BS: Apartment 'no pets allowed' challenged

Subject: RE: BS: Apartment 'no pets allowed' challenged
From: Anne Lister
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 04:25 PM

I remember a flat I once had where no pets were allowed. Then I discovered there were mice. I went to the landlord for advice (and, I hoped, some anti-vermin assistance). He said "Why don't you just get a cat?"   I said "But your lease says no pets". He said "Ah, but I didn't mean no cats."
Funny old world, huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Apartment 'no pets allowed' challenged
From: Becca72
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 11:19 AM

Following bubblyrat's logic I should get compensation from my upstairs neighbors every time they leave the apartment wearing perfume...

Subject: RE: BS: Apartment 'no pets allowed' challenged
From: wysiwyg
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 10:12 AM

Mousethief, we both made some assumptions. I'm sorry for mine.

Please also know that with strokebrain (which I've written about since you were last here so often), my communication deteriorates as the day goes on. The post you reacted to included some unwritten things that were in my mind at the time, plus clear demarcation (as a lot of my recent posts use) between the part that was directed to you personally as well as to or wholly to others in a more general vein. I'm sorry. (I don't have time right now to re-write and repost it.)

So no, I'm not Kreskin, but I wish I has been tooken for Kweskin. :~)

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Apartment 'no pets allowed' challenged
From: bubblyrat
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 09:49 AM

Just write into the tenancy agreement(s),that the incoming tenant MAY bring their cat/dog/wolverine etc,on the clear understanding that they will accept FULL legal and financial liability for any illness,discomfort,or allergic reaction suffered by ANY subsequent tenants, at ANY time. That ought to make 'em think twice !!

Subject: RE: BS: Apartment 'no pets allowed' challenged
From: Allan C.
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 05:58 AM

Chewed trim mold, ruined carpets, holes eaten in wallboard, scratch marks on doors, shredded curtains - oh yeah, gimme some of that! I am a landlord and would never ever assume that ANYONE was vigilant enough, notwithstanding their level of responsibility, to prevent pet damage. Once a property is vacated it takes time to repair this sort of damage, whether or not a pet fee is part of the deal. The time used to make repairs is time that a property lies vacant. Vacancy equals no income. Why would I want to sacrifice income just to accommodate someone's "perfectly well-behaved" animal?

My simple rule is that I don't allow mammalian pets in my properties.

Subject: RE: BS: Apartment 'no pets allowed' challenged
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 09:31 PM

Owners should have the rights to decide whom or what may occupy their property. The rights of the rental occupant are spelled out in the lease or should be.

Subject: RE: BS: Apartment 'no pets allowed' challenged
From: mousethief
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 09:09 PM

You make a lot of assumptions as to what I think. Are you Kreskin?

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Apartment 'no pets allowed' challenged
From: wysiwyg
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 07:26 PM

Mousethief, no [patiently].... but a landlord can designate a unit as "no cats allowed" and then offer those apartments he can say have been pet-free as BEING pet free.

Look, I'm not just fooling around here to spout off for fun-- I've been a tenant all my life, a tenants-rights activist, a neighborhood activist, and we (I) held the Mudcat Dorm totally non-allergenic for about 5 years till no allergen-free-Mudcatters came. It CAN be done, but it requires thought and discipline.

It's not just about not letting critters into a space-- there are HVAC and nat'l airflow considerations as well.


If one expects a landlord to take that degree of trouble, it's a "bump" in rent to pay for that feature-- not a war with pet owners who have no issues. The pet owners are not out to get you, you know, they're just like you-- living their lives, their way.

===

Gnu, in California, no-- a landlord cannot do all that without a law, if there is a lease. The tenant has remedies at law.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Apartment 'no pets allowed' challenged
From: mousethief
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 07:03 PM

I could not move into an apartment where there had been a cat. Just not. The idea that you can remove all traces of cat is just fantasy.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Apartment 'no pets allowed' challenged
From: gnu
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 06:41 PM

Fish? How do they keep em lit?

Subject: RE: BS: Apartment 'no pets allowed' challenged
From: GUEST,999
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 05:38 PM

Yeah. And smoking pets is even stunder. Fish I can see, but not yer average cat, dog or budgie.

Subject: RE: BS: Apartment 'no pets allowed' challenged
From: gnu
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 03:43 PM

A landlord can do all that without a law.

As for hotels and smoking... why would that have any bearing on this issue. Smoking in hotels is just stunned.

Subject: RE: BS: Apartment 'no pets allowed' challenged
From: wysiwyg
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 03:21 PM

In Calif. if a landlord HAS allowed pets to an individual tenant, s/he cannot then DISallow them for a particular owner when s/he changes her/his mind.

My mom really benefited from that because she is an excellent steward of cats-- catch and release for spays, and vet care for the diseased. Not a cat hoarder. The landlord got pissed off one day to see kitteh food in a bowl on the back step, and tried to ban her from "keeping" any critters. "Yer attracting raccoons!" "I'm luring cats to be spayed to keep the "coons DOWN," she replied, and then he said she'd have to move. She quoted chapter and verse right back to THAT and that was the end of THAT!

At lease renewal time he also cannot fail to renew based on pet issues because he already allowed them.

Scary-- so much common sense in Calif.!

===

As to gnu's point about future allergies, it's pretty simple. It's just like hotels and smokers. A room posted as "no smoking" does not mean there has NEVER been smoke in there, but it does mean that smoke has been removed to the extent possible. Thus, it's not a guarantee, but a designated zone within which a person with allergies can take their own measures to deal with whatever is the case upon entry.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Apartment 'no pets allowed' challenged
From: Charley Noble
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 02:31 PM

"His bill would allow landlords to set down rules for acceptable pet behaviour and cleanliness of the rental unit - a provision he feels would appease tenants who don't want pets in their building. The bill would also allow pet owners who felt they had been discriminated against to file a complaint with the provincial residential tenancies branch."

Still as a landlord I would prefer to have pets option, to interview said pet along with its owner, and then decide if the pet were a risk to the apartment beyond normal wear and tear or might interfere with the quiet enjoyment or health of the other occupants of the building.

Not an easy question to decide but the wrong decision can result in major problems.

Charley Noble

Subject: BS: Apartment 'no pets allowed' challenged
From: gnu
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 02:23 PM

A Manitoba law requiring rentors to allow pets in rentals?

Pet owners are concerned about peeps losing their pets? What about peeps losing their rentals if they are allergic to these pets?