I remember looking for housing and finding apartments that allow cats, but they have to be declawed. :/

Sarah November 3rd, 2009 09:58:33 AM

Why is the question always "pets or no pets" or "guns or no guns" or even "kids or no kids?"  Because lawmakers and associations do not have the stones to address the small percentage of folks that make problems.  I always got ticked off at the "no pets" rules in apartments.  A well behaved pet will cause less damage than any 5 year old kid, but try explaining that to anyone.

Unfortunately, this is another byproduct of the reality that most pet owners have "brats" for pets.  None read this forum, that's a given, and unfortunate.  If all pet owners were as attentive as the members of this board, this would not be an issue.

EAB November 3rd, 2009 10:01:21 AM

Once again all are being punished because no one will punish only the offenders. 

Beth Patterson November 3rd, 2009 10:21:04 AM

I take a hard line regarding the rights of property owners.  Until the powers that be, whether it be a condo board or homeowners' association, pay my mortgage, they have very little right to tell me what to do with my property.

A relative owned a condo in Florida, and it was run like a small fiefdom.  Decisions were made that made little sense; power seemed to go to the board's collective head while simultaneously eliminating any shred of common sense.

In this instance restricting the number of pets won't solve the problem.  Until the bias against pets is eliminated and condo associations are populated with reasonably intelligent humans idiotic "solutions" such as this will be commonplace.

Carol November 3rd, 2009 11:06:11 AM

"condo associations are populated with reasonably intelligent humans"

In my experience there's an oxymoron in there somewhere.

 Intelligence and rationality have been progressively devalued in favor of hard and fast rules over the last several decades, while the laws and rules have become less and less suited to the people they apply to. 

That's why we get idiocies like "zero tolerance"  regulations in schools and other situations applied where any adult wouldn't apply them. 

Near as I can tell, the initial impetus for this came from the desire to prevent various forms of discrimination via the arbitrary exercise of authority but as usual, people go too far.

And to the point, West Hollywood housing regs allow me two medium sized pets because I'm ancient, and the landlord can't require a damage deposit because the doc says the cats are good for my blood pressure and gave me an Rx to prove it.  This proves that sometimes even hyper-liberal bleeding heart organizations can get it partly right. (Add winky icon here if needed)

Will November 3rd, 2009 12:07:00 PM

I totally agree with you EAB!!!  It makes me so mad my sister-in-law throws a huge fit when I bring my pets to family gatherings(nobody else does).  But it's really funny b/c my dogs are totally well behaved and get along with everybody while her kids are screaming, throwing things, breaking things, smearing things on walls, etc.  The last time she threw a fit I told her that if she could bring her kids I could bring my dogs!  She didn't like it but my mother-in-law thought it was funny.  And my house doesn't have crayon marks on the walls.  Lol

DNS83 November 3rd, 2009 12:14:17 PM

I always have issues with rules and regulations that tend to be a blanket policy.  No dogs over X amount of pounds (what happens if your 29lb dog gains two pounds and is now over the weight limit?), no pets at all, no dogs, no cats, even the blanket policy of some rescues to *require* a fence.  I can guarantee that my 52lb dog is less destructive and quieter than many small dogs I know.  Two cats often do better than just one cat, the same can be said of some dogs.  These sorts of decisions are often knee-jerk reactions to what is ultimately caused by a handful of people and ultimately ends up punishing the folks who do the right thing.

If poop is a problem, set up some security cameras where it seems to occur and catch them "red-handed."  Those people can be fined or evicted if caught.  Heck, you could even set up dummy cameras and *tell* people they're being watched and will be fined for not picking up after their dog.  That might work in and of itself and wouldn't cost much to implement.

I used to live in an apartment that allowed no pets at all (not even hamsters).  The family who lived next door with their two extremely loud young children were much more of a nuisance than the people I've lived near elsewhere who had pets.

Crysania November 3rd, 2009 12:14:20 PM

It has more with folks impressing their authority on someone than any sort of requirement for the rule.  I remember a few months ago I was on our walking path.  On the path, as long as we're not by a road, I take Tina off of the leash and let her explore.  She stays off of the path and ignores passers by.  I can drop her to a lay down position from 200 feet away if need be, and with one whistle she high tails it back to my feet in a hurry.  No leash required.  In the last few months I have only had one person complain about this and it was a person that maintained the trail. 

She approached me on her bicycle and said "I thought the first time I passed your dog it was a stray but now that I know it's yours, I am telling you to put her on a leash."  I said "So when you assumed it was a stray did you take any action?  It could be aggressive or even rabid...what action did you take?"

She said nothing, because she did nothing.  Since there was no one to impress with her authority when the dog was in her mind a stray, she decided instead to ignore her job.  Gives me fits.  Oh, and I did put Tina on a leash.  Then the lady rode away on a bicycle and as soon as she a ways down the trail, Tina was back off the leash and doing her thing.  I was hoping she'd return but she never did.

The only reservation I have about taking Tina to other's houses is that between seasons Tina sheds like crazy and I don't even like to deal with the mass amounts of hair.  I don't expect anyone else to have to deal with it.

EAB November 3rd, 2009 12:57:25 PM

Having recently served 3 years on a condo board in Houston, TX, AND having lived in those condos with 6 pets (the limit was 2), I can see both (actually, many) sides to this issue. Property rights. Well, we're in Texas and big believers in "I paid for it and I'll do as I please." but, when one buys into a multi-unit complex, much of the property is jointly owned and all owners have an interest in the common elements and the community, especially the costs of maintenance. Dogs pooping is the one people scream about and it does increase maintenance costs. (I call it free fertilizer but it can become excessive and I was inclined to tell the humans to stay off the grass as that did every bit as much damage to the landscaping and staying off it meant no poop on their shoes.) Urinating is actually a bigger problem especially with male dogs because they go for the railings, fences, light poles, etc. This does significantly increase the costs of maintenance and repair as the urine "eats" the paint and can short out lighting. Fleas and parasites. I wouldn't be happy to have to treat my home for fleas because of OTHER peoples pets. At our condos, we had to treat the commons and many people had to treat their homes, many people who didn't own pets had to treat their homes. That's not fair either.

On the pet (especially dog) owners' side is that pets and people walking the grounds is excellent for security and encouraging people to actually speak to one another, to be neighborly. (I even had a neighbor who noted that he enjoyed the benefits of my dogs' "stranger" warnings without the burdens of care because my dogs have been taught not to bark indiscriminately.) Still, we need to be aware that our pets increase costs to the community. (One possibility to deal with that one is a "pet club" and fee contributed by pet owners to cover the extra costs incurred by the community.) As for internal damages, if the individual owner/resident is responsible for the repairs, I couldn't care less; if the association is responsible, then they do have an interest in that.

Cats should not be allowed to roam the complex. They can do an incredible amount of damage by climbing the walls, using roofs as scratching pads, peeing and pooping wherever they please (including your neighbors patio/balcony), etc. The non-pet owners are not going to be thrilled by the howls and screeches of a cat fight either. Of course, that's without getting to all the "normal" reasons why letting them roam is just plain BAD.

Smell. If your pets create a smell that wafts beyond your home into the commons or another person's home, then you have an issue that needs addressed in some way. (There's already law developing on smoke wafting so this, perfumes, etc. won't be far behind.)

In addition, we all need to be responsible owners, better training our animals; especially properly socializing our dogs who interact with others or restricting them from interaction; not dismissing their inappropriate behavior and expecting others to think it's cute or should be tolerated.

Community/Condo Residents. OK, here's where I'll throw a fit. Very few participate in the property management, often dumping it on 3-7 members of the community and then whining, moaning, and groaning. Pet owners are often the most guilty of this. Everyone's busy, as the condo resident here is. While I understand wanting 2 pets to be companions for each other, pet owners who are that busy usually contribute ZERO to the condo management. If the non-pet owners are entirely stuck with the management of the complex, well, surprise, they aren't pet friendly. (BTW, in every one of these communities, there are 1-2% of whom that are just plain NUTS and it's the volunteer board members who get to deal with them regularly with little or no support from the community at large.) The worst abuses come in communities where there is very little participation by the ownership which leads to board member and manager fatigue and an absolute necessity to have more absolute rules just to keep the place from falling apart and sucking up 40 hours/week for the few volunteers because that's just asking way too much for HOA volunteers. Suck it up, play nice, participate!

For those of you wondering why the board members hesitate to enforce against individuals... I had my truck keyed, the locks screw-drivered, and a dead possum left on my doorstep, amongst other lovely things for doing just that and while fighting to keep the rules more tolerant. It's tough to be 1 of 3 board members, run a 160 unit, 8 acre property, deal with the crazies, and put up with this type of retaliation while the majority of the community is oblivious to all but the rules they take offense to AFTER not participating, not showing up for meetings, years of not being able to get quorums even for annual meetings... So, I repeat... Suck it up, play nice, participate!

We did have a hired manager and many residents think these managers make huge amounts, the majority of the fees they pay. Generally not so. Most of that money does directly into the property. Our manager was paid $2,000 gross per month. Could you manage 160 homes for that and put in the time really needed to do so? Let's say you put in 2 hours/month on your house and efficiencies of scale cut that in half. That's still 160 hours/month AND then they have to deal with 25 owners to boot! So, that's less than $15/hour. Is that reasonable? Well, condo owners simply aren't willing to pay for proper management, let alone proper maintenance and repairs!

Go after the individual offenders? How? Who is supposed to do this? Are the handful of volunteers supposed to patrol the complex 24/7 in addition to doing the property management? In my complex, we'd get complaints but everyone wanted "someone else" to do something and wanted to make these complaints "anonymously". My general response was that, if it wasn't important enough for a resident to put their name on a complaint and testify at a board hearing, it wasn't worth my time. But then that got me a dead possum on my doorstep too. (I couldn't care less but it was the toddler next door who found it and that DID tick me off.)

Leashes. LEASH YOUR DARN DOGS, PERIOD. You may be the 1 in 1000 whose dog is perfect but your dog being off leash causes issues with other dogs who aren't so well trained and, MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY, it causes issues with residents who don't have dogs and may be afraid of them (and may have very good reasons to be afraid) and you don't have the right to force your dog on them. Load your dog up and go to the dog park! Show just a tiny excess of respect for other people's space by stepping your dog off to allow walkers to pass. What's the big deal? We dog people are accustomed to walking in the grass and letting others have the sidewalk to pass will make them much more tolerant of the dogs.

Back to my own critters. 4 indoor cats that no one even knew were there and 2 dogs. My Lab was amongst the most obnoxious in the complex. I accomplished that by enclosing a patio for the cats and being inordinately polite in stepping the obnoxious (and even the polite) dog off. Over time, others became friendly with both dogs and understood their issues, including people who were afraid of dogs. They became aware of the cats too. I got ZERO complaints about my own critters because I contributed more than my share to the management of the complex.

I believe pets have a place in these communities but the owners need to participate too. When we buy into these communities, we enter a partnership with the other owners which includes the current rules and future changes. If we find those too burdensome, then it becomes time to sell and move on to a place more suitable to our needs/wants.

I'm all for the animal welfare but not to the exclusion of the human welfare in a jointly owned community. These communities were designed and built for human habitation and rarely with the needs of pets in mind. If pet owners want to reside in them with multiple pets, they need to step up to the plate and do their part too.

PJB November 3rd, 2009 02:43:46 PM

Rules are often just dumb. 

Example: 

Apartment complex that allows only two pets regardless of the size, type, etc. 

This means you can have 2 Great Danes who you walk in the commons and don't pick up after, or two gerbils whose waste and noise will never be a problem or concern for neighbors.  All treated the same.

Several indoor cats are less obtrusive to neighbors than one dog.  After all, we are at the mercy of the dog's level of training and owner control every time the owner takes Fido out for a walk.  Barking, snapping, etc.  Not to mention not being picked up after.

There are differences in the degree to which a pet has the capacity to impact our neighbors, depending on lots of things, including species, temperament, size, training, and of course, owner responsibility.

Stefani November 3rd, 2009 03:16:59 PM

The rules drive me crazy, too. I had a hell of a time when I was searching for an apartment that would accept my Sheltie.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm giving you a security deposit of anywhere from $450 to $1200. If my dog destroys something, take it out of the deposit. That's the POINT of the darn thing in the first place! You have a large sum of money available to use in the event that my extremely well-behaved dog does something terrible to your property.

I totally understand accepting dogs on a "case by case" basis. Both of my almost-landlords wanted to meet my dog before we rented; I have no problem with that, and I think more landlords should do this instead of just saying flat-out "no dogs".

If I was moving into a building of many apartments, or a condo, or something to that effect, I personally would have no problem with an additional fee for "pet-related grounds maintenance". Of course, if they provide us with a well-lit gravel area with a few pee posts, trash bags, and pooper-scoopers, I think you'd have far less "maintenance" to worry about elsewhere.

Cat @ It's A Spring Thing November 3rd, 2009 03:32:19 PM

We had one resident who had 15, yes 15 (not a typo), outdoor semi-feral cats and none of them altered so proliferating over time and getting wilder.  Cats are not inherently less obtrusive and these 15 were incredibly nasty, stinky, and destructive.  Then there was the resident who walked her bird.  She'd walk around the complex with the bird on her shoulder and the bird would "chat" which would really set off the cats and dogs!  Then there were the 2 dog owners who both thought they owned the sidewalk.  Sadly, a third dog owner crossed at a crosswalk between the 2 having a little standoff and mayhem ensued, ending in a tangle and injuries to all 3 owners and all 3 large dogs.  It did not go well for dogs or owners!  There may be many factors but the most important one is the owner/resident.

Just FYI, this is an upper middle class condo complex adjacent to the Houston Medical Center and populated mostly by professionals from the Medical Center and students from the Med Schools!

Yes, the rules can be over the top but there's usually a reason why they got that way...

PJB November 3rd, 2009 03:41:30 PM

"As far as I'm concerned, I'm giving you a security deposit of anywhere from $450 to $1200. If my dog destroys something, take it out of the deposit. That's the POINT of the darn thing in the first place! You have a large sum of money available to use in the event that my extremely well-behaved dog does something terrible to your property."

I heard this quite a bit at the condos.  Property owners and landlords become acutely aware of the repair and replacement costs.  $1200 is a TINY amount when compared to the damage a dog can do and tenants rarely know the costs of repairs which are done by contractors not DIY by landlords.  Even when a landlord does DIY, they're then out time they can't usually charge for.  For example, Dog pees on rug and spot cleaning is good enough for the current tenant.  Is that good enough before renting to the next person?  Who has a dog and is going to find that spot instantly because the smell is still discernible to him in the carpet, pad, and structural floor (whether it's wood or concrete)?  Do any of you know what it costs to have a professional de-fleaing of a home, even an 800 sq ft condo?  The chewed baseboards?  Now, I've even talked "no pets ever" landlords into letting me rent from then back when I was a tenant but then I got referral letters from hotels and landlords every time I moved so had a stack of them to present to a prospective landlord.  That added to my own acknowledgement that the deposit was nominal and I knew what it could really cost and would pay up if it came to that convinces several back when.

"If poop is a problem, set up some security cameras where it seems to occur and catch them 'red-handed.' "  The new board at my condos is pricing this for the 4th time in 5 years.  Just to cover the 4 gates is $25,000 (minimum for equipment and installation) plus they'll have maintenance costs AND monthly monitoring.  Wanna guess what it would cost to cover the entire commons areas?

"Of course, if they provide us with a well-lit gravel area with a few pee posts, trash bags, and pooper-scoopers, I think you'd have far less "maintenance" to worry about elsewhere."  Not really "of course".  Those posts, bags, scoopers, and stations cost money and have to be maintained and then there's the twits who simply won't "make" their dog go in the designated areas.  So, you've got $200-$500 for the station, $70 for installation, repairs, maintenance, painting will be periodic and ongoing.  Weekly service calls for maintenance at $18-20/installed station/week and add $14/station if you want them to poop scoop in the immediate vicinity of the station.  Costs for the bags and scoopers (and then there's the owners who pull off multiples and just toss them out and/or swipe the scoopers).  One can go with just plain poop scoop patrol at $30-50/hour PLUS supply costs.  Gravel areas?  Level and lay gravel then regular maintenance to keep the gravel where it belongs, leveled and replenished as needed.  (And I'm quoting from an estimate from 2007!)

Folks, none of this stuff is free!  Top that off with the resident perceptions that it is free or at least cheap so they take advantage and...  unreasonable rules attempting to deal with unreasonable people and perceptions.  Very few of these communities include people who are going to put their own time and labor in so the price just keeps going up and up.

PJB November 3rd, 2009 04:55:58 PM

Yes, PJB -- I should have said indoor cats.

I am not sure I could ever live in a condo.  My mom lives in a condo complex and they dictate the color of window boxes, whether and how you can decorate your door for holidays, what you can put on your porch (hangling flower baskets, no.  Lit candles, fine.  No sense . . . porches are wooden).  If you want to beautify the entrance by planting flowers, your garden plan must be pre-approved. 

That complex, however, seems to be very loosy goosey on the pet restrictions, I think they do nothing unless there is a complaint.  My mom has had friends there with 4 and 5 pets, and 2 large dogs are common in these 700 sf dwellings, go figure.  I'd rather loosey goosey than the other way.  I'd rather live with a cacaphony of pet noise all around me and no pet rules than someone counting furry heads. 

Stefabu November 3rd, 2009 04:58:02 PM

Having been a renter once upon a time, it took awhile to show responsibility to the landlord before asking to bend the rules, and allow a dog. 

I also was a landlord "once", and boy oh boy, did I regret the choice of the seemingly "perfect family" with toddlers and one large dog--apparently the OES kept in the basement and definitely NOT housebroken! This was one hell of a cleanup job when they finally vacated !

I sympathize completely, and have seen both sides.

For myself? Well, privacy and surroundings placed the highest priority on my last two abode locations. No upscale fancy neighborhood with manicured landscape--no siree, it was with as much space between neighbors, so my dogs could bark to their heart's content. Chain-link fencing to keep my dog's safe from wayward strays and wild critters.

Barbara A. Albright/NH November 3rd, 2009 05:13:50 PM

A very complex issue because there's no good way to set a certain number of pets that's appropriate for every situation: my 5 indoor-only cats (4 of which are "illegal" in my community) have much less potential to disturb the neighbors or damage common property than one yappy 15-lb dog, which is legal in the community (of course, if I were renting, multiple cats certainly have the potential to cause costly problems indoors). If people acted like responsible adults, you could make a rule that allowed pets as long as they didn't disturb the neighbors, but there are always a few people who don't care about anyone around them. It's easy enough to handle on a case-by-case basis in very small communities, but my condo is part of a 400+-unit community--a common size in Florida. Governence of the commmunity is through a board of 3-4 volunteers, who certainly can't be expected to identify and deal with the people causing problems.

Sarah November 3rd, 2009 05:19:38 PM

I just moved into a new apartment this past summer and I certainly saw my fair share of pet restrictions placed on apartments before I signed a lease.  My personal "favorite" was a building owned by a large company that only allowed 2 cats and they had a declaw requirement...that they disclosed AFTER I was shown the apartment and had been in contact with them several times and was assured that my two cats wouldn't be a problem.  There were two major problems with the situation: 1.  All of the apartments in the complex allowed smoking.  I was shown an apartment that smelled like a dive bar and yet my cat's claws were going to somehow make things worse?  Probably not.  2. When the barely-legal apartment tour-guide sprang the declaw requirement on me, I said I was a veterinary student and I'd be happy to provide both previous landlord and veterinary references to show that my cat is well-trained and healthy.  She actually rolled her eyes and so I was a little less than polite when I asked if she even knew what a declaw procedure entailed.  I explained the gist of things and she practically squealed and told me "not to tell her things like that because she wants to get a cat and move into the building."  That was icing on the cake and I made sure to tell her she should at least know the basics of a procedure that is "required" for their feline residents and that I would, in no uncertain terms, mutilate my well-trained, 2 year old cat to suit an apartment building. 

Going back to the original post, I have no idea how people get it into their heads that they don't have to clean up after their own dogs when they do their business in a public area.  I would like a clause added to leases/community guidelines saying that you are responsible for picking up after your own pet while it is on apartment/condo property.  Violators will be fined.  Other dog-owning residents usually recognize the person that isn't picking up after their own dog.  You don't need surveillance cameras if there is an anonymous "tip line" that may clue management in to who is causing a problem.  There's no reason to punish all animal-loving residents because a few people are making bad choices.

Veterinary Student November 3rd, 2009 05:43:39 PM

"I am not sure I could ever live in a condo."  Me, NEVER AGAIN!!!  We had a rule on the color of curtains but blinds could be just about anything because they weren't in style when the documents were drafted so sprouted up everywhere and were grandfathered in; then the fact that window covering couldn't actually be required at all so some retaliated by removing the window covering and putting on a show.  That brings up the kids issue.  Ours was built as adults only and along came the supreme court to say they couldn't restrict renting and then couldn't prohibit children in rental units and then the peep show!  I liked us having plants around but then a couple of people went berserk and put so many out that they were a danger if anyone ever needed to get an ambulance stretcher in or out...

Then someone vandalized some mezuzahs.  And that brought the "no external modifications without approval" into question.  Up sprouted everything from flags to enormous bleeding crucifixes.  Then the Euro contingent that wanted NO religious decorations and that brought the Asian nationalist door decorations.  And on and on it goes :)

It's like living in a zoo without a zookeeper!  (And Texas doesn't have anywhere near as decent of condo laws as Florida or California!!!)  I'll take my $25,000 house needing a complete rehab and 1/3 acre on the fringe of the metro every day over that yuppie condo and the wildlife living there.  I'll take my sweet time doing the rehab and remodel with no complaining, whining neighbors.  I'll even take the dogs running at large here over the nuts in the condos!!!  Given the economy, I've been debating over selling the condo and taking the financial hit or renting it out.  Been a few years since I was last a landlord.  That is sounding like a worse idea every day especially since I'd still have to deal with the condo association :)

PJB November 3rd, 2009 05:51:17 PM

I was so thankful to find a small townhouse that I could afford to buy that is NOT in a community and NOT run by a HOA. There's no way I could tolerate the kind of nonsense that comes out of them, especially since I own two pit bulls. (And good luck renting with "dangerous" breeds. It's possible but not probable. I lived in a pit with a drunken landlord who didn't care about anything except the rent check rolling in every month, so I didn't have trouble, but so many people have had to give up their dogs because they've been unable to find housing that would accept their pit bulls.)

Katie November 3rd, 2009 06:03:58 PM

"I have no idea how people get it into their heads that they don't have to clean up after their own dogs when they do their business in a public area."  Forgive me but I feel the need to play devil's advocate to such a strong assertion  :)

WHAT "public area"? We're talking about condos so we're referencing commonly, jointly owned PRIVATE PROPERTY, not public property, not even public areas as the communities generally restrict these to owners and guests. Mr. or Ms. co-owner, what makes you think you have the right to tell me to pick up my dog's poop on MY property? How did you get that idea of dictator in your head?

Oh, and I can't resist complicating the equation. If you have someone who is disabled in your complex, perhaps a back injury, you're not going to be able to make them poop scoop as that might well fall under the reasonable accommodations laws.  :)

And is there a feral cat community anywhere near your complex?  Then you have poop everywhere anyway, along with the poop from rats, mice, birds, etc., etc.  While the dog poop may be more noticeable, collectively, it probably isn't more prolific.  When you take care of all THAT poop, then you can tell me to pick up my dog's poop on MY land.  Until then, have the landscaper do it and I'll be happy to pitch in a bit extra for the costs even though all those other critters aren't my responsibility and their poop is still going to be there. :)

PJB November 3rd, 2009 06:15:12 PM

BTW, for those wondering if laws and ordinances for leashing, control, poop scooping, etc. apply to condos...  Not generally because it is "commonly, jointly owned PRIVATE PROPERTY" so only laws and ordinances that reach private property are generally enforceable as to the open commons of condos and many other forms of HOAs.  And after 3 years on a Condo board and learning all this, I have to fight the inclination to hunt down the guy who came up with the whole idea of condos; he needs to be tortured for that idea!

PJB November 3rd, 2009 06:38:49 PM

I would like a clause added to leases/community guidelines saying that you are responsible for picking up after your own pet while it is on apartment/condo property. Violators will be fined.

My lease has such a clause.  It doesn't work, because it isn't enforced.  When my upstairs neighbors got a Boxer and Lab puppy a couple of years back, they never picked up after them.  People complained, and management's solution was to send letters to all the tenants, reminding us to pick up after our animals or we'd be fined.  Twice.  They never did anything to the problem tenants.  I was extra ticked off because their Boxer resembled mine closely enough that I was worried someone would think my dog was the problem and tattle on me.  I was worried about getting fined for my neighbors'  behavior.

Other than that, though, I have no complaints about my landlords.  They have a generous pet policy with a ridiculously low pet deposit.  There aren't any size or breed restrictions on dogs, either.  *Lots* of Pit Bulls in my apartment complex, which I love, love, love.

Shelly November 3rd, 2009 07:07:14 PM

We Live in a coop.. on Long Island, Before you can bring a dog in to live, it has to be interviewed by the board.. Don't remember what the interview was like for Socks.. He was eight weeks old.. My Brittney was grandfathered in...

Our buildings have 90 apts.. and we haven't had problems with the people picking up the poop.. Think the biggest problem is with cats sneaking out of the apts.. when the owners open the door.. therefore there is a leash law in affect.. and we are reminded to obey.. I did run into a problem when Socks ended up on the other side of my door.. I don't have a clue how.. It must've been a bad mommy moment..

My mom's building has a no pets clause.. There is a little unknown law regarding the elderly, and having an animal.. It has something to do with the coop not being able to force the owner to move or get rid of the animal if there are no complaints within a certain time.. Socks is the only dog in the complex.. and nothing they can do..

Barri November 3rd, 2009 07:47:56 PM

PJ, you wrote "$1200 is a TINY amount when compared to the damage a dog can do..."

I am not getting into how it sounds like you think you should get to break rules and others shouldn't - and I'm not going to check or comment further - but a recent post on Pet Connection sites average costs from pet damage is well below $1200.  YES, I DO understand what 'average' means, so don't start throwing out definitions.  While there will be the occasional huge repair because of pets, most seem to be covered by the regular and special pet security deposits.   

http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2009/11/02/pet-homelessness-and-the-landlord-issue-study-says-landlord-fears-baseless/

KateH November 3rd, 2009 10:50:25 PM

Barri, my mom threatens to invoke that law all the time (she lives in fear that someone will want her to get rid of her dog, although I can't imagine why they would).  I think it was passed under the Clinton Administration.  I think it's great. Do you know of a reference to the actual text of the law?  I'd love to read it.

Stefani November 3rd, 2009 11:40:29 PM

"I am not getting into how it sounds like you think you should get to break rules and others shouldn't" Hm, sounds to me like you just "got into it".  That's OK.  I bought the condo while it was rented and with no expectations of ever living there and my son moved me and the critters in while I was in post stroke fog city.  Truth be told, as the haze started to clear, I expected to be fined heavily and moving quickly.  I got on the board to help revise the rules and get the complex more pet friendly and for more consistent enforcement across the board because they had evolved into the usual Condo Politics during the 3 years before that.  BTW, under Texas law, any provisions not enforced for 4 years are generally waived.  The pet limits in my complex hadn't been enforced for over 20 years so I was actually in no danger of being fined at all.  And, just FYI, my former tenant had a dog who did far more than the "average" amount of damages cited in your survey.  Like most landlords, I didn't charge her for all the damages and I expect that practice skewed the results of that survey as well.

For the moment, I'll assume for the sake of argument that those studies are correct that the "average" damage cost to landlords is only slightly higher.  It still doesn't change those rare occasions when a landlord sustains substantial damages they can't recoup.  Any time that happens, it drives up the cost of housing generally.  Yes, the same is true for reasons other than pets but there are better processes in place to screen the human tenants.  As for the children issue, that's one I find particularly annoying myself and it is under fire by many business entities who have noted the increased damages and costs since the Supreme Court ruled that families with children can't be discriminated against, no matter how ill behaved their children are.

I have pets and I smoke.  I would not rent to a pet owner or a smoker, period, averages be hanged.  They are going to create more work for me; more cleaning and more damages.  I probably won't become a landlord again partly because I wouldn't rent to someone with kids either!  I've represented both landlords and tenants in these matters.  I've seen the damages.  The responsible young person who totally checks out and then moves his fraternity into the rental house.  The crazies who have 1 cat, oops, turns out to be 20+.  The perfect dog with references who suddenly decides wood and carpet are edible...  At my former complex, the pack of balcony chihuahuas (followed by the pack of balcony terriers, all 24/7 yappers), the Great Dane playing ball on the second floor which has wood flooring at 2 AM, the second story tenant with 2 dogs and 3 cats, all with unfettered outdoor access and no leashes, the dog locked in to an abandoned unit after a fire - left to die of starvation if lack of water didn't get him first, the cat the police wanted to lock in after the resident died - knowing that the family would not arrive for at least a week and the cat had been there with its dead owner for at least 3 days already without food.  No, it isn't the critters; it's the humans but the problems and damages are quite real.

And, KateH, I'm not going to even pretend that the people who did that survey don't have a bias.  Of course they do.  If you want to believe that the "averages" from a biased survey justify dismissing the lack of recourse for the extraordinary damages or that "other people cause damages too" (a little like "but mom everyone else is going to the drug party" to me) makes it justified that pet owners do so, you're welcome to it.  You may now proceed with your flame intended to start a fight because I'm headed to bed and not bait-able tonight.

PJB November 4th, 2009 12:08:07 AM

Stefani, I don't think that's a federal law unless it falls under the fair housing or ADA laws and I doubt that since the "no complaints within..." doesn't ring any bells and I've read a lot on this in the last 4 years.  "Remember that the right to have pets is not one of the standard fair-housing-protected classes such as race, religion, creed, color, national origin, handicap, etc. A tenant that is in violation of a lease clause prohibiting pets would be subject to a 30-day (or 60-day if they are long-term tenants) written notice to terminate their tenancy. The only exception to a rule change prohibiting pets would be for tenants who have requested and been approved for a companion animal under the fair housing laws or the Americans with Disabilities Act. But only those qualified animals would be exempt. For example, a tenant may have a specific dog as a companion animal and thus the landlord's new "no pet" policy would not apply. But that would not cover any pet or stray animal, and the tenant would have to remove any nonqualified pets from the rental property."  It could be a NY (state or subdivisions thereof) law as NY has some of the most tenant friendly and protective laws on the planet.

PJB November 4th, 2009 12:16:25 AM

Short version: "Tenants may keep pets in their apartments unless their lease specifically prohibits it. Landlords may be able to evict tenants who violate a lease provision prohibiting pets. In multiple dwellings in New York City and Westchester County, a no-pet lease clause is deemed waived where a tenant "openly and notoriously" kept a pet for at least three months and the owner of the building or the owner's agent had knowledge of this fact. However, this protection does not apply to public housing or where the animal causes damage, is a nuisance, or substantially interferes with other tenants. NYC Admin. Code § 27-2009.1(b); Westchester County Laws, Chapter 694. Tenants who are blind or deaf are permitted to have guide dogs or service dogs regardless of a no-pet clause in their lease. Also, tenants with a chronic mental illness are permit- ted to have emotional assistance animals. NY Civil Rights Law § 47."  You can read the text of the New York City Admin Code provision here.

PJB November 4th, 2009 12:37:01 AM

I will say that the "bleed over" of other's living arrangements IE fleas and such are not limiited to dogs.  I know that roaches, ants, noise, and other living conditions from neighbors can influence the quality of life for others in a condo or apartment.  Perhaps to eliminate roach related issues we'll just forbid eating.  That'll do it.  Ridiculous, eh?  That's what I thought.

There needs to be a bit of compromise.  My dog is trained not to potty unless told to.  So that takes care of the fence peeing issue as long as the complex has a dedicated area for pets to excersise or do their business.  Fleas are a non issue for those that treat their pets.  Heck, a pet with a dose of Frontline or Advantex kills fleas, right.  $1200 to clean up a dog mess?  Umm, I haven't seen any mess that can't be taken care of with a good dose of Simple Solution or other similar product.

Bottom line:  Pets are like toddlers.  Well mannored cause little to no damage, and brats cause issues.  Both are the cost of owning or living in a multi unit complex.

EAB November 4th, 2009 07:31:47 AM

EAB,

Simple Solution won't cure everything.  Dogs can and do tear up carpet and linoleum, they can and do pull doors off their hinges and woodwork off walls, they can and do dig holes in floors and walls, and they can and do break windows.  I can tell you from experience that those are costly repairs, because being a responsible owner, I covered them myself instead of leaving it for the landlord to pay for them. 

So while I wish that more landlords would allow pets, I can also understand why many do not.  It may be that Simple Solution will fix *most* problems, but it only takes one really horrible experience to sour an owner enough to impose restrictive, blanket pet policies.

Also, for what it's worth, my dog was not a brat.  She was well trained and well behaved.

Shelly November 4th, 2009 08:06:49 AM

With all due respect, Shelly, you didn't list one physical damage item that's unique to pets.  I have seen kids to the same kind of damage.

EAB November 4th, 2009 08:40:07 AM

This is a really interesting thread.  It's nice to read the perspective of landlords and those on condo boards.  I have two cats in a 600 sq. ft. apartment (the maximum number allowed by the building).  I pay an extra fee, $20/mo, to have the cats.  I don't mind the fee because the building is exactly what I want and the only other nice apartments on the street have a very strict no pets policy.  The carpet was pretty much toast when we moved in (I didn't mind, no guilt at spills) but they definitely destroyed parts of the window screens before I realized they could not be truested with fully open windows.

Otherwise I think the only impact they have is the added garbage weight of the litter and cat food cans in the recycling and any plumbing problems my flushing off cat poop causes (none that I know of, but it's certainly extra... "strain" on the system).

I'll admit that I'm tempted to stretch the rules and get a third cat.  It's mostly because, "who'd know."  Renters rights are pretty good here and they have to give notice before they enter.  But I go back to the square footage and litter boxes and think maybe the landlords know what they're talking about.

Anyhow, interesting discussion!

AnneT November 4th, 2009 10:04:45 AM

EAB,

Kids tearing woodwork off the walls and digging holes in the walls/floors? Tear up carpet and lino?  Not stain or dirty, but *tear up*.  Seriously?  And you compare pet damage to damage by kids, as if landlords do not discriminate against families with children.  They do.  Bad analogy.

Shelly November 4th, 2009 10:17:43 AM

I'll agree with EAB on that point about the damage kids can do.  We had a family with 5 children (all under school age when the 5th arrived) in a 1300 sq ft condo.  I'm sorry but that's just not enough space for 5 kids and 2 adults.  And no play area for kids in the complex and parents who didn't take them to playgrounds.  The result is kids that act a bit like caged animals too.

"The carpet was pretty much toast"  Made me smile and remember the very first apartment I rented when I was 17.  Really nice landlord but was hesitant about renting to a young girl with a cat, still he was talking about replacing the carpet before I moved in.  I asked him not to, to even let me to the carpet cleaning; just let's document it and he could replace it when I moved out but I didn't want to get charged for damages.  Worked out well for us both because I could clean it so that my cat was less likely to find a prior pet's scent but also didn't have to worry about the carpet while living there.

"destroyed parts of the window screens"  LOL, have you started using lattice work baby gates yet?  I've become an expert at replacing screening but those tension baby gates are a nice option too!

PJB November 4th, 2009 12:18:40 PM

I live in a condo building that does not allow dogs except for those owners that had a dog when the rules were changed (yes they may have a fido in perpetuity).  At this point, I'm not sure that anyone has a dog.  And frankly I'm fine with that.

Unless someone has a dog walker, its been my experience that working people leave their dogs for many hours often resulting in barking and potty accidents.  Do not want.

I think the rule is two pets under some weight (other than dogs).  There are people who have 304 cats, and as long as they aren't a problem, its not a big issue.

The most recent dust-up was over smoking in units.  We don't allow smoking in common areas but owners may smoke in their units.  Unfortunately, given the way the air vents are connected, a smoker can be a real bother to a non-smoker.  But when the board attempted to ban smoking in units - the owners including many non-smokers like myself said 'No."  Why, cause what's next - no drinking, no cooking smelly foods?

Condo living isn't for everyone.  We're pretty lucky that with a few exceptions, most owners make an effort to get along with their neighbors and try to follow the rules and also give a little leaway if someone isn't totally in compliance.

Good thing, cause Teddy Boo sometimes gets into the hallway when I'm leaving the house and if you open your door he's in like a flash.  He's visited just about every other unit on my floor.

2CatMom November 4th, 2009 01:22:42 PM

Uh, that's 2 - 3 cats, not 203 cats, LOL!

2CatMom November 4th, 2009 01:23:53 PM

Sure, kids can do a lot of damage.  But like I said, they are a bad analogy for *this* discussion, because landlords often discriminate against families with children.  FWIW I saw a lot more "adults only" ads than "no pets" ads, the last time I was apartment hunting.

Shelly November 4th, 2009 01:26:17 PM

""destroyed parts of the window screens" LOL, have you started using lattice work baby gates yet? I've become an expert at replacing screening but those tension baby gates are a nice option too!"

You know I haven't tried lattice baby gates, but I like that idea.  For now I just keep the windows closed or just open a crack.  There is no cross-ventilation and my allergies are awful so I keep the AC on as much as possible.  I'm mostly worried about their safety.  They're both large cats (one legitimately, the other is just pudgy) and yet the minute they see a bug they climb the screens and hang there like those stick-on garfields.  It's a 3rd floor unit!  Scared me to death after I got done laughing :D

AnneT November 4th, 2009 01:47:38 PM

"FWIW I saw a lot more "adults only" ads than "no pets" ads, the last time I was apartment hunting."

Shelly what state do you live in? That's completely against Fair Housing Law in New York State, anyway (it's illegal to disciminate on familial status)... I thought this would be the same nationwide.

I am a landlord, with my husband... we do not advertise as "pet friendly" but if someone ASKS and can present good info on their pet then we rent with pets. They have to pay a separate pet desposit. Sorry KateH, but if you've never been a landlord I guess it'd be easy to believe that article you posted is true across the board but we've got the actual experience, so I'll stick with my separate pet deposit. Deposits serve 2 purposes anyway -- one, to have the funds if the tenant wrecks the place (and depending, the deposit does NOT always cover it... especially if they've ruined something like a portion of hardwood flooring and the entire room needs to have new hardwood laid down -- even if we are doing it ourselves, our labor is worth something too!), and two, to DETER the tenant from wrecking the place to begin with -- people want their deposit money back and they are more likely to really try to keep things nice that way. There seems to be 2 visuals of landlords on here -- lazy slumlords or rich, money-hungry a*holes --- neither of which are always true. We both work full time and are not well off by any stretch of the imagination. Time spent fixing messes tenants leave behind is in addition to our 40-hour work weeks and that labor is worth something, so that needs to be factored into the deposit. I want to rent a nice-looking, comfortable home to someone -- whether they have pets or not -- but in the end we have to protect ourselves, so that's where well-written leases and pet deposits come in.

And just as a tip to renters... if someone advertises a place as "no pets" do not write them off immediately if you are otherwise interested in the place -- it is often a technique used to weed out people, if you call and present a reference, or a CGC certificate, or something else, they may be open to it. Obviously that's not the case with large apartment complexes, I'm talking more about privately owned rental homes. It's not something we do, but just saying there are people out there who do things that way.

Carissa November 4th, 2009 02:43:08 PM

I adore my tension gates that fit in the window.  At my new place, a neighbor's dog try to jump through the screened window at one of my cats.  The screen gave but the tension gate stayed right in place.  2 of my 3 cats are chubbies but active and it will stop both of them.  The third is skinny mini and he still "hangs" even on the lattice and I have to go lift him off (like a cat in a tree who can't let go and back down).  You just can't help but laugh despite the fear :)  (Depending on paw size, they may be able to reach through the lattice to get those irresistible bugs but they certainly tend to do less damage to the screening.)

I leave the gates in place even with the windows closed.  Cuts down on the nose prints on the glass :)

"landlords often discriminate against families with children"  They're not "supposed" to but that's a whole 'nuther discussion :)

PJB November 4th, 2009 02:49:21 PM

Here's the link for the tension gate I like best for windows.  There's a much bigger selection on-line than in the stores but you can usually get both the plastic and wire mesh versions for under $20 in most stores, usually in the baby area rather than the pet section.  Personally, I'm not a big fan of ASPCA but, for those who are, they've teamed up with Wal-Mart and many pet items now will generate a donation to the ASPCA.  Some of the items can be found at the link on this page.

PJB November 4th, 2009 02:59:58 PM

Carissa,

I'm not in NY, and as far as I can tell, there is no state level statute here that forbids discriminating against renting to families with children.  If there is, then there are a whole lotta landlords who aren't abiding by it.

Shelly November 4th, 2009 04:23:21 PM

Shelly, that part falls under federal law.  Here's a nice, concise statement that's accurate: "When the Fair Housing Act was first enacted, it prohibited discrimination only on the basis of race, color, religion and national origin. In 1974, sex was added to the list of protected classes, and in 1988, disability and familial status (the presence or anticipated presence of children under 18 in a household) were added... In certain circumstances, the law allows limited exceptions for discrimination based on sex, religion, or familial status."  Last time I checked, federal law should still apply to residents in NY but doesn't mean it's being enforced.  More technical info here (but somewhat biased and incomplete).  There are numerous exceptions and that's starting to "get around" to the landlords.  There have been some cases won where the landlords claimed that children shouldn't be in efficiency units; where more than 2 people per bedroom restrictions were upheld; a restriction that an adult with 2 children (boy and girl) be required to be in a 3 bedroom unit was litigated; etc.  Like pets/no pets, there are valid arguments on both sides.

PJB November 4th, 2009 07:54:20 PM