It indirectly becomes a form of discrimination against the poor. Wealthier renters play the game, call their doctor friends to get a note (like they did in high school to get out of tests). Poorer renters go look elsewhere.
Dogs can scratch floors, pee or poop on carpet, shred things, keep people up barking, dig up yards, even bite people. I can't say I blame them for protecting their investment to the maximum extent possible when market conditions allow. It's an investment to most, and nothing more.
And I say this as someone who grew up with cats and a dog and loves animals. I might one day decide to own a pet myself, but I sure as heck wouldn't begrudge a landlord who did not want one living in their property.
The homes people live in are more then just an investment to someone else. As a landlord, I "sure as heck" wouldn't begrudge a tenant the joy of finding a pet as a companion in life over few dollars.
Do you believe that landlords who forbid water beds are also misers who deny others small joys out of avarice?
One of the cats was old and infirm and peed repeatedly indoors on carpeted floor. The smell was horrendous. I can't see how the tenant lived with it.
We replaced a large proportion of the carpet throughout the house.
The deposit covered the costs only because we carried out the work ourselves as part of a larger renovation project in advance of selling.
If we had gone down a more hands-off approach followed by investment-focused landlords, the costs would easily have exceeded the rental deposit which would have resulted in the need to sue the previous tenant.
That's a whole lot of effort to go to for a landlord and I can see how a landlord would choose to avoid pet owners given the option.
You do get desensitized to the smell, though. The first time cleaning the litter box I almost vomited, these days it's a mild inconvenience at most. When I get guests, I'll clean the litter box as a precaution, someone else's nose might think the smell is horrible but I'd barely notice it (I don't ever let it get that bad).
I do get the point from a landlord's point of view, though. Why take the risk if there are other tenants who don't carry that.
Although I think it should be negotiable with a larger deposit rather than flat out refusal. Pets increase the quality of life.
My comments from the perspective of a landlord weren't intended to generalise pet owners.
I own two cats (although I suspect they actually own me) and have previously rented houses and have offered a per-cat additional deposit in cases where landlords were adamant.
One of my cats is easily stressed out which can lead to uninary tract infections and which may have contributed to her chronic irritable bowel syndrome.
Both conditions (the former intermittent, the latter constant) can result in unexpected indoor urination and surprise vomiting.
Cleaning up either is perfectly achievable given the correct care and attention.
Despite being exposed over many years to a variety of cat by-products, I still haven't grown accustomed to the smell of cat urine such that I could ignore it. Sometimes I wish I could!
Even the most responsible owners with the best pets can have problems that can't be fixed without just replacing the entire carpet. It happens.
A bit over a year later, tenant moves out and we discover that the backyard is clean because they simply stopped letting the (large breed dog) out. Every bit of carpet and subfloor needed replacing (literally cut out as close as we could with circular saws, seal the 1.5" we couldn't reach, and air the place out; the neighbors complained about the smell and asked if we could keep the windows closed). The wood was soaked/swelled in many places with urine. Every air vent and return was rusted from urine. More than one contractor "no bid" the work; one complained that he was going to have to throw his work boots away after the walk-through.
The tenant had about 2 nickels to rub together, so parents lost a lot of expected gains on that deal.
She's usually a well-behaved cat, never did anything like this before, and we tried everything we could think of to get her to stop. We spent over a year and hundreds of dollars trying to repeatedly clean the spot, shampooing, steaming, enzymes, but nothing worked.
Our deposit was only $500, but we spent about $1600 replacing the carpet (it was the right thing to do and, like you said, they can sue us). There was NOTHING you could do to get that out besides just replacing it. And that was just one room. Multiply by 5 or 6 for replacing carpets all over the house, and that's more than a landlord can even reasonably hold as a security deposit. And what if we had had a wood subfloor instead of concrete? That would quickly get into the 5 figures.
It seemed like an ideal pet situation -- good cat, no history of urinating outside the litter box, responsible pet owners, regular vet checkups, doing everything we could to try and clean and get her to stop, cared very much about the cleanliness of our living space, but we STILL had to replace the carpet.
Honestly, especially after that experience, I don't blame landlords at all. I own a house now and don't think I'd ever want to, say, rent a room to a stranger with a cat. And I have a cat!
Any tenant has the potential to be a filthy person. Hoarding, not cleaning, not reporting bug issues/plumbing/needed repairs, etc. - Being a landlord is taking that risk and hedging by doing renter interviews and taking deposits.
The majority of pet owners manage their pets properly, just like the majority of people are reasonably clean and responsive to building issues. Normal wear and tear is covered by deposits or else is the cost of doing business.
Pet rent and pet deposits are, in my opinion, a recently-accepted method of increasing deposits and rent through additional line-items. Might as well have "child rent".
As a dog owner, I strongly dispute this. Most dog owners are pretty oblivious to managing their dog appropriately, either overly doting, or neglecting. It pains me when I take my dog out for a walk how much dog poop I see on people's lawns, and how poorly behaved other people's dogs are when out on leash. Dragging their owners around, lunging as we pass (either in anger, or out of control playfulness). <5% of dogs I run into are under control by their owner.
People don't become a landlord for fun and games. They do it to make money. If you are good at making money, you look for ways to limit your exposure to risk.
Why are the poor getting pets? Why do you think it's a right? Why shouldn't they be spending their money on their childrens education for instance or putting the money towards buying or other long term stablisers to their future.
[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284277087_Pet_Dogs_...
When did we get to the stage where people need things to fix issues they create. Pets help, but not if you can't afford to keep them at the expense of a happy household.
Dogs make people happier and emotionally better, not denying that. So does earning $70,000+
But if your poor your can't just earn $70,000+ and the same as keeping pets (they are easy to buy though)
I'm happy to work to a future where everyone get both of those though.
I don't earn that much, but in my country, I earn about 3-4 times the median salary. I really enjoy having the money and the liberty they provide. That doesn't stop me from being anxious and depressed most of the time though. I used to think money buys happiness. And for a time it did. However, that wears off as people adjust to the new financial status.
Beyond that, it's a quality of life issue. Pets can drastically increase the quality of life of people by providing companionship. Questioning why the poor are getting pets is like questioning why the poor have a smartphone, or even just the internet. To some, it looks like a luxury, but a long time ago it became much harder to lead a normal life without internet access. For example, last week was back to school night for my daughter's sixth grade class. All teacher correspondence is through email, updates about classwork is through email or the teacher website, and if you have a problem with the math homework, there's handy set of instructions for how to get instructional videos from the math website. Don't have a computer or a phone that can use the internet (which face it, is probably cheaper)? Guess you have to find a relative or head to the library to get help.
Any time you question whether the poor should be spending their money on something you see as a luxury item, you should step back and think about why they are doing it, and what non-obvious benefits it might impart. That even goes for clothes.
I fail to see how going to a library means "much harder to lead a normal life". Personally, I would go insane without internet. All my activities depend to some degree on having access to the internet. But going to the library to check for instructions for homework? People have done that for hundreds of years.
You don't check out anything, you use a computer on-site to view instructions. Libraries as a place of distribution function fundamentally differently than libraries as internet cafes. Even if your job hours overlap with almost all library hours, you still have the weekend to go to a library and check out books that can be used all week. Internet access from the library is only available while at the library. Our library is nice enough to have (and be able to afford) extended hours on Wednesday, so they are open until 8 PM, otherwise they close at 5 or 6 each day. Good luck using it on other weekdays if you have traditional work hours. Need to respond to an email regarding a prospective new job? I'm sure they won't mind if you take a few days to get back to them...
> I fail to see how going to a library means "much harder to lead a normal life". Personally, I would go insane without internet.
The context is people criticizing the poor for owning a smartphone. Not only does it solve the internet access problem, but it's probably cheaper, even with the phone cost, than a computer plus separate internet service, since the alternative is not no phone, but a dumb phone (which isn't free).
>I fail to see how going to a library means "much harder to lead a normal life".
In the context of a modern education, you don't think having home internet access is a huge advantage (versus having to visit a library)?
You really can't be serious?
Wow, there's a way to get an Englishman's hackles up! Nation of dog-lovers...
Generally, we'd like society to be reasonably inclusive regardless of means. So that even if someone is poor, they don't merely subsist, but can engage in some of the fulfilling parts of life, including having a pet (which along the way if you'd particularly like some Victorian moralism to justify why the poor deserve such things, also engages people with all sorts of virtues like responsibility, companionship, empathy,...)
Not the Nazi-grade question if poor people deserve to have dogs.
We're not going to solve the problem of "why we have poor and not a better distribution of wealth".
> Not the Nazi-grade question if poor people deserve to have dogs.
Nazi grade? Deserve? They can do whatever they want. Poor choices will result in poor lifestyles either way. Advising against spending money you don't have on things you don't need does not advocate Nazism.
Why not? In many countries we've solved the problem "why do we have subjects and kings", "Why we have slaves", "We we have peasants and sharecroppers", etc.
>Poor choices will result in poor lifestyles either way. Advising against spending money you don't have on things you don't need does not advocate Nazism.
Maybe they shouldn't have kids either, if they can't afford them?
(Many people advocate for that too. Because of course "affording to have a kid" means "giving it a middle-class life and paying for their college". God forbid anybody brings their kid a working class/poor existence. Perhaps they should just give up and perish as a class of people).
(Similar here with the idea that a "dog" is some expensive middle/upper-middle class accessory. Even homeless people can have their dogs (and often do). And the poorest of the poor, in developing countries in Asia, Latin America, Africa etc often have dogs and cats just fine. No $100 premium pet-food per month required).
Here are some "bad decisions": http://www.onegreenplanet.org/news/poor-man-in-india-shares-...
Personally, I'm not planning on having kinds until I'm somewhat confident I can give them a proper education.
> God forbid anybody brings their kid a working class/poor existence. Perhaps they should just give up and perish as a class of people
Sorry, but perhaps you should stop gratuitously exaggerating. I was brought into a working class. However, that didn't stop my mother from giving her best to raise and educate me into the middle class citizen I am today. Money isn't an issue unless it's a really bad problem. Education and parenting is however. I've seen a lot of wealthy people neglecting their children, just like I've seen a lot of poor people spending more time with their children.
> Here are some "bad decisions"
Because you can buy shoes with scraps of food?