Pet Limits and Service Dogs (real estate, renting, tenant)

[Cinema Cat]

Originally Posted by jencam

Federal laws override LL rules.

You're not paying attention to anything that anyone is saying.

I was talking about pets. And there are NO federal laws regarding pets. There are NO federals laws overriding LL rules about pets, because there are NO federal laws about pets.

Federal laws about service animals have NOTHING to do with LL rules about pets. If LL says "No pets if you already have a service animal," federal law is fine with that. Federal law might even fall in love with such a LL and ask the LL's hand in marriage.

[jencam]

Originally Posted by Cinema Cat

You're not paying attention to anything that anyone is saying.

I was talking about pets. And there are NO federal laws regarding pets. There are NO federals laws overriding LL rules about pets, because there are NO federal laws about pets.

Federal laws about service animals have NOTHING to do with LL rules about pets. If LL says "No pets if you already have a service animal," federal law is fine with that. Federal law might even fall in love with such a LL and ask the LL's hand in marriage.

LOL. That is incorrect. It implies that if one did not already have a service animal they could have a pet, but the person with the service animal may not also have a pet like other tenants.

[Metlakatla]

Originally Posted by Cinema Cat

You're not paying attention to anything that anyone is saying.

I was talking about pets. And there are NO federal laws regarding pets. There are NO federals laws overriding LL rules about pets, because there are NO federal laws about pets.

Federal laws about service animals have NOTHING to do with LL rules about pets. If LL says "No pets if you already have a service animal," federal law is fine with that. Federal law might even fall in love with such a LL and ask the LL's hand in marriage.

Let me see if I can explain what I think she means again.

If the property doesn't allow pets, of course the tenant wouldn't be able to have them. But jencam was talking about existing pet limits rather than no-pet policies.

Someone has a service animal. They fill out an app to live in a rental. There is no question that the service animal must be allowed. If the rental ALSO allows pets, the service animal can't legally be considered a pet for purposes of meeting whatever the pet limit is. So if the rental has a written policy allowing two pets, the person with the service animal can have two pets as well as the service animal.

It has been suggested that property owners can amend existing pet limits if a service animal is a part of the picture, but I'm not sure they could in situations where a written pet policy exists — as in telling a tenant that since they have a seeing-eye dog, they can't have a cat or other dog or whatever because the rental has a one-pet limit. I think the only way you can get away with "no pets if you already have a service animal" is if you advertise "no pets" or simply don't state a pet policy at all.

To complicate things even further, it's also my understanding that applicants don't even have to disclose the existence of a service/ESAs when applying for a rental.

Not trying to defend this ESA thing; I'm not crazy about it because I think a lot of people use it to get around no-pet policies and pet deposits. But everything I've read indicates that jencan is right.

[jencam]

Originally Posted by Metlakatla

Let me see if I can explain what I think she means again.

If the property doesn't allow pets, of course the tenant wouldn't be able to have them. But jencam was talking about existing pet limits rather than no-pet policies.

Someone has a service animal. They fill out an app to live in a rental. There is no question that the service animal must be allowed. If the rental ALSO allows pets, the service animal can't legally be considered a pet for purposes of meeting whatever the pet limit is. So if the rental has a written policy allowing two pets, the person with the service animal can have two pets as well as the service animal.

It has been suggested that property owners can amend existing pet limits if a service animal is a part of the picture, but I'm not sure they could in situations where a written pet policy exists — as in telling a tenant that since they have a seeing-eye dog, they can't have a cat or other dog or whatever because the rental has a one-pet limit. I think the only way you can get away with "no pets if you already have a service animal" is if you advertise "no pets" or simply don't state a pet policy at all.

To complicate things even further, it's also my understanding that applicants don't even have to disclose the existence of a service/ESAs when applying for a rental.

Not trying to defend this ESA thing; I'm not crazy about it because I think a lot of people use it to get around no-pet policies and pet deposits. But everything I've read indicates that jencan is right.

I saw a thread on reddit I think where the man had a cat, which was fine with the one pet rule obviously. Then he was prescribed a service dog to do tasks for him, which I think is a good sit to think about. It's not always people trying to move in with more than one. He has one pet and now a 'piece of medical equipment' as the law sees service dogs. It could have been a dog he already had too.

[ccjarider]

All this rigamorol means is that rents go up for everyone. LL have to make the $. If there are increasing hassles/costs arising from well intentioned, but stupid regulations, LL's are going to demand premiums to address this and/or # of rentals will decrease as hassle is no longer worth potential profit.

Bottom line - if you need/want animals (ANY KIND) and are not able/willing to purchase your own place, better be prepared to pay more and have limited selection.

In the real world, your "ON PAPER RIGHTS" a won't really guarantee anything; despite JENCAM'S assertion otherwise.

[jencam]

Originally Posted by ccjarider

All this rigamorol means is that rents go up for everyone. LL have to make the $. If there are increasing hassles/costs arising from well intentioned, but stupid regulations, LL's are going to demand premiums to address this and/or # of rentals will decrease as hassle is no longer worth potential profit.

Bottom line - if you need/want animals (ANY KIND) and are not able/willing to purchase your own place, better be prepared to pay more and have limited selection.

In the real world, your "ON PAPER RIGHTS" a won't really guarantee anything; despite JENCAM'S assertion otherwise.

I'm not following your logic. How many service dogs/ESAs ARE there to severely impact the market? Causing LLs to get out of the business?

In my complex of 500 condo units, there are only a couple. Or if there are more, they are not recorded because we have a 2 pet limit, they don't have more than 2 animals including their SD/ESA, so there is no need to have them on record.

[StealthRabbit]

Originally Posted by jencam

I'm not following your logic. How many service dogs/ESAs ARE there to severely impact the market? Causing LLs to get out of the business?
....

I know of (3) senior couples that got booted to the street due to ESA / Service Animal issues. (I sold the MF property rather than deal with another $20k 'Animal repair), I would do the same again and again if I was required to accommodate animals (As mentioned.. I have had my own pets for 50+ yrs but none has ever desired to darken the door of a 'people house' or to poop in someone's lawn, park, walkway.) It's win:win for me to sell... even desired in some cases... but a real PITA to go through all the trouble for a selfish entitled person. Since I have helped train / foster SAs and worked with handicapped and trauma vets for 40+ yrs, it is very easy to spot & deal with a real person with a real service animal. It's the imposters who have 'soiled the welcome mat' for all. (tragic for those with authentic needs).

It is a terrible burden / liability to owners (Who may have many million $ at risk) and for your trusty and faithful residents who would have enjoyed remaining in their peaceful and safe home of 10+ yrs. Several have cried a lot when we told them we were no longer their landlords and they would be forced to vacate. (all because of a selfish (not responsible) ESA owner(?)

The axe will fall. That is never very pretty.

[MechAndy]

I am totally on board and cool with a seeing eye dog.
I mean that makes sense.
I can see and understand that a person feels comfy with a pet for emotional reasons, but it’s a freaking pet.
You can call it whatever you want but it’s a pet.
Reminds me of the old parable “The King has no clothes”.
You want a pet?
Do it on your own nickel.
What about all the kooks that have an exotic emotional support service animal like a mini horse or a peacock?
Do I have to rent to them?
As a diver I’ve heard about people complaining that the boat captain didn’t want to allow and emotional service dog on his boat.
This entitlement has to stop.

[Nell Plotts]

The best option for a LL would be to have a policy that addresses animals, they can exclude fish or maybe canaries if they wish. Don't use the term "pet" in a policy. Service animals or a properly documented companion animals are not pets but they are animals.

[jencam]

Originally Posted by Nell Plotts

The best option for a LL would be to have a policy that addresses animals, they can exclude fish or maybe canaries if they wish. Don't use the term "pet" in a policy. Service animals or a properly documented companion animals are not pets but they are animals.

Changing the word is just semantics and wouldn't fly.