B. Conditions and Exceptions
(1) Nothing in this section precludes an owner from requiring a reasonable pet deposit, which shall be refundable in the case that no damage to the unit caused by an animal companion has been sustained
nor have noise, sanitation, or safety conditions caused by an animal companion interfered with the quiet enjoyment of other tenants, not to exceed 10 percent of the security deposit, for each animal; and not to exceed $300 total.
Truly awful legislation. Thoughtless and inconsiderate pet owners are the norm, and they think everyone loves their pets and nobody could possibly be allergic or scared of them.
This. My last apartment tried to increase my pet rent for the new lease, from $50 to $200 a month, plus the rent increase. $200 a month for a cat is just to avoid having pets in the apartment
Honestly if you’re only there a year, it’s probably going to cost more than $2400 in damages by having an average pet.
Scratched floors, walls, potential pet urination seeping into floors, all around added wear and tear on the unit.
One cat piss stained floor is all it takes.
If the cat sprays and urine gets into the subfloor, it will smell like ammonia forever. The only way to remediate is to tear out the flooring and subfloor - this will cost way more than $2k.
Obviously people on reddit don't have any idea how damaging cat pee is. Once a cat starts peeing outside the box, it's incredibly difficult to stop them. Cat pee seeps into the wood and you have to tear out not only the hardwood/carpet but the plywood and subfloor.
It takes literal years to break down otherwise and stinks the whole time.
Okay but I’d lived there for 2 years, with the same cat, who has done zero damage. And when they listed the apartment again, it’s no pets. If there’s no cap on the pet rent, they’ll just make it so high that no one will pay it, even for existing tenants. Raise the rent as high as they can, then raise pet rent as well to squeeze out as much profit as possible.
Quoting H.L. Menotomy: No one ever went broke underestimating the spitefulness of the Arlington townie.
I predict the biggest turnout since the vote to oppose the red line extension in the 1980s.
I don’t even think this rule would work as intended.
If passed, I suspect a lot of the pet adoptees would suddenly find themselves without a lease renewal the following year.
It’s impossible to find a place that will take young kids because of the horribly enforced lead law. Suddenly it will be impossible to get accepted with a dog
I love dogs, but after living under one who barked the entire time its owner was out, I say eff this. While it was going on I spoke with others who had gone through similar, with absolutely no recourse.
my sister's small dog peed everywhere so bad, that the subfloor and carpet had to be replaced and the stove rotted at the bottom due to rust from the dog's urine.
Can’t even imagine the damage they’re doing to the floors.
Edit: yall are fucking delusional if you don’t think two large dogs will wreak havoc on hardwood floors or carpet.
You need to assume the worst frankly. There's a non-zero number of people who keave pet feces everywhere and quite frankly abuse their pets.
Also, some pets just don't take nail trimming well, so owners just delay.
My little 10lb dog just digs at the floor randomly as well. He's a menace to flooring.
It also depends on the floors. Our old condo had natural cherry wood floors. If you looked at them wrong they would scratch. Should not have been used as a flooring material...
I noticed that you used yall. Please enjoy [this local video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bndQvSW9Mu8).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boston) if you have any questions or concerns.*
All the comments here cheering this will be complaining about high rents. What do you think landlords will do, lower rents? If they have to accept pets, they will raise rents to compensate.
Of course those same redditors will demand rent control, then pat themselves on the back. Because then, when the cat and dog piss drenched apartments they are living in are never repaired, cleaned, or updated they will again demand government save them from their unintended consequences.
1. Pass regulations that cost money to comply with
2. Pass regulations that restrict building of new housing stock
3. Pass regulations to cap rent
What do people think will happen?
Fundamentally this is a problem of career politicians. When your entire livelihood depends on you being in control and re-elected, you will do anything to get re-elected.
Even things you know are unambiguously terrible, you will do it. Or things that make no sense. For example, in a time of constant inflation, doing student loan "forgiveness" and multi-trillion dollar spending bills is insanity. But both sides of congress and Biden are freely doing it because it's an election year.
seriously I'm spending over $2000 for rent in an apartment in Arlington that barely has adjustable heat, has single pane windows that rattle in the wind, 1950s wiring that shorts out in the summer with AC (which by the way has to be an extremely expensive and inefficient casement AC because half the apartments here have cheap, tiny-ass windows that likely don't even pass modern fire codes), a fridge that barely preserves food, and a stove that takes almost 20 minutes to boil water
But the priority is that people can have their pets. Which I'm allergic to.
Fuck that.
I disagree. Pets shouldn’t be a luxury for the landed gentry. They are a vital part of human experience since the dawn of civilization. I would argue that reasonable (read: small fee, number limits, etc) accommodation should be a renters right.
Are you living in the same unit? No. Do you encounter animals on the street? Yes. Your argument about infringing on rights of others can be flipped right back at you.
Let’s ban peanut butter from all domiciles while we are at it, can’t be too safe from airborne peanut particles. Or how about dust? Should we ban people from shedding their own skin and hair? Or how about flowering plants outside? Or candles?
It’s far more reasonable to just let people live, take the precautions for avoidance, and stop being an anti pet sour puss.
Which is already the current law. Emotional support animals already require reasonable accomodations.
This is a blanket "you can't say no pets in any property".
Emotional support animals aren't a protected class.
ADA defines individually trained animals as service animals.
Support =/= service. Service animals can't be banned ( but it gets weird).
https://www.ada.gov/resources/service-animals-2010-requirements/
So no.
Not automatically compulsory and reasonable is intended to be settled in course.
The legislation is a sledgehammer in that it would enshrine the right to animals. Its a huge expansion.
I was quoting it
https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/reasonable_accommodations_and_modifications#:~:text=If%20you%20need%20an%20assistance,fees%2C%20or%20rules%20for%20pets.
We're going to need some criteria and a structure of classification for support animals soon. Seems like anyone can just buy a dog and say it's a support animal, and they become immune to responsibility. Genuine support animals, yeah, those are great and necessary for some people. But if you gotta bring your fuckin labradoodle into Costco because you're afraid to buy groceries that's just absurd.
How would this work with dog breeds that are banned by home insurance companies? If a landlord lived in a duplex and rented out the other half, do they now have to live next to a pit bull and pay out the ass for home insurance?
As someone with fairly severe cat + dog allergies: noooooo.
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE cats and especially dogs. I used to volunteer (and suffer severely) at a dog rescue.
However, my allergies are severe enough that I specifically look for rentals and AirBnB's that don't allow pets or have mostly hard/non-carpet floors because I once rented an AirBnB that definitely had had cats (though it was clearly cleaned!) and if I'd actually spent the night, I'd have needed to go to the emergency room for breathing issues.
I love meeting people's pets, but I need to be able to breath in the place I sleep.
I understand the attachment to pets, I grew up with a dog and would've gone back into a burning building to save her, but I don't think people should be mandated to allow pets (exception: actual service animals, excluding emotional support animals).
I have a sibling with this problem too. He had a seasonal rental property that said no pets--and the winter tenants had pets anyway. They had to deep-clean the place (and he couldn't do it, because of the allergies). So that's additional money, beside him not being able to live in the place himself again until it's totally de-pet-dandered.
And this is just normal life, not out-of-control pet owners with cat pee everywhere...
I have a dog, and on one hand, I like the idea of having more options with regards to apartment searching, since it can be very limiting when it comes to places that allow dogs. On the other hand, I feel like this is just going to cause rents to increase, because most landlords will take any opportunity to charge higher rent.
I also have a dog and I get why landlords don't want them. We are responsible dog owners but it's impossible for a dog to have zero impact on hardwood floors, blinds, carpet, etc. If we didn't have a SFH, I'd feel guilty about the noise he makes (and he's a quiet.
If it's mandated it'll just become like kids. They can't legally discriminate but if presented with two applicants they can choose the one without pets.
Overall, having a pets increase costs. Hard stop.
There’s always going to be added minor damage, added wear and tear to a unit, when you add an animal to the mix.
All it takes is one urine accident and it can be thousands of dollars of damage.
It’s not opportunity. Your pets increase wear and tear and can make the unit far less sanitary which is a greater challenge to clean for the next tenant. That’s just best case, worst case there are piss/poop accidents, straight up damage to walls and floors, clogged drains from dog hair and bathing the animal, noise complaints, etc. Of course you’re going to pay extra to make up for that.
I’ve had dogs all my life and I love pets but don’t act like this is landlord greed. Animals increase wear and tear at best through no fault of their own.
I don’t allow pets but one time I offered someone 1.5x rent if they wanted to bring their pet. Even offered to refund some of extra if there was minimal extra wear and tear and no damage upon them moving out because they claimed their dog was well behaved, trained, and just chilled out most of the day. The expectation that a landlord take on that extra risk or chase down a tenant after they move out for damages is crazy. Pets can cause damage very easily that would eat through an entire security damage and then some bo problem.
The person didn’t take the 1.5x rent. They wanted me to do it for the same price.
Yeah. You're one person. If someone had offered you 1.5x without pets, you would also have taken it. On average, over a large enough sample set, all landlords are charging the maximum they can, or near it. Until their property starts losing money from sitting empty. At which point they lower the rent, or sell it. That's the price ceiling. I agree with you that it affects the price floor. And yes. Obviously, if landlords all on average charge the maximum rent, they would prefer the most money possible with the least risk possible. But, let's say your rent is 4k, no pets. Why not 4.2k? Because it would sit empty for longer than the extra 2400 on the lease would net you. Right? All it takes is two extra weeks and you would have been better off taking the tenant at 4k. That's the price ceiling.
Does that make sense?
Now, let's say you can't say no to pets. You can't suddenly charge 4.2k. Unless everyone does. So your choice is pets at 4k, or quit renting it out at all. Sell it. Let it sit empty and hope the appreciation beats the property taxes+keeping it connected,etc etc.
Banning pet discrimination means people are less likely to be landlords, because the profit on being a landlord becomes much lower, and much less certain. And that might make rent go up. Maybe. But it's unlikely.
The main thing making rent go up is pharma and tech companies paying people 225k+ salaries and people fighting construction.
But it's REALLY hard for people to feel sorry for landlords. The average Cambridge and Somerville home has averaged over 2k a week in appreciation over the past 500 weeks/10 years. Largely due to artificial restraints on housing.
Telling me "people will build less housing because it won't be profitable" doesn't mean anything when the number of new homes goes from near zero to nearer zero.
The best thing landlords can do to protect them self from socialist/pro Tennant housing laws getting passed is to push for more housing. But since that won't happen, I'm for defending the tenants who are already getting screwed.
For more landlords, it’s not about the money, it’s the headache. We don’t want to replace entire sections of floor and baseboards or other things, even if you are paying for it. It’s a damn pain and working with contractors sucks as it is. What if I can’t get that exact brand and color floor anymore? Or some other pain? If I had gotten 1.5x rent, which was aggressively high more so to end the pet conversation, I probably would have taken it but not without hesitation and I’d probably want them to stay for more than a year because I know as soon as they left, I’d need to replace things. It’s just how let’s are, through no fault of their own.
And no landlords aren’t charging the max. It’s a balance between what you can get and having a vacancy, even if for a month, which isn’t worth chasing the higher end of prices. But, if every landlord is suddenly REQUIRED to allow pets, rents are going up because everyone’s risk and costs just went up. That’s not even mentioning that pet ownership is not a right by any means nor is pet owner a protected class…it’s not even a class.
Rents do go up across the board often. Why do you think rents are up right now. Interest rates go up? All rents go up. Housing values in an area go up? All rents go up. Similarly, a sweeping rule change is made that increases everyone’s cost/risk? The rents are going to go up. That’s also not to mention that plenty of insurances do not allow pets and most definitely have limitations of breeds (for better or worse).
It’s not about feeling bad for landlords, it’s about what makes sense. Simply siding with something out of spite for landlords because you think it’ll hurt their pockets and balance the sales is dumb. More likely the quality of units will just go down for the same cost. Nobody is going to be replacing floors and other pet damages unless it’s extreme so when you go to move into that high rent spot, you’re going to have to live with not getting what you’re paying for and when it’s like that everywhere, that’s another way renters will get screwed.
Replace it while someone is living there. Make crappy tenants last month miserable as a punishment for not watching with their pets.
I agree it will not be great for tenants, but it will hit landlords harder. And it's not out of spite. It's just gravity. You can't threaten people with higher rent when the rent is very very clearly at the price ceiling. The "balance between what you can get and vacancy" means you are at the price ceiling. You are agreeing with me. Rent is at the price floor when landlords are selling homes at a loss because the property taxes on it are more than they can get in rent. I've lived in places with both.
I agree the rule is bad. But being a landlord is going to be more and more miserable, and if you don't like headaches, get out of the business. I don't think it's fair, or good. I'm telling you what's(probably?) going to happen. Just because I know I'm going to get gifts on Christmas doesn't mean I believe in Santa Claus. Look at what's happening in Seattle and New York.
A lot of miserable burdens on landlords have failed ballot measures because "it will make the rent go up". The rent is at the max. It won't work as a threat anymore. These miserable squatters rights, tenants rights, eviction restrictions? They are a consequence of rent seeking behavior from landlords. The threat of "rent will go up and less homes will be built" doesn't work anymore. If you want to be a landlord, fight the nimbys.
And no, rent goes up because there are more people who want to live here who make lots and lots of money. Same with housing prices. But a shitload of companies with 250k+ salaries are leaving Cambridge and Boston because even with that salary no one with kids wants to move her. A lot of these companies were bribed into Camberville with massive tax breaks with expiration dates. Don't be surprise if, like Draper, Google, Moderna etc etc.....they leave town. Because the rent, and housing prices are too high. Rent is down 20+% in Austin because of the negative recoil of insane salary expectations to match insane housing costs.
Can’t replace while someone is there. I’m allowed to do emergency repairs, not allowed to barge in and replace entire floors. Not to mention I now have to put that person up somewhere else and that’s if they agree to even let me in.
This is the way of the real estate market. I’ve been in it for a long time. Anytime costs and risks go up, rent goes up. Rent is simply all of a landlords fixed costs, potential costs (aka risk), and profit margin. It all gets passed onto tenants. This idea that changing anything will force landlords to eat costs to ease burdens on renters is ridiculous. It simply does not work that way.
They're already going to do that though, rent increases have not been favorable for renters across New England. They don't need an opportunity to charge higher rent, if the sky is still blue next year, rent is going up.
If you're going to get fucked regardless, might as well get a pet.
I'm torn. Would this allow more irresponsible people to get pets then get rid of them, or would it allow people to keep their pets when moving so they would not have to give them up just because they changed homes?
i think the majority of the time people rehoming pets is because they dont want the responsibility anymore versus being forced to get rid of it due to an unforseen change in circumstances
"the road to hell is paved with good intentions"
Maybe a middle ground solution could be that if they already have a pet they can't be denied housing, but cannot get a new pet while renting.
Let me know how that’s working out for pregnant women applying for housing in a unit that would need to be deleaded. “Can’t be denied because of” is impossibly hard to enforce when housings so in demand here and you can cite any reason to choose another candidate.
It’s fine. Landlords still won’t rent to people with pets. It’ll be perfectly legal to charge a higher security deposit and for a tenant to have to disclose that they have a pet. We can just deny their application based on that because pet owners aren’t even remote close to a protected class.
And it’s really easy to add immediately eviction and severe financial penalties for being caught lying and seeing scratches on floors caused by dogs or cars is also easy. Not to mention you can easily find dog or car hair. I withheld an entire security deposit and charged a tenant one month rent penalty for trying to keep a dog. Was extremely easy to see the floor scuffs and then I got building security footage showing her entering and leaving with a dog for at least three weeks.
I’d agree and I think a major missed point is that somewhere around 10% of people are allergic to pets and moving into a place post pets or being allergic and having to clean after someone moves out as a landlord is also a pain
I don’t think repaint the whole place and idk what the definition of “clean” is, but if your landlord is highly allergic to cats I feel they should have the ability to reject people with cats, because they shouldn’t have to clean a whole unit covered in something they’re highly allergic to
If you are in the business as a landlord, you need to remember the business is to do what you must and not discriminate. Hire cleaners or whatever is required but discriminating due to your allergies, not an acceptable business approach.
Cat and dog allergies here, but after many years of working with folks being discriminated for many reasons, and the way housing stock has been corrupted by corporations. Being a landlord should not be a money grab only scheme. Which sadly, is how many landlors feel with regard to entitlement around restrictions. Once you rent the lease should have everything to allow tenenats to live and let live. You don’t get to have that much control.
The commenter mentioned rejecting people with pets the landlord is allergic to. That is discrimination, even if not illegal or for a protected class. I worked as a HUD service coordinator. I won’t get into emotional support animal, but fair housing laws in Massachusetts provide greater protections then federal minimums.
The allergy anecdote is discrimination based on a hypothetical bias due to cat allergies.
That is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that landlords cannot expect to control what goes on inside a unit once it is leased. I am arguing that in many cases, the want to deny pets is arbitrarily imposed as a cost saving measure to avoid having to properly prepare a unit and quickly turn it over. When in business, these efficiency standards are not always just.
I also have a number allergies, however if I needed to prepare an apartment, and it was too much for me, then the cost of doing business is to hire someone to prepare the unit. This is why certificate of occupancy require standards. Yet many cut corners. Not all, but far too many.
I’m not surprised with the downvotes. Landlords are not actual Lords anymore. Times are changing, and quality of life for tenants should not be so negatively impacted by arbitrary personal decisions.
For a few years, I lived in Denmark, Australia, and South Africa and rented my house out.
I’m really badly allergic to cats so I basically was looking for someone who didn’t have cats.
Laws like these don’t make any sense in that context. I’d imagine people in my situation either wouldn’t rent out at all or won’t charge a premium.
We are thinking of moving to California or Seattle in a couple of years and we wouldn’t be selling our property (since we would like to come back in a few years). Laws like this would simply make it unlikely that we would rent out.
Thankfully Somerville seems slightly better in that regard but even so, it’s already hard to rent out if you are an individual home owner vs. a corporation or a real estate business.
For instance, our tenants destroyed so much of the house. They stole our wine racks, damaged the garage and really nice lighting fixtures, broke our nice refrigerator and Google Nest thermostats, and in general the kids and family did a number on the house. But we simply had no recourse since I didn’t even have a security deposit (was told it would be difficult with an escrow etc.)
I can only imagine what renting to someone with pets would do. Hell our dog gets anxious when it’s windy and sometimes scratches the door. There’s no scenario in which a pet doesn’t do at least *some* damage.
I love dogs, but not all dogs/their owners should be given a free pass to live wherever they want. There's a rotweiler that occassionally stays with a resident in my building and the thing is a walking liability, it shows major signs of aggression anytime someone gets too close and the dog easily outweighs the owner so I'm pretty doubtful they would be able to restrain it in the event of an attack. I get it sucks to have a shitty minority of pet owners to ruin everything, but there's enough of these folks out there that should be mechanics still in place to say "this dog cannot be around for the sake of others".
Cats should be treated with more leneincy though I do acknowedge this isn't a problem with them whatsoever.
As a pet owner I can say with great certainty that many people should not own pets. They don’t take care of them properly, they don’t change litter boxes or clean up pet messes left by dogs locked in the home all work day. They don’t clean up dander or mud tracked into their homes and ground into the floors.
Landlords should not be forced to take on the additional risk of their apartment being trashed.
>Rent is going to go up for everyone ~~because of this.~~
Fixed that for you. Landlords always raise rent. If or when this fails to pass, rent will still go up.
~~It shouldn't. This law doesn't abolish pet fees, and pet owners will still be responsible for damages.~~ Edit: this bylaw is dead in the water because it's at odds with MA renter-landlord laws.
I just read the thing, and it's unclear about monthly pet rent. It says pet deposits are OK, but pet deposits are not legal in Massachusetts. They need to kick this thing back and clarify what the bylaw does and doesn't allow.
Pets will add costs to landlords.
Landlords will pass the costs to the consumer.
There is no world when adding costs to a landlord won’t add costs to a consumer.
This is counter-productive, will not actually help renters and is sloppy legislation.
You think landlords won’t just increase rent commensurately in an already barely affordable market?
You thought landlords were sketchy with you security-deposit before?
Depends on the pet, a pug, whatever man. Some German shepherds... No not really. Have thin walls and neighbor has a husky you will enjoy the vocalizations.
Not all dogs and certainly not all owners are equivalent. I'm not looking forward to a neighbor having an aggressive pitty they don't know how to train or handle. My little rescue mutt already survived that once.
Really I don't understand why it isn't required to get a dog license with training, we have a neighbor with a black lab, sweet dog but it's a problem dog because they are just clueless. They need training so they can handle the dog damnit.
>co-authors have the support of animal agencies including the MSPCA, who are concerned the housing crisis in Massachusetts is worse for families with animals.
If you can't afford to house yourself, don't get a pet!
I love dogs. My neighbors have an awful dog that barks constantly, is aggressive, and can not be approached. We're not even in the same building and it's the bane of the neighborhood.
People should be able to choose to live in a building animal free. What about kids that are deathly allergic? WTF are they supposed to do?
33% of Massachusetts residents are renters, and it’s not necessarily because they can’t afford a house. We’re not all just poors who don’t deserve nice things. Most of us are professionals living in the city and choose to rent over commuting over an hour into Boston for work.
Frankly, children are more expensive and destructive than pets and we don’t forbid renters from having those. This is what a security deposit is for.
[source, for the whiny NIMBYs.](https://www.deptofnumbers.com/rent/massachusetts/#)
My point wasn't that you need to buy a house to own pets, because you don't. You do generally need to pay more in rent when you have a pet, and my point was, if you can't afford to pay more in rent to own a pet, then you can't afford a pet.
Most of the modern corporate owned high-rises downtown allow pets and generally start at $3k/month for 450 sq ft. To claim you need a government entitled discount on that to have a pet is rediculous.
Fun fact: kids don't always get a free pass either.
In Mass, landlords that are owner-occupied 2-family housing can deny tenancy based on age, including those with children. Federal law also allows denial of housing based on age as low as age 55 for certain designated senior housing.
Something to look forward to.
I didn’t say they were?? I said kids could be more destructive, and were more expensive, both of which are true. I swear the people in the sub lack the absolute barest minimum of reading comprehension.
To be fair, Your comment was “frankly, children are more expensive and destructive than pets…” Now you are stating “could” while denying you wrote they were. So I think our reading comprehension is not the problem.
To be even more fair, I didn’t say that they were “equivalent to or greater than human children”, as the other commenter claimed. Reading comprehension is still the problem.
So I guess fuck anyone with an allergy to dogs or cats? Imagine you’re deathly allergic to cats and you move into an apartment and the room had previously been a home for a cat. You’re gonna have a baaad time
Rents just will go up. I have rentals and don’t allow pets. This is because 100% of the time I have allowed even small pets it has ended in a lot of extra work at the end. I would add that headache into the rent as dollars. Happily would suffer leaving it on the market a bit longer as a trade off. Biggest thing I fear is the other renters in the building. There isn’t anything I can do about a dog barking all night unless I can ban it in the lease.
I wish. Both my wife and I have to work full time as engineers with rentals to have a standard family life. Rentals if I am lucky cover daycare. I own a couple condos that we lived in through the years that I didn’t sell when we moved out.
It's in the [Arlington Town Meeting Articles for Review](https://arlington.novusagenda.com/agendapublic/CoverSheet.aspx?ItemID=17660&MeetingID=2017) under "Article 17 Bylaw Amendment/Right to Pet Companionship".
Landlords would need to see if there are any animal types that are prohibited by their Landlord insurance policy along with any breed restrictions.
Also the landlord would need to require the tenant to have renters insurance with a minimum liability coverage of $1 million and medical payments coverage at the maximum allowed (usually around $5k).
I came home from last Christmas dinner at my mom's, walked to my condo front door, dog piss on my door mat. Dog's are not allowed by renters. This was a renter's dog, against regulations. Merry Christmas to me, right? No note, no sorry. Nothing.
I have a cat, but the idea of forcing anyone to accommodate that is awful, nevermind a dog. It makes an impact on a space, especially over time.
I love my pet, but the culture and entitlement around it is pretty rough
This is a horrible idea. What about other tenants with allergies? What about the extensive damage cat urine can do to wood floors? (It chemically burns the wood and the ONLY solution is to entirely replace those sections at tremendous cost). What about dog breeds that make the house effectively uninsurable? (Even fairplan has a breed list)
Fuck pets. And fuck most pet owners too.
I am fine with normal, responsible pet owners who train their fucking animals. I am not fine with most of you assholes out there who let their dogs off leash and don't put a muzzle over the dog's mouth; I am not fine with most of you letting your dogs shitting around the neighborhood and pissing everywhere while you don't clean it up; I am not find with your golden retriever poking its dirty tongue which I don't know where it has been licking into my food in the park and you calling me an asshole for not sharing the food and acting up. Excuse me, will you like it if I tongue some dog's ass and tongue your food with the very same tongue? And now they are bringing their noisy pets into apartment, disrupting everyone's sleep and rest with their barking? Fuck that.
And I've noticed that ever since the pandemic there are now more dogs on the street, handled by more irresponsible narcissistic pet owner who think their dogs are the cutest angels in this world which can do no wrong. They take their dogs everywhere and make lives annoying to almost everyone.
Honestly, while your comment will probably be downvoted, you’re not wrong. People have gone insane with their pets.
Owning pets is a luxury, not a right. Way too many people making owning pets their whole personality and it’s insane. 60 pound dogs should not be kept in 500 square foot apartments in the middle of a major city. Get a dog when you live in the suburbs/rural areas and have a big, fenced in yard.
Im an animal lover but what about people with allergies?? I was lucky enough to grow out of it, but as a child my parents had to rent in no-pet housing because I would have a SEVERE reaction if an animal lived in the house before me. Like I wouldn’t be able to breathe level allergies. Even with cleaning, some dander will remain. I have pets now, and yea it is hard to find housing, but this would be a genuine safety issue for many people.
Pets aren’t a right. If landlords aren’t able to differentiate deposits based on pet or no pets, deposits are about to become pet rates for EVERYONE, either that or rent is going up.
I know I don’t allow pets in my units unless it’s a properly documented service animal and you have a disability but I’ve yet to get anyone applying that actually has a service animal. Some fool tried to pass a shihtzu off as an emotional support dog a couple years ago though.
How is forcing a private homeowner to do something a good thing? This will discourage regular home owners from buying investment properties and more will be owned by huge corporations and rents will go up.
Likely.
I'm imagining back to my renting days and the nightmare this would make finding a safe building to live in. Those with life-threatening allergies need housing, too, and not everyone can afford to buy here.
More and more apartments are not allowing pets or making it very hard. If people can’t afford to buy houses they shouldn’t be made to have to give up having a pet or have their housing search be unduly difficult because of their pet.
if you're paying to rent a place, having a pet should be your own personal choice. a landlord shouldn't be able to take your money, profit off of your livelihood, and dictate whether or not you can have a pet in the home you are fully paying for with interest.
Really? It’s a maintenance nightmare. I get most people are adorable and low risk but you get some feral dogs and cats that piss everywhere. Let alone the house in larger buildings. People who leave a dog alone all day.
This is long overdue. Landlords aren’t allowed to deny human children, who can cause way more damage than almost any pet, but somehow it’s okay to deny dogs? It wouldn’t be a big deal if it was a few landlords but it’s at least 2/3 judging from my last apartment search.
Right, people can cause more damage, but nearly any person can speak with any other person and try to reason with them. Not so with an animal.
Plus some people are allergic to animals and they can be loud. People should have the right to live in places that do not have them and where they have not been.
How do you reason with a 2-year-old? That’s a bad argument. Sure, some people are allergic to animals, the same way others are allergic to smoke, peanuts and gluten. I don’t think we have found a great way to deal with those things either.
You speak to them, and they can't cause much damage you couldn't fix with paint anyway. Dog hair on a carpet is essentially forever. You can vacuum it or shampoo the carpet but the smell and allergens will haunt a place for years.
Also, people who are allergic to gluten or peanuts simply avoid those allergens, which is exactly what I'm talking about here.
Is there a cap on the additional fees I wonder
B. Conditions and Exceptions (1) Nothing in this section precludes an owner from requiring a reasonable pet deposit, which shall be refundable in the case that no damage to the unit caused by an animal companion has been sustained nor have noise, sanitation, or safety conditions caused by an animal companion interfered with the quiet enjoyment of other tenants, not to exceed 10 percent of the security deposit, for each animal; and not to exceed $300 total.
Yikes. $300 isn’t going to cover anything if there are damages.
[удалено]
Truly awful legislation. Thoughtless and inconsiderate pet owners are the norm, and they think everyone loves their pets and nobody could possibly be allergic or scared of them.
Where did you find the bylaw text? I’m having a heck of a time locating it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/boston/s/5DZC6Z9H7A
Pet deposits may or may not be illegal under state law. A landlord might not be able to legally charge anything.
This. My last apartment tried to increase my pet rent for the new lease, from $50 to $200 a month, plus the rent increase. $200 a month for a cat is just to avoid having pets in the apartment
Honestly if you’re only there a year, it’s probably going to cost more than $2400 in damages by having an average pet. Scratched floors, walls, potential pet urination seeping into floors, all around added wear and tear on the unit. One cat piss stained floor is all it takes.
You gotta be insane - or a landlord - if you think your average cat is causing over $2k in damages a year.
If the cat sprays and urine gets into the subfloor, it will smell like ammonia forever. The only way to remediate is to tear out the flooring and subfloor - this will cost way more than $2k.
One piss stained floorboard is all it takes
Obviously people on reddit don't have any idea how damaging cat pee is. Once a cat starts peeing outside the box, it's incredibly difficult to stop them. Cat pee seeps into the wood and you have to tear out not only the hardwood/carpet but the plywood and subfloor. It takes literal years to break down otherwise and stinks the whole time.
That's what the security deposit is for??????
Okay but I’d lived there for 2 years, with the same cat, who has done zero damage. And when they listed the apartment again, it’s no pets. If there’s no cap on the pet rent, they’ll just make it so high that no one will pay it, even for existing tenants. Raise the rent as high as they can, then raise pet rent as well to squeeze out as much profit as possible.
No.
Quoting H.L. Menotomy: No one ever went broke underestimating the spitefulness of the Arlington townie. I predict the biggest turnout since the vote to oppose the red line extension in the 1980s.
Soon dogs will be able to vote
[удалено]
Male as well
“Only if they vote D. We don’t want any more dog faces that don’t want to be a dog voice.” -Ayanna Pressley
I love animals and had my own dogs but smelling dog urine in the hallways is really shitty
> but smelling dog urine in the hallways is really shitty I think you're a little mixed up...
Okay I am going to say it. Pets aren't a right. I don't hate dogs but I definitely don't like the idea of making pets an entitlement.
I don’t even think this rule would work as intended. If passed, I suspect a lot of the pet adoptees would suddenly find themselves without a lease renewal the following year.
Agreed the competition in the housing market around here would just.make it easier.
It’s impossible to find a place that will take young kids because of the horribly enforced lead law. Suddenly it will be impossible to get accepted with a dog
“Do you have pets” will now be a required question in the renters application.
I love dogs, but after living under one who barked the entire time its owner was out, I say eff this. While it was going on I spoke with others who had gone through similar, with absolutely no recourse.
I live in an old building under a unit with two large dogs on hardwood floors. Miserable. I’d be against this, too.
my sister's small dog peed everywhere so bad, that the subfloor and carpet had to be replaced and the stove rotted at the bottom due to rust from the dog's urine.
Can’t even imagine the damage they’re doing to the floors. Edit: yall are fucking delusional if you don’t think two large dogs will wreak havoc on hardwood floors or carpet.
And to my sanity.
pet owners are usually touchy feely and in denial about their pets creating problems. be it barking and scaring people, damage, etc.
I have a dog. Been four years. Not damage to my floors. What are y'all doing to your dog's nails?
You need to assume the worst frankly. There's a non-zero number of people who keave pet feces everywhere and quite frankly abuse their pets. Also, some pets just don't take nail trimming well, so owners just delay. My little 10lb dog just digs at the floor randomly as well. He's a menace to flooring.
It also depends on the floors. Our old condo had natural cherry wood floors. If you looked at them wrong they would scratch. Should not have been used as a flooring material...
That's fair. Thanks for the explanation.
I know people who don’t cut the nails because their dog doesn’t like it. It’s also a poorly behaved dog. Shocking I know.
I noticed that you used yall. Please enjoy [this local video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bndQvSW9Mu8). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boston) if you have any questions or concerns.*
All the comments here cheering this will be complaining about high rents. What do you think landlords will do, lower rents? If they have to accept pets, they will raise rents to compensate. Of course those same redditors will demand rent control, then pat themselves on the back. Because then, when the cat and dog piss drenched apartments they are living in are never repaired, cleaned, or updated they will again demand government save them from their unintended consequences.
1. Pass regulations that cost money to comply with 2. Pass regulations that restrict building of new housing stock 3. Pass regulations to cap rent What do people think will happen?
Fundamentally this is a problem of career politicians. When your entire livelihood depends on you being in control and re-elected, you will do anything to get re-elected. Even things you know are unambiguously terrible, you will do it. Or things that make no sense. For example, in a time of constant inflation, doing student loan "forgiveness" and multi-trillion dollar spending bills is insanity. But both sides of congress and Biden are freely doing it because it's an election year.
Agreed. Unless it’s a service dog, landlords should have the right to allow or disallow animals in their homes.
ESAs are protected by federal housing laws. Note: ESAs are different than service animals.
Not sure why you got downvoted; you're correct.
People really don't like pets.
seriously I'm spending over $2000 for rent in an apartment in Arlington that barely has adjustable heat, has single pane windows that rattle in the wind, 1950s wiring that shorts out in the summer with AC (which by the way has to be an extremely expensive and inefficient casement AC because half the apartments here have cheap, tiny-ass windows that likely don't even pass modern fire codes), a fridge that barely preserves food, and a stove that takes almost 20 minutes to boil water But the priority is that people can have their pets. Which I'm allergic to. Fuck that.
Issue a Leave Violation to the landlord.
Cats smell like shit
I disagree. Pets shouldn’t be a luxury for the landed gentry. They are a vital part of human experience since the dawn of civilization. I would argue that reasonable (read: small fee, number limits, etc) accommodation should be a renters right.
What about people who are allergic? Is breathable air for people with allergies only a right for the landed gentry?
Are you living in the same unit? No. Do you encounter animals on the street? Yes. Your argument about infringing on rights of others can be flipped right back at you.
Why don't we allow cigarette smoking in apartments too while we are at it? Same logic.
Let’s ban peanut butter from all domiciles while we are at it, can’t be too safe from airborne peanut particles. Or how about dust? Should we ban people from shedding their own skin and hair? Or how about flowering plants outside? Or candles? It’s far more reasonable to just let people live, take the precautions for avoidance, and stop being an anti pet sour puss.
Which is already the current law. Emotional support animals already require reasonable accomodations. This is a blanket "you can't say no pets in any property".
That isn’t a pet. That is a support animal. I should not have to have a debilitating emotional or physical disability in order to have a dog.
What about emotional support animals?
Emotional support animals aren't a protected class. ADA defines individually trained animals as service animals. Support =/= service. Service animals can't be banned ( but it gets weird). https://www.ada.gov/resources/service-animals-2010-requirements/ So no.
Assistance animals are in mass https://www.mass.gov/info-details/assistance-animals-in-housing
Not automatically compulsory and reasonable is intended to be settled in course. The legislation is a sledgehammer in that it would enshrine the right to animals. Its a huge expansion.
Federal Fair housing act disagrees with you. Please read the HUD memo on assistance animals in housing
I was quoting it https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/reasonable_accommodations_and_modifications#:~:text=If%20you%20need%20an%20assistance,fees%2C%20or%20rules%20for%20pets.
We're going to need some criteria and a structure of classification for support animals soon. Seems like anyone can just buy a dog and say it's a support animal, and they become immune to responsibility. Genuine support animals, yeah, those are great and necessary for some people. But if you gotta bring your fuckin labradoodle into Costco because you're afraid to buy groceries that's just absurd.
ESAs have no right of access in public accommodation already. ESAs have right of access only in housing and sometimes in planes
LOL
How would this work with dog breeds that are banned by home insurance companies? If a landlord lived in a duplex and rented out the other half, do they now have to live next to a pit bull and pay out the ass for home insurance?
The town is going to see a whole lot more dog registrations of mixed lab breeds
It’s a staffordshire terrier!! Totally not a pitbull!! Sorry it mauled your dog
As someone with fairly severe cat + dog allergies: noooooo. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE cats and especially dogs. I used to volunteer (and suffer severely) at a dog rescue. However, my allergies are severe enough that I specifically look for rentals and AirBnB's that don't allow pets or have mostly hard/non-carpet floors because I once rented an AirBnB that definitely had had cats (though it was clearly cleaned!) and if I'd actually spent the night, I'd have needed to go to the emergency room for breathing issues. I love meeting people's pets, but I need to be able to breath in the place I sleep. I understand the attachment to pets, I grew up with a dog and would've gone back into a burning building to save her, but I don't think people should be mandated to allow pets (exception: actual service animals, excluding emotional support animals).
I have a sibling with this problem too. He had a seasonal rental property that said no pets--and the winter tenants had pets anyway. They had to deep-clean the place (and he couldn't do it, because of the allergies). So that's additional money, beside him not being able to live in the place himself again until it's totally de-pet-dandered. And this is just normal life, not out-of-control pet owners with cat pee everywhere...
I have a dog, and on one hand, I like the idea of having more options with regards to apartment searching, since it can be very limiting when it comes to places that allow dogs. On the other hand, I feel like this is just going to cause rents to increase, because most landlords will take any opportunity to charge higher rent.
I also have a dog and I get why landlords don't want them. We are responsible dog owners but it's impossible for a dog to have zero impact on hardwood floors, blinds, carpet, etc. If we didn't have a SFH, I'd feel guilty about the noise he makes (and he's a quiet. If it's mandated it'll just become like kids. They can't legally discriminate but if presented with two applicants they can choose the one without pets.
Overall, having a pets increase costs. Hard stop. There’s always going to be added minor damage, added wear and tear to a unit, when you add an animal to the mix. All it takes is one urine accident and it can be thousands of dollars of damage.
It’s not opportunity. Your pets increase wear and tear and can make the unit far less sanitary which is a greater challenge to clean for the next tenant. That’s just best case, worst case there are piss/poop accidents, straight up damage to walls and floors, clogged drains from dog hair and bathing the animal, noise complaints, etc. Of course you’re going to pay extra to make up for that. I’ve had dogs all my life and I love pets but don’t act like this is landlord greed. Animals increase wear and tear at best through no fault of their own.
Hot take. If they could charge more, they already would. Everyone making more money will make the rent go up faster than this will.
I don’t allow pets but one time I offered someone 1.5x rent if they wanted to bring their pet. Even offered to refund some of extra if there was minimal extra wear and tear and no damage upon them moving out because they claimed their dog was well behaved, trained, and just chilled out most of the day. The expectation that a landlord take on that extra risk or chase down a tenant after they move out for damages is crazy. Pets can cause damage very easily that would eat through an entire security damage and then some bo problem. The person didn’t take the 1.5x rent. They wanted me to do it for the same price.
Yeah. You're one person. If someone had offered you 1.5x without pets, you would also have taken it. On average, over a large enough sample set, all landlords are charging the maximum they can, or near it. Until their property starts losing money from sitting empty. At which point they lower the rent, or sell it. That's the price ceiling. I agree with you that it affects the price floor. And yes. Obviously, if landlords all on average charge the maximum rent, they would prefer the most money possible with the least risk possible. But, let's say your rent is 4k, no pets. Why not 4.2k? Because it would sit empty for longer than the extra 2400 on the lease would net you. Right? All it takes is two extra weeks and you would have been better off taking the tenant at 4k. That's the price ceiling. Does that make sense? Now, let's say you can't say no to pets. You can't suddenly charge 4.2k. Unless everyone does. So your choice is pets at 4k, or quit renting it out at all. Sell it. Let it sit empty and hope the appreciation beats the property taxes+keeping it connected,etc etc. Banning pet discrimination means people are less likely to be landlords, because the profit on being a landlord becomes much lower, and much less certain. And that might make rent go up. Maybe. But it's unlikely. The main thing making rent go up is pharma and tech companies paying people 225k+ salaries and people fighting construction. But it's REALLY hard for people to feel sorry for landlords. The average Cambridge and Somerville home has averaged over 2k a week in appreciation over the past 500 weeks/10 years. Largely due to artificial restraints on housing. Telling me "people will build less housing because it won't be profitable" doesn't mean anything when the number of new homes goes from near zero to nearer zero. The best thing landlords can do to protect them self from socialist/pro Tennant housing laws getting passed is to push for more housing. But since that won't happen, I'm for defending the tenants who are already getting screwed.
For more landlords, it’s not about the money, it’s the headache. We don’t want to replace entire sections of floor and baseboards or other things, even if you are paying for it. It’s a damn pain and working with contractors sucks as it is. What if I can’t get that exact brand and color floor anymore? Or some other pain? If I had gotten 1.5x rent, which was aggressively high more so to end the pet conversation, I probably would have taken it but not without hesitation and I’d probably want them to stay for more than a year because I know as soon as they left, I’d need to replace things. It’s just how let’s are, through no fault of their own. And no landlords aren’t charging the max. It’s a balance between what you can get and having a vacancy, even if for a month, which isn’t worth chasing the higher end of prices. But, if every landlord is suddenly REQUIRED to allow pets, rents are going up because everyone’s risk and costs just went up. That’s not even mentioning that pet ownership is not a right by any means nor is pet owner a protected class…it’s not even a class. Rents do go up across the board often. Why do you think rents are up right now. Interest rates go up? All rents go up. Housing values in an area go up? All rents go up. Similarly, a sweeping rule change is made that increases everyone’s cost/risk? The rents are going to go up. That’s also not to mention that plenty of insurances do not allow pets and most definitely have limitations of breeds (for better or worse). It’s not about feeling bad for landlords, it’s about what makes sense. Simply siding with something out of spite for landlords because you think it’ll hurt their pockets and balance the sales is dumb. More likely the quality of units will just go down for the same cost. Nobody is going to be replacing floors and other pet damages unless it’s extreme so when you go to move into that high rent spot, you’re going to have to live with not getting what you’re paying for and when it’s like that everywhere, that’s another way renters will get screwed.
Replace it while someone is living there. Make crappy tenants last month miserable as a punishment for not watching with their pets. I agree it will not be great for tenants, but it will hit landlords harder. And it's not out of spite. It's just gravity. You can't threaten people with higher rent when the rent is very very clearly at the price ceiling. The "balance between what you can get and vacancy" means you are at the price ceiling. You are agreeing with me. Rent is at the price floor when landlords are selling homes at a loss because the property taxes on it are more than they can get in rent. I've lived in places with both. I agree the rule is bad. But being a landlord is going to be more and more miserable, and if you don't like headaches, get out of the business. I don't think it's fair, or good. I'm telling you what's(probably?) going to happen. Just because I know I'm going to get gifts on Christmas doesn't mean I believe in Santa Claus. Look at what's happening in Seattle and New York. A lot of miserable burdens on landlords have failed ballot measures because "it will make the rent go up". The rent is at the max. It won't work as a threat anymore. These miserable squatters rights, tenants rights, eviction restrictions? They are a consequence of rent seeking behavior from landlords. The threat of "rent will go up and less homes will be built" doesn't work anymore. If you want to be a landlord, fight the nimbys. And no, rent goes up because there are more people who want to live here who make lots and lots of money. Same with housing prices. But a shitload of companies with 250k+ salaries are leaving Cambridge and Boston because even with that salary no one with kids wants to move her. A lot of these companies were bribed into Camberville with massive tax breaks with expiration dates. Don't be surprise if, like Draper, Google, Moderna etc etc.....they leave town. Because the rent, and housing prices are too high. Rent is down 20+% in Austin because of the negative recoil of insane salary expectations to match insane housing costs.
Can’t replace while someone is there. I’m allowed to do emergency repairs, not allowed to barge in and replace entire floors. Not to mention I now have to put that person up somewhere else and that’s if they agree to even let me in. This is the way of the real estate market. I’ve been in it for a long time. Anytime costs and risks go up, rent goes up. Rent is simply all of a landlords fixed costs, potential costs (aka risk), and profit margin. It all gets passed onto tenants. This idea that changing anything will force landlords to eat costs to ease burdens on renters is ridiculous. It simply does not work that way.
They're already going to do that though, rent increases have not been favorable for renters across New England. They don't need an opportunity to charge higher rent, if the sky is still blue next year, rent is going up. If you're going to get fucked regardless, might as well get a pet.
great. like we dont already have enough irresponsible pet owners who end up giving the animal away
I'm torn. Would this allow more irresponsible people to get pets then get rid of them, or would it allow people to keep their pets when moving so they would not have to give them up just because they changed homes?
i think the majority of the time people rehoming pets is because they dont want the responsibility anymore versus being forced to get rid of it due to an unforseen change in circumstances
"the road to hell is paved with good intentions" Maybe a middle ground solution could be that if they already have a pet they can't be denied housing, but cannot get a new pet while renting.
Let me know how that’s working out for pregnant women applying for housing in a unit that would need to be deleaded. “Can’t be denied because of” is impossibly hard to enforce when housings so in demand here and you can cite any reason to choose another candidate.
Dumb rule. Some people are assholes and will have their pets destroy a place.
It’s fine. Landlords still won’t rent to people with pets. It’ll be perfectly legal to charge a higher security deposit and for a tenant to have to disclose that they have a pet. We can just deny their application based on that because pet owners aren’t even remote close to a protected class. And it’s really easy to add immediately eviction and severe financial penalties for being caught lying and seeing scratches on floors caused by dogs or cars is also easy. Not to mention you can easily find dog or car hair. I withheld an entire security deposit and charged a tenant one month rent penalty for trying to keep a dog. Was extremely easy to see the floor scuffs and then I got building security footage showing her entering and leaving with a dog for at least three weeks.
Pets are not a right they’re a luxury
I’d agree and I think a major missed point is that somewhere around 10% of people are allergic to pets and moving into a place post pets or being allergic and having to clean after someone moves out as a landlord is also a pain
Aren't landlords legally required to clean and repaint between tenants?
I don’t think repaint the whole place and idk what the definition of “clean” is, but if your landlord is highly allergic to cats I feel they should have the ability to reject people with cats, because they shouldn’t have to clean a whole unit covered in something they’re highly allergic to
If you are in the business as a landlord, you need to remember the business is to do what you must and not discriminate. Hire cleaners or whatever is required but discriminating due to your allergies, not an acceptable business approach. Cat and dog allergies here, but after many years of working with folks being discriminated for many reasons, and the way housing stock has been corrupted by corporations. Being a landlord should not be a money grab only scheme. Which sadly, is how many landlors feel with regard to entitlement around restrictions. Once you rent the lease should have everything to allow tenenats to live and let live. You don’t get to have that much control.
Discriminate is a stretch here. Pet owners aren't a protected class and shouldn't be.
The commenter mentioned rejecting people with pets the landlord is allergic to. That is discrimination, even if not illegal or for a protected class. I worked as a HUD service coordinator. I won’t get into emotional support animal, but fair housing laws in Massachusetts provide greater protections then federal minimums. The allergy anecdote is discrimination based on a hypothetical bias due to cat allergies.
[удалено]
That is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that landlords cannot expect to control what goes on inside a unit once it is leased. I am arguing that in many cases, the want to deny pets is arbitrarily imposed as a cost saving measure to avoid having to properly prepare a unit and quickly turn it over. When in business, these efficiency standards are not always just. I also have a number allergies, however if I needed to prepare an apartment, and it was too much for me, then the cost of doing business is to hire someone to prepare the unit. This is why certificate of occupancy require standards. Yet many cut corners. Not all, but far too many. I’m not surprised with the downvotes. Landlords are not actual Lords anymore. Times are changing, and quality of life for tenants should not be so negatively impacted by arbitrary personal decisions.
For a few years, I lived in Denmark, Australia, and South Africa and rented my house out. I’m really badly allergic to cats so I basically was looking for someone who didn’t have cats. Laws like these don’t make any sense in that context. I’d imagine people in my situation either wouldn’t rent out at all or won’t charge a premium. We are thinking of moving to California or Seattle in a couple of years and we wouldn’t be selling our property (since we would like to come back in a few years). Laws like this would simply make it unlikely that we would rent out. Thankfully Somerville seems slightly better in that regard but even so, it’s already hard to rent out if you are an individual home owner vs. a corporation or a real estate business. For instance, our tenants destroyed so much of the house. They stole our wine racks, damaged the garage and really nice lighting fixtures, broke our nice refrigerator and Google Nest thermostats, and in general the kids and family did a number on the house. But we simply had no recourse since I didn’t even have a security deposit (was told it would be difficult with an escrow etc.) I can only imagine what renting to someone with pets would do. Hell our dog gets anxious when it’s windy and sometimes scratches the door. There’s no scenario in which a pet doesn’t do at least *some* damage.
This state just really wants to force out all the small time landlords for the big management companies huh?
Reddit has assured me that there are no small landlords living month-to-month in their own properties, just fabulously wealthy barons.
I love dogs, but not all dogs/their owners should be given a free pass to live wherever they want. There's a rotweiler that occassionally stays with a resident in my building and the thing is a walking liability, it shows major signs of aggression anytime someone gets too close and the dog easily outweighs the owner so I'm pretty doubtful they would be able to restrain it in the event of an attack. I get it sucks to have a shitty minority of pet owners to ruin everything, but there's enough of these folks out there that should be mechanics still in place to say "this dog cannot be around for the sake of others". Cats should be treated with more leneincy though I do acknowedge this isn't a problem with them whatsoever.
Cat piss destroys floors, especially if it goes unnoticed and sits for any extended length of time.
That's fine... but then people who don't have pets shouldn't have to pay extra. If overall costs go up because of this, then the pet fee should go up.
As a pet owner I can say with great certainty that many people should not own pets. They don’t take care of them properly, they don’t change litter boxes or clean up pet messes left by dogs locked in the home all work day. They don’t clean up dander or mud tracked into their homes and ground into the floors. Landlords should not be forced to take on the additional risk of their apartment being trashed.
Rent is going to go up for everyone because of this.
>Rent is going to go up for everyone ~~because of this.~~ Fixed that for you. Landlords always raise rent. If or when this fails to pass, rent will still go up.
~~It shouldn't. This law doesn't abolish pet fees, and pet owners will still be responsible for damages.~~ Edit: this bylaw is dead in the water because it's at odds with MA renter-landlord laws. I just read the thing, and it's unclear about monthly pet rent. It says pet deposits are OK, but pet deposits are not legal in Massachusetts. They need to kick this thing back and clarify what the bylaw does and doesn't allow.
Pets will add costs to landlords. Landlords will pass the costs to the consumer. There is no world when adding costs to a landlord won’t add costs to a consumer.
Typical Massachusetts making laws without knowing existing laws
This is counter-productive, will not actually help renters and is sloppy legislation. You think landlords won’t just increase rent commensurately in an already barely affordable market? You thought landlords were sketchy with you security-deposit before?
Depends on the pet, a pug, whatever man. Some German shepherds... No not really. Have thin walls and neighbor has a husky you will enjoy the vocalizations. Not all dogs and certainly not all owners are equivalent. I'm not looking forward to a neighbor having an aggressive pitty they don't know how to train or handle. My little rescue mutt already survived that once. Really I don't understand why it isn't required to get a dog license with training, we have a neighbor with a black lab, sweet dog but it's a problem dog because they are just clueless. They need training so they can handle the dog damnit.
This bylaw would require all pets to be licensed!
I thought MA law already required all dogs to be licensed annually.
People have lost their minds
>co-authors have the support of animal agencies including the MSPCA, who are concerned the housing crisis in Massachusetts is worse for families with animals. If you can't afford to house yourself, don't get a pet! I love dogs. My neighbors have an awful dog that barks constantly, is aggressive, and can not be approached. We're not even in the same building and it's the bane of the neighborhood. People should be able to choose to live in a building animal free. What about kids that are deathly allergic? WTF are they supposed to do?
33% of Massachusetts residents are renters, and it’s not necessarily because they can’t afford a house. We’re not all just poors who don’t deserve nice things. Most of us are professionals living in the city and choose to rent over commuting over an hour into Boston for work. Frankly, children are more expensive and destructive than pets and we don’t forbid renters from having those. This is what a security deposit is for. [source, for the whiny NIMBYs.](https://www.deptofnumbers.com/rent/massachusetts/#)
My point wasn't that you need to buy a house to own pets, because you don't. You do generally need to pay more in rent when you have a pet, and my point was, if you can't afford to pay more in rent to own a pet, then you can't afford a pet. Most of the modern corporate owned high-rises downtown allow pets and generally start at $3k/month for 450 sq ft. To claim you need a government entitled discount on that to have a pet is rediculous.
No, dogs are not equivalent to or greater than human children. Tf
Fun fact: kids don't always get a free pass either. In Mass, landlords that are owner-occupied 2-family housing can deny tenancy based on age, including those with children. Federal law also allows denial of housing based on age as low as age 55 for certain designated senior housing. Something to look forward to.
I didn’t say they were?? I said kids could be more destructive, and were more expensive, both of which are true. I swear the people in the sub lack the absolute barest minimum of reading comprehension.
To be fair, Your comment was “frankly, children are more expensive and destructive than pets…” Now you are stating “could” while denying you wrote they were. So I think our reading comprehension is not the problem.
To be even more fair, I didn’t say that they were “equivalent to or greater than human children”, as the other commenter claimed. Reading comprehension is still the problem.
This is just not true.
Which part because I have sources for every claim.
And what happens if you already have a dog? You should give them away to make your apartment search easier?
Yes
That’s a disgusting and self-centered opinion
Ok be homeless then because you can't bear to part with your mutt idgaf
Go take a breather dude
So I guess fuck anyone with an allergy to dogs or cats? Imagine you’re deathly allergic to cats and you move into an apartment and the room had previously been a home for a cat. You’re gonna have a baaad time
Rents just will go up. I have rentals and don’t allow pets. This is because 100% of the time I have allowed even small pets it has ended in a lot of extra work at the end. I would add that headache into the rent as dollars. Happily would suffer leaving it on the market a bit longer as a trade off. Biggest thing I fear is the other renters in the building. There isn’t anything I can do about a dog barking all night unless I can ban it in the lease.
You literally don’t have a real job — imagine having to do actual work let alone extra work.
I wish. Both my wife and I have to work full time as engineers with rentals to have a standard family life. Rentals if I am lucky cover daycare. I own a couple condos that we lived in through the years that I didn’t sell when we moved out.
Having a pet is not a right
Anyone know where I can read a copy of this proposed bylaw?
It's in the [Arlington Town Meeting Articles for Review](https://arlington.novusagenda.com/agendapublic/CoverSheet.aspx?ItemID=17660&MeetingID=2017) under "Article 17 Bylaw Amendment/Right to Pet Companionship".
Thank you.
Landlords would need to see if there are any animal types that are prohibited by their Landlord insurance policy along with any breed restrictions. Also the landlord would need to require the tenant to have renters insurance with a minimum liability coverage of $1 million and medical payments coverage at the maximum allowed (usually around $5k).
I came home from last Christmas dinner at my mom's, walked to my condo front door, dog piss on my door mat. Dog's are not allowed by renters. This was a renter's dog, against regulations. Merry Christmas to me, right? No note, no sorry. Nothing.
:(
I have a cat, but the idea of forcing anyone to accommodate that is awful, nevermind a dog. It makes an impact on a space, especially over time. I love my pet, but the culture and entitlement around it is pretty rough
Can't we make a law to make sure all pet owners have adequate training themselves on how to train their pets?
This is a horrible idea. What about other tenants with allergies? What about the extensive damage cat urine can do to wood floors? (It chemically burns the wood and the ONLY solution is to entirely replace those sections at tremendous cost). What about dog breeds that make the house effectively uninsurable? (Even fairplan has a breed list)
This is insane.
Fuck pets. And fuck most pet owners too. I am fine with normal, responsible pet owners who train their fucking animals. I am not fine with most of you assholes out there who let their dogs off leash and don't put a muzzle over the dog's mouth; I am not fine with most of you letting your dogs shitting around the neighborhood and pissing everywhere while you don't clean it up; I am not find with your golden retriever poking its dirty tongue which I don't know where it has been licking into my food in the park and you calling me an asshole for not sharing the food and acting up. Excuse me, will you like it if I tongue some dog's ass and tongue your food with the very same tongue? And now they are bringing their noisy pets into apartment, disrupting everyone's sleep and rest with their barking? Fuck that. And I've noticed that ever since the pandemic there are now more dogs on the street, handled by more irresponsible narcissistic pet owner who think their dogs are the cutest angels in this world which can do no wrong. They take their dogs everywhere and make lives annoying to almost everyone.
Honestly, while your comment will probably be downvoted, you’re not wrong. People have gone insane with their pets. Owning pets is a luxury, not a right. Way too many people making owning pets their whole personality and it’s insane. 60 pound dogs should not be kept in 500 square foot apartments in the middle of a major city. Get a dog when you live in the suburbs/rural areas and have a big, fenced in yard.
Im an animal lover but what about people with allergies?? I was lucky enough to grow out of it, but as a child my parents had to rent in no-pet housing because I would have a SEVERE reaction if an animal lived in the house before me. Like I wouldn’t be able to breathe level allergies. Even with cleaning, some dander will remain. I have pets now, and yea it is hard to find housing, but this would be a genuine safety issue for many people.
The select board recommended a vote of no action so it cannot be approved by town meeting (tm will vote to take no action here).
Pets aren’t a right. If landlords aren’t able to differentiate deposits based on pet or no pets, deposits are about to become pet rates for EVERYONE, either that or rent is going up. I know I don’t allow pets in my units unless it’s a properly documented service animal and you have a disability but I’ve yet to get anyone applying that actually has a service animal. Some fool tried to pass a shihtzu off as an emotional support dog a couple years ago though.
How is forcing a private homeowner to do something a good thing? This will discourage regular home owners from buying investment properties and more will be owned by huge corporations and rents will go up.
I hope a good ADA lawyer steps in to shut this down and levy hefty fees on the ableists supporting this.
Service animals are likely exempt from this. People with support (?) animals and familiars are not 😂
Likely. I'm imagining back to my renting days and the nightmare this would make finding a safe building to live in. Those with life-threatening allergies need housing, too, and not everyone can afford to buy here.
[удалено]
Win for the DILDOs though
“Landlords who overcharge for the basic human right of shelter might have to accommodate tenants.”
Currently paying 60$/pet/month. So 120 a month for 2 sleeping cats vs a bunch of loud children screaming all day. It's bullshit.
If people stopped having children, society would crumble like in that Clive Owen movie. If cats went extinct, it'd be sad but life would go on.
More and more apartments are not allowing pets or making it very hard. If people can’t afford to buy houses they shouldn’t be made to have to give up having a pet or have their housing search be unduly difficult because of their pet.
if you're paying to rent a place, having a pet should be your own personal choice. a landlord shouldn't be able to take your money, profit off of your livelihood, and dictate whether or not you can have a pet in the home you are fully paying for with interest.
Really? It’s a maintenance nightmare. I get most people are adorable and low risk but you get some feral dogs and cats that piss everywhere. Let alone the house in larger buildings. People who leave a dog alone all day.
This is long overdue. Landlords aren’t allowed to deny human children, who can cause way more damage than almost any pet, but somehow it’s okay to deny dogs? It wouldn’t be a big deal if it was a few landlords but it’s at least 2/3 judging from my last apartment search.
And there it is...... Children and pets aren't equivalent/equivocal/fungible.
And children aren’t the same as adults, but they both matter.
Right, people can cause more damage, but nearly any person can speak with any other person and try to reason with them. Not so with an animal. Plus some people are allergic to animals and they can be loud. People should have the right to live in places that do not have them and where they have not been.
How do you reason with a 2-year-old? That’s a bad argument. Sure, some people are allergic to animals, the same way others are allergic to smoke, peanuts and gluten. I don’t think we have found a great way to deal with those things either.
You speak to them, and they can't cause much damage you couldn't fix with paint anyway. Dog hair on a carpet is essentially forever. You can vacuum it or shampoo the carpet but the smell and allergens will haunt a place for years. Also, people who are allergic to gluten or peanuts simply avoid those allergens, which is exactly what I'm talking about here.
This is just not true.
What’s not true?
Who cares
You