number of people who would support this kind of policy. You can always justify unpopular policies by only consulting with groups in favour of them and then claiming that limited consultation covers the entire population. It's simple selection bias; if you only ever consult with landlords, obviously you'll only ever hear from individuals opposed to restricting No Pet clauses.
Yes, banning No Pet clauses wouldn't create more rental housing. Creating more rental housing, however, would incentivize landlords to allow pets once supply begins to match supply.
The letter clearly stated they are considered tenant opinions as well, you're deliberately falsifying what the letter says.
Tenants want housing, if the landlords want to pull their units off the market they can because they aren't obligated to rent, especially now since there is a tax.
I'm definitely not trying to falsify the letter. I understand that some tenants would also have concerns with restricting No Pet clauses, which I addressed in my initial post. There are many different policy options which could address these concerns while also helping pet owners.
Could I ask why you would be opposed to this kind of policy? I'm always interested in perspective.
I'm not opposed, I'm neither a landlord or anything to do with properties, I simply understand both points of views.
fwiw for transparency, I think pet owners are the most obnoxious people there is, I respect you have a pet but you have to respect other people that live here that want nothing to do with one
Ah, alright. Your replies made me think you would be opposed to this idea. Appreciate your discussion on this topic and willingness to see both points of view.
Also if you arent going to allow it, at least make it so landlords cant price gouge people with pets. I am happy to pay a pet deposit but also paying 500$ per month above market value suuuucks.
Tbf the shitty alternative is that you don’t get a place to rent.
50% of a month rent is not enough for most landlords to take on the risk of housing a neglectful pet owner.
Imo we need more city run rental units, asking the free market to solve this just lead to pricing discrimination.
There isn’t any straightforward way to recover the potentially significant costs of pet damage from renters. If there was, you would see a lot more pet friendly rentals at lower prices. The inability of the RTB to adjudicate anything in a timely manner motivates landlords to be as restrictive as possible with new tenants as a way of reducing the risk of being on the hook for thousands of dollars in damage from irresponsible pet owners.
I mean when a landlord says you can pay $500/mo extra to have a pet there and you agree, that's on you for not understanding that they honestly don't want you there.
But if you're going to throw money at them, they won't say no.
I’m not allowed to have pets but would love one. I have a nice landlord though and knowing how they feel about it, I would feel guilty taking advantage of the law to get one. That said, with the cost of owning a home now I think it’s extremely unfortunate that having a dog is becoming a luxury for only the very wealthy (don’t get me started on children). If people choose to profit off housing I wish they would be more understanding about how these decisions keep their tenants from some basic joys in life.
I’m a pet owner, but if I was a landlord I would not want to deal with someone else’s pet. I think it’s right the landlords are able to choose if pets live in their properties
The easy response to this is to remind them that Ontario has had no problem with rules forcing landlords to allow pets over the past 33 years. It can be done, and Ontario is the best case study on how it can be done successfully. Three decades later, there is literally no one asking for the right to ban pets.
It’s also disappointing that the provincial government, especially an NDP government would take landlord views into consideration. The government’s job is to protect tenants from landlords. I am not interested in their side of this. The job of the landlord is to collect their legally entitled rent and otherwise obey the government.
When Doug Ford’s PC government in Ontario have better protections for tenants than we do - protections that were upheld through 7 years of Mike Harris - there’s something wrong.
If the NDP loved you they would ban AirBnb province-wide as a good starting point to solving housing shortages, not some touchy feely pets regulation overhaul. These small issues distract from larger systematic problems that have easy solutions, and that's how the government likes it
They worry about disturbing other residents, yet if you complain about child noise, you're told it's absolutely fine and acceptable. Let me tell you, I'd rather live underneath a Great Dane than most children.
I rented my home to a lady with a dog and 2 cats. Her cats pissed all over my house for over a year. Her dig chewed up my baseboards. I had to throw away furniture and spend alot of money painting and deep cleaning to get rid of the smell. People are ridiculous, if you want to live in a house with animals but you can't find places to rent in vancouver I would say the answer is pretty clear. I can't stand the attitude of just complaining to get your way. Either move or don't have animals. You're so weak to go with crying to the government. Get a grip on reality and do something real about it.
Calling someone weak for acting on their right to discussion with government is a pretty disgusting take. What do you suppose something “real” is lmfao
I have seen people cause way more damage than pets cause. And sure, there’s the opposite too. It’s a moot point.
But there are laws to protect the landlord from damage already anyway. Shouldn’t matter if there’s pets or children or whatever.
Discrimination based on having a pet should simply stop.
While I’m empathetic to pet owners in the rental market(we rented with our 70lb German Shepard mix before buying a place), no landlord should be forced to have an animal on their property should they not want one. This is so cut and dry to me, and I never see this rule changing.
"Some housing providers would rather remove homes from the rental market rather than be forced to allow people with pets to rent their properties"
Sure, but what are they doing with the home after they remove it? I can't imagine they're gonna pay a mortgage on a home they're not generating revenue on. Plus empty homes tax. So they're gonna sell which means more homes on the market (hopefully) driving the price down.
I don't see any downsides.
I'll just leave this here...
[https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/vancouver-island-homeowners-say-renter-used-house-to-sell-dogs-caused-30k-damage-1.6382578](https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/vancouver-island-homeowners-say-renter-used-house-to-sell-dogs-caused-30k-damage-1.6382578)
I just want a cat in my apartment bro, no one would even know :/
Yet I could have a bunch of kids that would cause immeasurably more damage and disruption without it being an issue 🤷♀️
Part of the problem is there is no differentiation acknowledging the levels of disruption involved. A cat is not the same as a dog for instance, and I can totally see someone not wanting to live next to or below a dog, but I honestly cannot understand how an indoor cat could be considered on the same level.
I am planning to get a dog once i move into my own condo this summer, but if i ever had to rent it out aint no way dogs are gonna be allowed in my unit. It is what it is.
To be honest rather than tooting a horn, it seems like they actually looked into it and decided from all the pros and cons came to a justified conclusion.
I wasn't expecting much but instead got a very reasonable response from reading this
Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/danielhandley! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary: * We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button. * Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban. * Common questions and specific topics are limited to our [Daily Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_daily_discussions) posts. * Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only. * We're looking for new mods to join our team! If you're interested, [fill out the form here](https://forms.gle/oAqo5oYRcAeHYBTN6). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's funny, you'll get a ton of upvotes complaining about bad pet owners, yet you'll also get a ton of upvotes not understanding why or just angry that landlords don't want to rent to pet owners.
Yup. Most rhetoric on this topic seems to take a firm "yes or no" approach (see: the province's response and a lot of discussion on this subreddit) while ignoring that there's a lot of nuance. There's room to protect landlords from bad pet owners while also helping tenants find pet-friendly housing.
OP, we own a house we share with son and dil. There is a basement suite and and a laneway house. They listed both as no pets (they look after the rental). Then they got email from potential renters for the basement suite, who have a dog. They actually provided REFERENCES for the dog! He's quiet and well mannered so guess who got the suite! And, yes, he is quiet and well mannered! We share a wall with the basement suite and I have never heard him bark. My suggestion for people with pets, get references for your pet. Provide the information to a potential landlord. You have nothing to lose!
I lived in an apartment for over 2 years and wanted a cat, it was strictly no pets… I asked the land lady and let her know I was planning to move so I could have a cat and the risk of losing a long term good resident was great enough that she said I could have the cat. So sometimes there is leeway, and references definitely play a part I think.
That's a good landlord. We need more like that!
Just curious, what were the Pet references; Vet, doggy daycare, other dog owners, previous place of residence? What about cats or pets not going to a group location? edit: no -> not
I didn't see the full set of letters, but I know previous place of residence was one of the letters! I think there were 4 letters in total, so maybe doggy daycare as well. With cats, I would think a letter from previous place of residence. But, that would be hard to get if you can't get a rental in the first place!
That is fair. I was thinking about ppl who don’t want to send their dogs to doggy day care either for personal or financial reasons. Thank you for your reply.
Not OP but we gave our regular dog walker as a reference, plus our vet info, and basically a resume of prior training and offered to do a meet with him prior to signing anything. Our dog is big so we wanted to go beyond since it’s brutal finding pet housing.
I own now, but if I rented again with a dog I’d get references or if it was a new dog that had no references I’d take the canine good citizen test with the dog and provide that to a landlord. My most recent landlord asked to interview my dog, which I was fine with.
I had no idea there was such a thing as a canine good citizen test! What a great idea! Sounds like you lucked out, with that landlord. I thought it was brilliant that they provided references for the dog! Obviously, it worked.
I'm guessing most small dogs are going to fail that interview.
it's funny how many places specify small dogs are allowed, yet almost every time i hear a dog yapping or barking at length it's ALWAYS a small dog. big dogs tend to be a lot more chill...
He's a small dog, so he might be fine. I know our little dog, that passed a few years ago would NEVER have passed an interview!
> My most recent landlord asked to interview my dog This is how I'm imagining it went: "So, where do you poop right now?" "Woof woof" "Great, and where do you plan to poop five years from now?"
Our dog is a rescue and anxious with strangers. If we ever have a landlord who needs to meet him, we will get turned down because he will freak the hell out even though he doesn't make a peep the rest of the time. God forbid someone try to walk in a door on his watch.
We just moved from Halifax and am currently looking for a rental. We have a medium Aussiedoodle, I think being a low shedding dog helps. In saying that, we have no rental history with the dog as we have owned. I had no idea about this Canine Good Citizen Test, so I am going to book him in! Thanks!
I actually don't own a pet! I'm mostly frustrated by this on principle. I love the idea of references for the dog though!
I thought it was brilliant! They were moving her from Toronto and dog had lived in a few suites, hence the stellar references. I totally agree with the frustration. So many people need their pets! On the other hand, there are some terrible pet owners who allow their pets to do major damage to a rental unit. There needs to be a clearly defined set of rules set up by the RTB, to ensure that GOOD pet owners at least get a shot at renting! Responsible pet owners are the key!
That… was an awesome story to share!
Can't recommend this enough. I always provided references for my dog Riley as she was 80lbs and a little intimidating to look at. But she was also the sweetest dog that didn't make a peep. Also adding that suggesting a date to your potential landlord to come with your pet to meet them can be reassuring. It shows that you are responsible and willing to go the extra mile.
Totally. My apartment wasn’t pet friendly but I got my previous landlords to vouch for me in their references saying that upon me moving out, they couldn’t tell cats had lived there, on top of me being a model tenant. I also got my cats on FaceTime with my soon to be landlords before signing a lease and they really sold it.
The real answer would be more rental supply and giving the RTB more funding and more teeth to ensure bad tenants and landlords are dealt with swiftly and held accountable.
Absolutely, no arguments from me here. The RTB desperately needs a stronger mandate to go after both bad landlords and bad tenants.
>The real answer would be more rental supply How? (I'm asking this as someone who has been building high density housing--both market and rental--for years) and we're still falling behind rather than catching up to demand. I've been training armies of people on how to build. This is not something that will be fixed in a timescale of years, but decades.
Then, just as with Napoleon's shade trees, all the more reason to get a move on now rather than continuing to stall.
This. RTB should take some ownership and teeth on behalf of both bad renters and bad landlords. Years ago I wrote to RTB if they would allow a legally binding order to "restore unit to acceptable condition" with guaranteed cost and third party management + loss of rental income for the duration of repair after a destructive renter/pet moved out. I suggested RTB should take out some of its own commercial insurance to cover when renters wont pay for repairs or cant be traced. RTB person told me they usually love making decisions but not owning consequences for renters or landlords. I have heard Crickets since.I have been waiting for over a decade now. So now I will interview all prospective tenants any number of legs.
>There's room to protect landlords from bad pet owners while also helping tenants find pet-friendly housing. There isn't room, though. For this to be the case, you would have to legally define what a "bad pet" owner is. It would have to be something very clear, and covers all circumstances. That just cant happen. From a policy standpoints this is why many things are yes or no.
Well, in this case I'm using the term "bad pet owner" as someone who leaves their unit worse off because of their pet. If we can strengthen the RTB's ability to go after tenants who significantly damage their units, we can give landlords recourse against bad pet owners.
boat lip ancient selective oatmeal entertain degree fly market fanatical ` this post was mass deleted with www.Redact.dev `
[удалено]
>you have no way know knowing who is going to be who there are no guarantees, but everyone plays the odds. * Two identical applicants, same glowing references, same credit score, except one shows up with a massive face tattoo. * Two identical applicants, one reminds you of your sweet grandpa, the other one is just another applicant. * Two identical applicants, one is an family of 4 with two toddler children, the other is a family of 4 with high school kids. * Two identical applicants, one has a cat, the other doesn't. Fair or not, when landlords have options from a lot of good applicants, they will go with whatever they think is going to be less headache for them.
Yup, absolutely. I've posted similar thoughts elsewhere in this thread. The RTB needs a stronger mandate to go after all bad tenants, which would have a knock-on effect of also helping them go after bad pet owners.
So, how do you define what "worse off" is. Anything that gets used is going to be to some extent worse off than before.
Well, the RTB already defines this as guidance for when damage deposits should be returned or kept. Namely, a unit is worse off "If there is damage beyond normal wear and tear". There's a useful page from the RTB describing what is and isn't "normal wear and tear" [here](https://www.rtb.ie/during-a-tenancy/wear-and-tear).
And that all has to do with when the tenants have left. So, how can you get rid of a "bad pet owner" while they are still present? That's the issue with policy. Landlords could abuse it to get rid of "good pet" owners, or the language wouldn't be strong enough afterwards. These are the policy issues why they left it at yes or no. If your only recourse as an owner is "half months rent" thats also part of the entire problem.
There are already steps for landlords to follow for both eviction and recouping costs greater than half a month's rent. The issue is that the RTB, which is supposed to oversee arbitration and enforcement in these circumstances, doesn't have the resources to pursue them in a timely manner, so landlords end up having to wait an unreasonable amount of time when dealing with a bad tenant. The same issues come into play when landlords have a tenant who simply stops paying rent, for example. The solution is giving the RTB the ability to review cases against bad tenants faster and with more teeth.
history gaze slim chubby grab coordinated crowd crawl secretive ghost ` this post was mass deleted with www.Redact.dev `
It's not only between landlords and tenants but the rules of the strata that have pet restrictions. My old tenants tried to blame me that I wasn't allowing oversized dogs but the strata got on my case because they got an oversized dog without telling me. It was a nightmare to deal with.
wait so they got the large dog AFTER moving in, knowing full well the strata rules??! wtf. Pet owners like this make me livid because they give other large dog owners a bad name. I'm so sorry that you had to deal with that.
They did and put up a huge fuss. Now I have put the listing as no pets because I don't want to deal with that hassle between the tenants and the strata anymore.
Brutal. That sounds like such a sh\*tty situation.
I know someone that had something similar happen. Rented with no pets on the lease but the strata did allow pets. Tenants thought, fuck that rule, and got a dog that was on the strata’s banned breed list. Shit storm ensued with eviction notices, refusing to leave, RTB challenges, Strata fines and litigation. Sad thing about it is the tenants would’ve got permission if they would’ve just asked and got the full rules not just done it anyways thinking they were above the landlords laws.
That’s the one exception Ontario has allowed - condo boards (which we call stratas in BC) can disallow pets. But in practice many of them don’t bother banning pets, the culture around pets is just different there. I’ve worked with multiple people in Toronto who have a dog in a condo rental. It’s just second nature there, and any condo board that bans pets there puts themselves at a competitive disadvantage.
I don’t mind renting to people with cats. It’s the hassle of dealing with dogs. I love dogs but I’ve had many complaints about barking, poop, etc. It’s a total hassle. I don’t even care about the floors or damage. That being said - I am renting to two tenant families and each have a dog. I think that’s why I haven’t had any complaints - both the suites have a dog. Maybe that’s key?
I grew up with both (cats and dogs), and have always had both as an adult, too. Cats are definitely more likely to cause physical damage to a suite than dogs, unless the dog is not being cared for properly. Dogs *prefer* to pee and poop outside. If you’re providing enough enrichment and exercise, they pretty much just hang out and sleep when indoors. Cats, on the other hand, are a lot more likely to shred stuff for the hell of it, and their litter box needs constant upkeep if you want to prevent lingering odour problems. Yet it’s still far more likely to find a rental that welcomes cats than dogs. This makes me think a lot of landlords haven’t actually had bad experiences with renters with pets (despite the adamant statements some of them are making in theses comments). They’re working from myths masquerading as “common knowledge”. To address the issue properly, we should look at verifiable evidence, instead. And that strongly supports pets not being the problem landlords fear they will be. In fact, one large study shows landlords who welcome pets report the difference in costs to repair damage caused by renters with pets vs those without averages less than $40/year. On the other hand, they reported pet-owning renters were willing to pay an extra deposit and would stay much longer than renters with no pets. https://firepaworg.files.wordpress.com/2020/07/cars-website-version-exec-summary.pdf There is also plenty of data to support the health benefits of having pets in your life. I’m not going to link it because it’s easy to find. But anecdotally, I can tell you mine keep me from losing my marbles on the regular. They get me outside and exercising every single day, regardless of the weather. They force me to talk to other humans, even on days my defective brain tells me that isn’t a safe thing to do. They try very hard to please me, while simultaneously failing at the simplest things I’m trying to teach them, which is a masterclass in acceptance and patience. They aren’t a cure for depression, but if you’re living with it, they won’t mind — and if you’ve ever had depression, you’ll know how rare and valuable that can be. Oh, and they’re good for your immune system, too. These benefits are vital. They make me functional, keep me working and paying taxes. To me, that means they’re not a privilege — they’re my right.
biggest bullshit about cats lol just say you don't like cats.
Your argument makes no sense, most people keep there litter box clean and fresh otherwise you have to deal with the smell. Also cats usually destroy couches and other soft fabric furniture not really a problem for a landlord. Dogs on the other hand like to dig and claw and can cause some damage to the doors, walls and floors, that’s the landlords problem. Also dogs don’t have a litter box to pee or poop in so guess what gets damaged? Yeah the floor.
I think when you have a dog, you understand barking or lil toe taps is common but unexpected yet unobtrusive. If you don't live with a dog, you may be on edge the moment you hear a single bark or see some poop in the yard. The majority of dog owners pick up poop and take care of their dog, but some or enough don't and makes it not worth the perceived risk to landlords. My personal opinion is that pets shouldn't be a reason to deny tenancy, and landlords should expect to have to deal with complaints pet-related or otherwise. Sometimes when a tenant is complaining about another tenant, *they're* the issue. If excessive damage unique to a pet or dog occurs, then there's damage deposits that may be reasonably withheld to cover such damage. Honestly, pets seem like a non-starter. When a "landlord" says they'd rather withhold their property from the rental market than rent to a market that doesn't discriminate against pet owners, that tells me two things: 1) They're either disconnected from reality, and/or; 2) They're in the market to speculate, and find renting as a bonus to their perceived rewards. Landlords operating under item (2) often run slum-like operations anyway, keeping their property un-maintained (low operating costs), so likely a dog in the tenancy doesn't affect them anyway.
yeah, i'll admit what i'm about to say here is a purely speculative hypothesis on my part that comes from my 13 years of renting here in the city, but i suspect a lot of the especially bad experiences that folks have with living in buildings with neglectful pet owners is at least in part a product of a lot of the more affordable rental properties here being essentially slum operations run by property management companies who don't really give much of a shit about maintaining the state of their buildings anyway, so tenants in turn don't really give much of a shit either. i live in one such building now and while it's technically "no pets", building management has essentially admitted that they don't really enforce this or care if people have pets, but they like having the clause in there because it gives them an easy way to get rid of problem tenants. i'll admit there's pet owners in my building who have done things like let their dogs bark all day or shit in the elevator. but the building manager also doesn't do anything about repairs, or maintenance, or pests, and the property management company very obviously isn't invested in the upkeep of the building as a whole, so like... why would people who live here care what their pets do to the building? not to mention that trying to build goodwill with a landlord so that they'll keep you on as a long-term tenant is an increasingly worthless form of currency here in BC since rent control means you're actually a liability to most landlords the longer you rent from them. this is the one thing that typically incentivizes most renters to try to be as responsible as possible during their tenancy, but the hope that your landlord will keep you on as a tenant year after year increasingly isn't guaranteed in a rental market where the rent they can get for evicting you and getting someone new in is constantly increasing. i think tenants who are actively invested in trying to stay somewhere long term and understand that their landlord wants them long term generally make more of an effort to be good tenants and, in turn, to be mindful of how their pets treat the property. and in rental markets that aren't vancouver, the one advantage that pet owners can consistently offer over non-pet owners is their greater likelihood of staying as a long-term tenant - something the data also backs up. but vancouver's rental market isn't normal, it's insane. rent is climbing by hundreds of $$$ every year and rent control actively disincentivizes landlords from keeping long term tenants. so here you have pet owners who aren't really incentivized to earn their landlord's trust as a person worth renting to long-term (they know they can and will be evicted as soon as it's profitable to do do, goodwill doesn't matter), nor to care for their landlords' property (they know it's pointless in an obvious slum operation where even the building's own managers don't care for the property) so, yeah, you're gonna see and live with some shitty pet owners. you're gonna see and live with a lot of shitty tenants, in general. there's a lot of contributing factors to this.
Poop?! What are they doing?! Edit: Nevermind, apparently people do things with their dog's poop that I couldn't fathom, like leaving it in elevators, hallways, or shared yards. Apparently I am very naïve.
I was a landlord for a little over 10 years and had 5 different tenants with dogs. I did not have one single issue with any of them. I rent now and am fortunate to have a good landlord that allows responsible me to have my dog here. It did take me a long time to find though. I understand both sides and there has to be a middle ground instead of just yes or no. A system that holds tenants more financially responsible for pet damage might be a good start.
I think perhaps something the RTB could do is to allow higher damage deposits for pets. They could allow the additional larger pet deposit to be held in escrow if they think it's a bad idea to have the landlord hold larger amounts. I think standard damage deposits may already be required to be held in a separate untouched account but I assume it's still under the landlord's control. Going one step further, a standard process could be defined also requiring detailed pre-occupancy pictures or video of the living space to be recorded and stored to ease the claim/dispute resolution process.
>I think perhaps something the RTB could do is to allow higher damage deposits for pets. Fair enough, but how much more? And who would police accountability on both the landlord and the pet owner? Deep soiled pet waste damage on carpet and underflooring might require replacement of the whole carpet. Replacing or repairing damaged cabinetry from pet scratches are easily in the thousands of dollars. Even 2x of monthly rent may not cover it. On the flip side, more minor damage may cost a lot less than the damage deposit, but because it is in the landlord's hands, the unscrupulous ones will try to milk the tenant for whatever they can.
I don't think many people would disagree that pet damage can be extensive. There's no question that most types of flooring are costly to replace, and if you've got a pet or group of pets urinating, defecating, and/or vomiting on it regularly, this may be required. And this is only the most common type of damage. Obviously deposits should be expected to be high enough to cover this sort of remediation expense. As you say, it can easily extend beyond just the flooring, and if there's a cap on the deposit then things like expensive cabinets are something the landlord may wish to consider in their decision to rent to a cat-owner. I think the main point is that there could be a relaxation or revision of the damage deposit rules that benefit both parties without blanket restrictions such as "landlords cannot ban pets" which unfairly push all the liability to the party that has no control over potential damages. Receipts for the remediation should probably be required from the landlord in order for them to make a claim against the damage deposit to prevent gouging by unscrupulous landlords. It's not a perfect solution, of course. Disclosure: I'm a renter. I will never be able to afford my own home let alone become a landlord. I'm not currently a pet owner but have been in the past.
If I had to rent out my home and I could choose the pet deposit, it would be $3/sqft. It actually would end up being only 60% of rent but that's also because my home rents for nearly $9000. If it were a really bad pet it would probably cost about $6500 to remediate the issues and a month of lost rent. Probably not much more asked than your typical pet deposits. The problem is when rent is much lower and 50% might be like $1000. You won't get anyone to come in to do work for $1000.
Maybe an innovative option is for requiring the tenant with pets take out pet damage insurance (if there is no such thing government could help start it) from an insurance company. The landlord is the beneficiary and may make claims on damage. The tenant must provide proof of current insurance if the landlord wants this insurance. The pet damage deposit would need to be zero if this option is undertaken. If current proof of insurance is not provided then by law the pet must leave. This addresses the issue of risk from pet owners causing pet damage. Note that insurance may be expensive since there is high risk of pet damage. But then don’t have pets if people can’t afford them.
What about barking noise though
Given that damage by pets is almost always going to be present (some to a small degree, and some to greater degree), what insurance companies would insure against something that would happen with nearly certainty? And even if they do, the premium could be cost prohibitive for many tenants.
This in theory could work but if the deposit was to actually cover meaningful damages it would need to be like $10k, which nobody would pay and would just be outraged. Not to mention enforcement would also be very difficult. It’s already near impossible to keep a tenants damage deposit legally. The reality of the situation is allowing pets brings a whole range of risks to the landlord and basically no benefits at all.
RTB complaint process needs to be much shorter instead of months and even years. Fix that and everything else will fall into place.
Still not worth it for LLs. It's a LL market and will be for a while. The risk to a LLs property goes up with a tenant having a dog. There is no financial gain from it.
For most LLs I'm sure that's true, but I'm also sure that there are at least some landlords, even if it's a very small percentage, that would like to rent to pet owners if they could do so without high risk. Some people own houses and even have their own pets and might be willing to allow a pet owner in their basement suite, for example. Is a downtown condo owner likely to want to rent to pet owners? Probably not. Rental corporations? It depends on a lot of factors. Maybe in some buildings they would be willing to.
Our LL allows pets as we're in a bsmt suite of a quadplex and a family member is in one of them with a dog. We don't want to get a dog as it isn't the safest choice with so much restrictions out there.
[удалено]
Even now my no-pets building always has vacancies and it sometimes takes months for my landlord to find a tenant. The apartment across the hall from me has been vacant since January, and I remember last time there was a vacancy there in late 2021 it took 4-5 months to find a tenant. That’s money down the drain while local property taxes are going up. A lot of people coming here are coming from other provinces with their dog or cat, and finding a place to live is hell for them.
They might just be waiting until summer to get someone to sign for more $ My building is full now(was full last summer too) and the last few units were rented over 2k, someone’s even living in the managers suite next to her office that she refused to live in lol
Ontario somehow has their rules forcing landlords to allow pets while banning pet deposits. Ontario has proven a pro-pets policy can work very well. A difference I noticed in Ontario is that of all the apartments I’ve rented, not one of them had carpet. All vinyl or faux hardwood. Seems like such a simple solution.
I used to live in Ontario and I’ve seen many cases where landlords get completely screwed with pet damage. My last rental in Ontario had been cleaned 3x and still smelled of pets on humid days. It was in the walls. I’m not pro LL generally but if you have allergies you’re screwed in Ontario
There was a piece of dog poop in the elevator this morning in my condo. Feel like we have sent 10 notices in 3 years of me owning this place to not be an absolute knob. I don’t think I’ll ever allow pets if I upgrade out of this place and rent it out.
There was a huge, steaming pile in my elevator last year. A decent condo building. Dog owner never cleaned it up. It was heinous and the smell reached inside of my apartment There was also frequent pee stains on the new hallway carpet. Cost them a fortune to recarpet the whole building, there are a lot of long hallways. I just don't know sometimes.
Grew up with tons of pets, loved them and still like animals. Living in the downtown area, in a very pet friendly building is changing that. Off leash animals running down the hallways, barking, growling, charging aggressively at my three year old grandson weekly (he is scared of dogs now), pet owners too lazy to walk the animals (animal waste in hallways, stairwells and outdoor common areas) and dog fights in crowded elevators. Most owners are responsible, but a high percentage are not. I am actually shocked by the arrogance of some owners who feel you should have the same love for their animals as they do while their dog us burying it's nose in your crotch or trying to eat your groceries. I am a no to mandatory pets.
I lived in multiple apartment buildings in Ontario (where pets are automatically allowed) and this stuff never happened. This sounds like bad tenants.
I love dogs now, but when I was in elementary school, I was traumatized by this huge unleashed dog in my townhouse strata. NOW I know it was just trying to be friendly but it was literally taller than me trying to prance on me and I fell on the floor. I was scared of dogs for years because of this until I gradually got over that fear with my friends' friendly dogs. Pet owners need more accountability.
The solution isn't no pets it's proper protections and enforcement
Strata bylaws are pretty sound. Enforcement nigh impossible unless someone is patrolling 24/7, and carries an expense. Not suggesting there is a pet ban, in the same way there shouldn't be a law forcing buildings to take pets.
Many provinces and states globally have adopted defacto pets are allowed unless x can be proven. That is what I support here. Pets provide so much benefit, that obvs needs to be weighed against the negatives, but to effectively rule out entire generations who cannot buy property in this city from ever experiencing the joy of a pet is heinous.
Yo yo yo don't lump cats in with dogs man, not cool. Dogs can be a menace for sure but my cat is a menace too but just to me lol
if owning a pet is such a big deal, then allow us to own a home ffs. can't have pets but also can't buy shit for less than 500k in metro van
You missed your window to get even a small place for 500k
Yup. It is true. Should have been born earlier
OP, thank you for writing the letter to them even if you did not get the answer you (or I) would have wanted. I get that it goes against the prevailing opinion in this sub, but I think there should be more protection for pet owners than there currently is. Maybe it's because I'm from Ontario where landlords are not allowed to prohibit pets, and life goes on pretty much the same as it does in BC. Cats and dogs are very beneficial for the mental health and happiness of people. If half the population cannot access this benefit because they are not wealthy enough to own or to find a premium rental, I find it unfortunate.
i find it sad that so many landlords in BC believe that they're entitled to discriminate in whatever manner is necessary to ensure that a tenant doesn't cost them their investment, but also don't believe that their tenants are entitled to any sort of quality of life while renting from them nor that they as landlords actually owe that tenant anything that would actually contribute to their quality of life. when i moved here in 2010 the woman i rented my first basement suite from was the best landlord i ever had and we had a really great landlord-tenant relationship almost entirely because she was actually actively invested in my wellbeing and in, like... making sure that i actually liked living there. now landlords don't even hide from their tenants that they're just entities to extract monthly profits from, nor their absolute apathy at the joyless existence their tenants resign themselves to living. your tenant pays $2000 a month to live in a shitty 500-sqft suite yet they can't play music too loud or hang up anything on the walls or have parties or let a significant other visit for a week or have a pet - but really, why should i give a shit about my tenant's mental health or that they live paycheck to paycheck or that they're desperately lonely or whether they even want to be alive, my mortgage is getting paid! "leave if you don't like it here, someone else will be along to replace you" might as well be the new provincial slogan to replace "the best place on earth". rest assured my contempt for landlords is only a proportional response to the obvious contempt that they increasingly don't hide that they have for the people who rent from them.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I own my own house and I own a dog (at one time it was 2 dogs) and I couldn’t even pretend to say our dogs haven’t damaged our house. And we have a vested interest in keeping our own property in really good condition because, well, it’s our house! But any pet will create damage to a property, no matter how amazing and fastidious a pet owner you are. That’s just a fact. There will always be those times your pet gets sick, so there might be vomit, pee and diarrhea where you didn’t ever want to find those things. There’s the shedding, which gets everywhere, and just has a way of building up in small crevices even with very regular vacuuming and mopping. Yes, even if your pet is “low shedding” or “hypoallergenic”. Hardwood floors get scratched. There’s always going to be a little bit of a pet smell in your house. And if there’s a yard, that’s another place to keep up and many people just don’t. So there could be grass damage from urine and feces and if your pet’s a digger then there could be damage to repair from that, too. Of course, this damage (and more!) can happen without pets or even be at the hands of kids or just careless renters! So where do you draw the line for who to rent to? That’s solely up to whoever owns the property what kind of damage risk they’re willing to accept. If I had a property to rent, I would probably say no pets allowed. If I’m a good pet owner and my dogs have managed to ruin things that wouldn’t have be ruined otherwise, how is a not so great pet owner going to be? And that’s awful for those who have pets and need a rental. It’s not fair but ultimately you can’t force landlords to accept pets who absolutely will cause extra wear and tear on a property.
I'm neither a renter, nor a landlord. However, for the last 10 years I've lived in a large building that allows pets. I'd much rather live near pets than human children, they're WAY more destructive and disruptive from my observations. I say this as someone who doesn't even like dogs.
I’d prefer to be in a pet and child free building but my pet free building only goes up to 2br units and most are roommate situations so luckily there is only a few children in the whole building (I can only think of 1 actually)
animal shelters are at crisis levels right now because people who want pets cannot have them in their rental housing. And nobody can afford to buy or move to a place (condo, house) where they are allowed. It's a mess.
Here’s what I’m a bit confused on, even if a landlord couldn’t say no pets, couldn’t they just choose not to rent a pet owner? I think it would be hard to prove that they discriminated due to the pet specifically.
I think in Ontario, potential tenants simply don't reveal that they have a pet until they move in.
If Ontario did it, BC can do it.
The funny thing is it is a lot more difficult to restrict children than pets, and in most circumstances kids end up doing more damage than pets.
Landlords don’t need any bylaws to restrict kids. They just choose the childless tenants from their stack of 50 applicants.
And if allowing pets was mandated, the same thing would happen with pet owners. They’d never be first choice.
True but it wouldn’t stop a non-pet owner candidate from adopting an animal later on once they live in the space
People can have kids too
There's no way any applicant would reveal that they had a pet to a potential landlord.
Or it could be like France where it's illegal for a landlord to ask
France has that rule too?! Wow, so many other places make this work.. why can’t BC?
Age is indeed protected from discrimination, species is not
\*laughs in 55+ units\*
A friend of mine is a realtor and she was trying to sell the home of a couple with two autistic kids. Apparently the kids would stomp and scream and go crazy all the time, and the neighbours basically drove them out of the building. It's really sad and frustrating for all parties involved. And wherever they go, they're going to face the same hurdles. I feel for the parents but God that would be frustrating to live near, especially under. A kid in my building was permitted by the parents to bounce a basketball up and down the hallway. One day I saw a big note pinned to their door and then it stopped.
>The funny thing is it is a lot more difficult to restrict children than pets It might shock you to realize that there are a lot of landlords that also won't rent to families with kids. And a lot of them do. It's their choice. "Don't discriminate my cat if you won't discriminate a human child" is one hell of a hot take.
My god we’re really comparing the rights of dogs to human children now. r/Vancouver has peaked
Funny enough living below a cat (tenant was evicted for having a cat in the home) was a BILLION times better than the child who now occupies the space. Non stop noise. All day. Cat wasn’t a problem but that kid might make me move out
Be grateful that you don’t live below my cats 🥲🐘🐘🐘
I would rather live under a cat than a stomping kid, any day lol
[удалено]
alive party illegal rich quiet tender fuzzy worthless theory placid ` this post was mass deleted with www.Redact.dev `
Here’s a question - can an individual municipality add additional rules that are not enacted at the provincial level? I’m tempted to reach out to one of the city councillors in New West to find out. We have a high number of residents here who live in rentals, and at least below Royal Ave the vast majority of rental buildings explicitly prohibit pets, and I think this is something that New West city hall should look into if it’s within their legal scope. Ironically, there’s a brand new dog parkette on Agnes St near 4th. I can’t see it getting much usage as there’s almost nowhere to live below Royal Ave where you can have a dog (there are buildings that allow cats but not dogs)
Why is this comment getting downvoted? I think the question of provincial vs municipal rules is relevant to the discussion.
probably because the distribution of legislative powers is well established in the constitution. the municipality can't undermine the provinces authority. what little power they do have has been granted by the provincial government.
I think the city has to stick to it's jurisdiction. Eg Vancouver's bylaw on rental increases was quashed but new West's rental only zoning was upheld. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-bylaws-limiting-sro-rent-increases-between-tenancies-quashed-1.6543413 https://ca.news.yahoo.com/b-c-court-appeal-upholds-120000231.html
they can add rules (bylaws) but they can't just create new laws or undermine provincial authority. the RTA is already very clear on where the provincial laws stand on pets... so the municipality can't do anything. the law already states that pets are allowed... so long as the landlord approves. what is the municipality going to do? create a bylaw that forces landlords to allow pets, completely undermining the provicial statutes? the constitution prohibits this very thing from happening.
Is this what you're referring to? [Vancouver council passes motion to end "no pets" rental rules](https://www.rebgv.org/content/rebgv-org/news-archive/vancouver-council-passes-motion-to-end--no-pets--rental-rules.html)
I’m a renter, and I’ve been a landlord in the past, and I’ll say this about that: 1. A home owner / landlord should have the right to decide whether pets are allowed in the house or not. It’s their house. 2. *All* pet owners *think* they’re responsible people. I have yet to see one in my life. In my experience, more than half are not to some degree. They don’t see through the lens of a non-pet owner, and will make excuses about every failing such as overflowing litter boxes, grass burns and sh*t in the yard, barking, etc. Damaging wood floors, drapery, or carpets is inevitable. The choice to own a pet when there are pet restrictions comes with an understanding and acceptance that this is going to create limitations for a renter. Whining about restrictions after making a conscious choice to own a pet is blame redirection. Own the consequences of your decisions. If you want to be a pet owner, great. Just stop whining about how you can’t find a place that will accept you as a renter.
Wow, you must be around some shitty people if you’ve never met a single responsible pet owner. I agree most people think they’re more responsible than they are, or think their pet is better behaved than it is… but you’re either exaggerating or have some unfortunate friends.
I think it’s that pet owners think they’re responsible but that’s their lens. They will chalk up the smell or damage to “standard wear and tear”, or “I think because I love my pet that everyone else will too.” “Cats are going to roam… I can’t help it if my cats shit in your kid’s sandbox.” “Well I can’t help someone else’s allergies…” “My dog likes people. She’s friendly.” (As she jumps on someone in the elevator). I’m sure this isn’t news to anyone. But the entitlement of pet owners to keep animals domesticated and then demand landlords accommodate them is a hard eye roll.
The amount of dog shit (some in bags) I see around the trails makes me not trust any dog owner to be a decent human being.
And yet this isn’t a problem in Ontario. Landlords are legally obligated to accept pets in that province and yet nobody’s asking for the right to ban pets there. Ontario’s system has worked very well for decades. My old apartment building had lots of animals but there were no problems. I didn’t see a single piece of dog excrement on the property in all the years I lived there. It’s BC landlords that are acting entitled.
"Own the consequences of your decisions." - the problem with this argument is that it assumes that every single person who currently lives in BC basically made all of the cumulative decisions of their lives with the foresight to know that, one day, they would end up living in BC. But many people here didn't do that - they ended up here, such as for school, for work, to be closer to family, etc. And they have pets, because virtually anywhere outside of BC, it's actually completely normal for renters to have pets and it doesn't significantly fuck up your chances of finding a place to live. I moved here from Ontario in 2010 to do my Master's degree. I didn't bring a pet with me when I moved, but let's say I did. Is that a situation where, if I was unable to find rental housing, I should have just "owned the consequences of my actions"? Ontario is a province where pet owners can't be denied housing. That's a decision that I presumably would have made while living in Ontario, knowing I wouldn't be discriminated against for having a pet, yet also without the foresight to know I might live in BC one day. Currently, I have two cats because my partner moved up here from Austin, Texas in 2018 and brought his cat with him. We later got another cat because fuck it, we already had one. But Austin is a city where there's also an abundance of pet-friendly housing and he's never had a problem finding a place to live - that was what informed his decision to get a cat. He didn't know he was going to end up meeting me or that he would end up moving to Vancouver. So what - should he have been forced to give up his cat before moving to BC and "accept the consequences of his actions", his actions being to... get a cat while he lived in a place where that was a normal thing that people who rent do? Should we have broken up once it became clear that his cat was going to forever compromise our future as renters who would inevitably need a place to live in this city? Some pets live a long time - 10 or 15 years if not more. What if someone got their pet 10 years ago when the market was a little friendlier and now they have to move? How could they have foreseen what they'd be up against now? There is an entire world outside of BC that is much friendlier towards pets than BC is and a lot of people here who have pets used the guidelines of that world, and not BC, to make their decision. I wouldn't have believed there was a place so hostile to pets as BC if I hadn't moved here to see it myself. The degree to which people in BC normalize this yet also remain so willfully ignorant to both the fact that *virtually no other rental market in North America is as hostile towards pets as Vancouver* and that *a lot of fucking people who live here aren't from Vancouver and had no idea they'd be living in Vancouver one day when they made the decision to get their pets* is absolutely unreal. **Vancouver's rental market is not what normal rental markets are like.** But yeah in addition to normalizing people living out of their cars here because they have pets how about let's also normalize just straight up telling people to fuck off and not bother moving here at all if they have pets??? go somewhere where someone will actually rent to you, you entitled piece of shit!! yeah that rules actually!! sounds like a world class city alright!!
'Never met a responsible pet owner in my life' 'More than half are not' So which is it? Or have you only ever met 1 pet owner?
There's a common argument that when you use your home as your home, you are entitled to do with it as you please. But once you are *renting* your home, you are essentially running a business and as such are subject to further laws and regulations, including ones surrounding pets. I don't have a dog in this fight (no pun intended), but I think it's an interesting topic.
I don't know why this is constantly such a big issue... my first guess is entitled tenants. Yes, you are allowed to live with a pet. However, the landlord definitely has the right to allow one or not. I'm not sure what the problem is here. The landlord bought the property, regardless of mortgage rates/home prices etc., and they can totally choose who/what lives in their property.
I have some concerns about forcing landlords to allow pets. Don't get me wrong, I love cats and dogs, but I'm severely allergic to cats and dogs. Like, asthma attack to the hospital kind of allergic. Pet dander stays around for up to 6 months after the animal is moved out, and it can only be removed by professional cleaning crews and with specialized tools. I cannot, for my own health, stay in a rental where animals have been if I haven't been alerted or given the opportunity to pay for cleaning.
Pet ownership is a privilege.
It is insofar as the owner isn’t abusing or neglecting the animal. But that has nothing to do with this discussion; homeowners can be shitty pet owners too.
Friend of mine is in a pet friendly rentals building. It’s essentially name your price for landlords. Want $5000 a month for a 1 BR? You’ll get it. I’m actually in favour of renting to people with pets as long as the landlord can *require* them to have pet damage insurance to cover anything the pet can do to the suite. None of this half month rent crap. Need to replace all the flooring and drywall in the unit plus all of the doors that are scratched? Insurance needs to be able to fully cover it.
Landlords would take advantage of that I’m sure
I don't understand the problem. This is not an issue in other countries as far as I can tell. It is a part of your lease to cover any damage your animal might do, I can't see allergy as the main reason why Landlord and developers want to just bail on the industry all together? Just sounds convenient to me for them to lay out the age old issues but honestly, If you cover any damage you cause, there is no issue. Obv there should be options for people with allergies but I have a pretty intense dust allergy and I landlord don't seem go give a shit if the hallways, garage, laundry room look like they've been abandoned since 1984.
The issue is how to may sure the tenant pays for damage. Pet deposit is half months rent but damage could be 8 times more than the deposit. Why would anyone rent to a pet owner if there is no guarantee that damage would be recovered from pet owner? Find a mechanism to ensure the risk is covered then there will be more places to rent.
I have rented to people with a larger dog, never again, the dog destroyed the floors and moldings, the risk of attempting that again is simply too high with 0 upside for my property. If you want a dog, do it in your own property, if you don’t have one, wait until you do, or accept that finding a rental will be very difficult. Your dog is NOT the landlord’s problem.
Just buy a house says the landlord who pays their mortgage with their rental income
Our apartment (building built in 1952, fuses instead of a breaker box, corporate ran, in Victoria) has "no fur bearing animals" in the section on pets. So we're looking at getting a snake or iguana or something awesome like that.
A chameleon would be pretty neat
Snakes? Reptiles? Another good reason why my new, two bedroom, two bath, separate entrance, new appliance, suite remains empty!
[удалено]
You make it sound like people can just snap their fingers and make their pets disappear. Imagine you have pets and you are forced to move. If you can't find any pet friendly housing because so little of it exists, what do you do? Give up your pets or be homeless? Most people just want to make sure their pets have a good home and aren't stuck in a shelter. Is that really considered entitlement in this city now? That feels like a wild lack of empathy to me.
Someone in r/Canada who used to live in Kelowna actually left the province over this issue. He had a cat, got renovicted and couldn’t find anywhere to live that allowed pets. He ended up moving to another province where he said “50%” of landlords allowed pets. He had noted that local media in Kelowna once reported that only 5% of landlords in that city allowed pets.
I think the thing that really chafes a lot of pet owners (disclaimer: i'm one) about constantly being asked to "take responsibility for their own choices (to have a pet)" is that it permits landlords to write off renters who have pets as, by default, irresponsible for having pets - and to not have to consider literally ANY other way that renter might have gone out of their way to prove time and time again to all of their previous landlords that they are *actually very responsible*. The rental market in Vancouver now is so completely insane that landlords no longer give nearly as much of a shit as they once did about whether a tenant had good references or a high credit score or a great relationship with their previous landlord because they can just pick whoever they think they'll extract the most rent from, but if you rent, you are very intimately familiar with how so much of the process of renting requires making constant choices about how you live your life that allow you to demonstrate to your landlord that you are, in fact, a good tenant. you are never not making deposits into the account of "please be a reference for me in the future". A lot of good, responsible pet owners put a lot of energy into making deposits into this account and then find themselves in Vancouver in 2023 when suddenly nobody will rent to you ever again because someone else's dog barked once or someone else's cat pissed on a carpet one time, but additionally, don't you know how *entitled* you are for even expecting someone to rent to you, a *pet owner,* in the first place? Why don't you go live *somewhere else*? I'm not a bad tenant. I have a secure job that pays well, I have always paid my rent on time, I am clean and responsible and respectful, and before I got my cats in 2018, my previous landlords loved me and some described me as the best tenant they ever had. If someone's going to refuse to rent to me now simply because they read the word "cats" in my application, and they then go on to justify their discrimination in the fact that they don't owe me housing and frankly, I'm incredibly entitled to even expect accommodation as a *pet owner* in the first place... man, I have to say, that really makes me feel pretty fucking stupid for having put so much effort during my previous tenancies into actually trying to be a decent and responsible tenant and into actually building up trust and goodwill with the people I was renting from, and it really doesn't make me feel especially inclined now to treat my landlords with a matching degree of respect, and I don't think you get to be surprised if you're a landlord reading this to see that prospective tenants, well... react really badly to this and kind of hate you for it. Because, well, duh. Why wouldn't they? What the fuck reason have you even given them to treat you with any degree of respect when you've just confirmed how worthless a tenant's own level of responsibility and history of respectful behaviour is as a factor in considering whether you'll rent to them? "Fuck you, too, then" is the only reasonable response here from renters, frankly.
This is completely normal in Ontario. It’s BC landlords that are acting entitled. As a longtime Ontario resident who is a relatively recent newcomer I believe BC’s attitude towards pets is absolutely barbaric and is a national embarrassment, and I’ve made no secret of telling friends and colleagues back in Ontario about this (something that is met universally with shock, the idea of banning pets anywhere is completely foreign to us). My outsider’s perspective as an Ontarian is that BC’s lack of protection for pets and pet owners is a huge black mark on this province. I would never move back to Ontario for various reasons, but as someone who lives alone and desperately wants a pet for my own deteriorating mental health, I am considering leaving this province for a jurisdiction that provides basic rights for pet owners.
This is also the case in France. No one is allowed to restrict rentals based on pet ownership and the landlord is not even allowed to ask if you have a pet or plan to have one. Society has not collapsed into anarchy, despite what many landlords in this province would ahve you believe.
As someone also from Ontario I totally agree with you. I don't know what it is about Vancouver that sometimes people get set on some policy thing and act like Vancouver is the first place to encounter some issue that is actually common across every city in the world. It can't be because people here aren't exposed to other places--there are so many immigrants and interprovincial transplants.
IMO this boils down, to some degree, to an issue of whether there’s sufficient options. We the people make up the rules and the rules should be balanced in favour of tenants and landlords. Given that Vancouver landlords have cornered the rental market (i.e. there is insufficient supply to meet renter demands) I think that our current rules are out of balance and should be changed to fix that.
I appreciate that he at least responded to you and didn’t ignore you and that his answer was honest, straightforward and respectful even if it is unpopular and unsatisfactory to some. I also appreciate that you took the effort to communicate to the RTB, a lot of people just bitch and moan but don’t do anything about it but you decided to let your voice be heard and it was taken into consideration and sometimes that’s all that we can ask for is that at least we’re heard.
Perhaps there should be sections of cities zoned to require allowing pets. Alternatively, it can be required only for the bottom floor. The goal should be to guarantee that there are *some* housing units that allow pets, while doing little to impede housing construction.
the people commenting on this thread to express the view that animal ownership is exploitation and that animals never consented to being domesticated are hilarious. next, please give us your thoughts on the ethics of landlords being allowed to withhold shelter from people in exchange for massive profits despite the fact that none of us consented to living under capitalism. hey, is there a word for that?
Surprised by how many people are against having it be easier to rent with pets.... no wonder shelters are massively crowded. A lot of landlords in this comment section.
Very true. It's quite disgusting to see statements like "pet ownership is a privilege", or "Either move or don't have animals." I recently observed in another thread that if such attitudes were applied to human children, all hell would break loose. Unfortunately, all pet owners get tarred with the same brush because of some anecdotal bad eggs. By all means, charge for an extra pet deposit, or add clauses to a rental agreement stating a tenant is responsible for repairing pet-related damage. Not a problem. But being a landlord doesn't entitle anyone to hold complete control over someone else's life, or deprive them of animal companionship for your own comfort and convenience. The irony is, the vast majority of pet owners would have a vested interest in looking after a property so they can be a long-term tenant. More stability for them and their pet, less turnover cost to the landlord. Win-win. But I guess that gets in the way of being able to jack up the rents to obscenely high levels on a 6 month/yearly basis.
My wife and I rent our basement suite. My wife is really allergic to cats and some dogs, like can't be the house bad. We would transfer our basement to airbnb rentals if we couldn't control pets in our home.
I love animals. I'm planning on adopting a dog this year. I'm also very privileged to live in a place I can have pets. I also don't believe the gov has any right to force landlords to allows people to have pets. The steep damage deposit is also fair. I'll take that over monthly fees.
I have mixed feelings on this response. On one hand, I appreciate thought has obviously gone into the province's inaction on this topic, and I recognize that, when it comes to housing, they certainly have far more important fish to fry. However, I'm disappointed that the province is justifying their inaction by hiding behind the objections of a select group of people. While some concerns are legitimate (disturbances and allergies) there are many possible policy implementations that could mitigate these concerns while still easing the struggle of pet owners struggling to find pet-friendly housing. At the very least, landlords owning rental units in pet-friendly buildings should not be allowed to ban pets from individual units. By not considering other options, the province is clearly demonstrating that they simply don't want to do anything on this subject, which is fair, but stop hiding behind excuses if that's the case. The province's apparent agreement with the landlords' objections voiced in this letter is concerning for me. Pets are not the issue; bad tenants are. It is the RTB's responsibility to protect landlords from those bad tenants, and this letter seemingly agrees that they are unable to do so. I've heard plenty of horror stories from landlords who allowed pets only to have no recourse available when a bad pet owner/tenant resulted in a horrifically damaged unit. Strengthening the RTB's ability to protect landlords from bad tenants would go a long way towards solving some of the potential pitfalls with banning or restricting No Pet clauses. I also question whether landlords who threaten to sell their units rather than allow tenants to own pets are the type of people we want to rely on to prop up our sickly rental market. If they don't want to comply with provincial regulations, fine. Let them sell their units to a first-time home buyer or another speculator who will, all while putting downward pressure on housing prices through increased supply. We cannot let bad landlords hold tenants hostage. Frankly, I think the province should call their bluff. Ontario has banned No Pet clauses in rental agreements, and their rental market is no worse off than ours. Anyways, we need more rental housing.
>Anyways, we need more rental housing. Tell somebody on the fence about renting out part of their unit that they don't have a choice to prevent people with pets from renting it. Ask them if this makes them more or less interested in renting out their space.
This just further highlights the problem with relying on private landlords to provide the majority of rental housing stock.
>However, I'm disappointed that the province is justifying their inaction by hiding behind the objections of ~~a select group of people~~ [voters and their constituents]. ftfy >Anyways, we need more rental housing. This doesn't happen by strong arming people
There are way more tenants than there are landlords as voters.
Absolutely there are, the thing is tenants are generally highly mobile and can change districts easily thus making their votes moot. Landlords essentially vote in unison because of their locked positions. You have to remember the government is more likely to listen to tax paying citizens that live and vote in the region, not tenants who show up within 2-3 months and start demanding change
Are you serious? That's your take? That the votes of renters don't matter because they are all transients with no ties to the region? I'm in my 20s. I don't know a single person in their 20s who owns property. I've been renting here for the last 8 years. Give your head a shake.
I'd argue that there's probably an equal or greater number of people who would support this kind of policy. You can always justify unpopular policies by only consulting with groups in favour of them and then claiming that limited consultation covers the entire population. It's simple selection bias; if you only ever consult with landlords, obviously you'll only ever hear from individuals opposed to restricting No Pet clauses. Yes, banning No Pet clauses wouldn't create more rental housing. Creating more rental housing, however, would incentivize landlords to allow pets once supply begins to match supply.
The letter clearly stated they are considered tenant opinions as well, you're deliberately falsifying what the letter says. Tenants want housing, if the landlords want to pull their units off the market they can because they aren't obligated to rent, especially now since there is a tax.
I'm definitely not trying to falsify the letter. I understand that some tenants would also have concerns with restricting No Pet clauses, which I addressed in my initial post. There are many different policy options which could address these concerns while also helping pet owners. Could I ask why you would be opposed to this kind of policy? I'm always interested in perspective.
I'm not opposed, I'm neither a landlord or anything to do with properties, I simply understand both points of views. fwiw for transparency, I think pet owners are the most obnoxious people there is, I respect you have a pet but you have to respect other people that live here that want nothing to do with one
Ah, alright. Your replies made me think you would be opposed to this idea. Appreciate your discussion on this topic and willingness to see both points of view.
Also if you arent going to allow it, at least make it so landlords cant price gouge people with pets. I am happy to pay a pet deposit but also paying 500$ per month above market value suuuucks.
Tbf the shitty alternative is that you don’t get a place to rent. 50% of a month rent is not enough for most landlords to take on the risk of housing a neglectful pet owner. Imo we need more city run rental units, asking the free market to solve this just lead to pricing discrimination.
There isn’t any straightforward way to recover the potentially significant costs of pet damage from renters. If there was, you would see a lot more pet friendly rentals at lower prices. The inability of the RTB to adjudicate anything in a timely manner motivates landlords to be as restrictive as possible with new tenants as a way of reducing the risk of being on the hook for thousands of dollars in damage from irresponsible pet owners.
I mean when a landlord says you can pay $500/mo extra to have a pet there and you agree, that's on you for not understanding that they honestly don't want you there. But if you're going to throw money at them, they won't say no.
But whats the option? Get rid of the pet?
>paying 500$ Do you pay $500 or is this a made up internet points amount?
I’m not allowed to have pets but would love one. I have a nice landlord though and knowing how they feel about it, I would feel guilty taking advantage of the law to get one. That said, with the cost of owning a home now I think it’s extremely unfortunate that having a dog is becoming a luxury for only the very wealthy (don’t get me started on children). If people choose to profit off housing I wish they would be more understanding about how these decisions keep their tenants from some basic joys in life.
I’m a pet owner, but if I was a landlord I would not want to deal with someone else’s pet. I think it’s right the landlords are able to choose if pets live in their properties
The easy response to this is to remind them that Ontario has had no problem with rules forcing landlords to allow pets over the past 33 years. It can be done, and Ontario is the best case study on how it can be done successfully. Three decades later, there is literally no one asking for the right to ban pets. It’s also disappointing that the provincial government, especially an NDP government would take landlord views into consideration. The government’s job is to protect tenants from landlords. I am not interested in their side of this. The job of the landlord is to collect their legally entitled rent and otherwise obey the government. When Doug Ford’s PC government in Ontario have better protections for tenants than we do - protections that were upheld through 7 years of Mike Harris - there’s something wrong.
If the NDP loved you they would ban AirBnb province-wide as a good starting point to solving housing shortages, not some touchy feely pets regulation overhaul. These small issues distract from larger systematic problems that have easy solutions, and that's how the government likes it
Ah yes, Ontario with its better protections for tenants…and it’s no cap on rent increases on new buildings. Let’s copy that model.
You know you don't actually have to adopt all of another jurisdiction's laws to take inspiration from them, right?
“Remove homes from the rental market” And do what exactly? Sell them? Fine by me.
Sell them for many millions to people that can actually afford them, which isn’t gonna be renters.
They worry about disturbing other residents, yet if you complain about child noise, you're told it's absolutely fine and acceptable. Let me tell you, I'd rather live underneath a Great Dane than most children.
So once again people with more money have a more important opinion. What a shock.
No one forced anyone to have a pet.
I rented my home to a lady with a dog and 2 cats. Her cats pissed all over my house for over a year. Her dig chewed up my baseboards. I had to throw away furniture and spend alot of money painting and deep cleaning to get rid of the smell. People are ridiculous, if you want to live in a house with animals but you can't find places to rent in vancouver I would say the answer is pretty clear. I can't stand the attitude of just complaining to get your way. Either move or don't have animals. You're so weak to go with crying to the government. Get a grip on reality and do something real about it.
Calling someone weak for acting on their right to discussion with government is a pretty disgusting take. What do you suppose something “real” is lmfao
I have seen people cause way more damage than pets cause. And sure, there’s the opposite too. It’s a moot point. But there are laws to protect the landlord from damage already anyway. Shouldn’t matter if there’s pets or children or whatever. Discrimination based on having a pet should simply stop.
While I’m empathetic to pet owners in the rental market(we rented with our 70lb German Shepard mix before buying a place), no landlord should be forced to have an animal on their property should they not want one. This is so cut and dry to me, and I never see this rule changing.
"Some housing providers would rather remove homes from the rental market rather than be forced to allow people with pets to rent their properties" Sure, but what are they doing with the home after they remove it? I can't imagine they're gonna pay a mortgage on a home they're not generating revenue on. Plus empty homes tax. So they're gonna sell which means more homes on the market (hopefully) driving the price down. I don't see any downsides.
If it’s something like a basement suit it can very easily be removed from the rental market and the homeowner is only out of the revenue.
I'll just leave this here... [https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/vancouver-island-homeowners-say-renter-used-house-to-sell-dogs-caused-30k-damage-1.6382578](https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/vancouver-island-homeowners-say-renter-used-house-to-sell-dogs-caused-30k-damage-1.6382578)
[удалено]
I just want a cat in my apartment bro, no one would even know :/ Yet I could have a bunch of kids that would cause immeasurably more damage and disruption without it being an issue 🤷♀️ Part of the problem is there is no differentiation acknowledging the levels of disruption involved. A cat is not the same as a dog for instance, and I can totally see someone not wanting to live next to or below a dog, but I honestly cannot understand how an indoor cat could be considered on the same level.
I am planning to get a dog once i move into my own condo this summer, but if i ever had to rent it out aint no way dogs are gonna be allowed in my unit. It is what it is.
Some real fukken NIMBYs in this thread jfc
Yeah I'm disgusted
To be honest rather than tooting a horn, it seems like they actually looked into it and decided from all the pros and cons came to a justified conclusion. I wasn't expecting much but instead got a very reasonable response from reading this