Pets or no pets? (hardwood floors, apartments, renter)

[boo1953]

Would you rent to a pet owner?

[Amadrid]

Absolutely not. Been there, done that. Never again

[gizmo980]

Yes, I would... being a pet owner myself, I appreciate how difficult it is to find pet-friendly rentals! And these days, people will just lie and call it a "service/ESA animal" if you don't, so might as well do it legitimately (and with a deposit). I'd like to think most pet owners are responsible like me, and if they're not, I could charge them for damages and/or evict them.

As someone who cares about animals, I also don't want to contribute to the shelter overcrowding - which is the snowball result of so many landlords (like the person above) saying no. I'd never give up a pet because of rental restrictions, but many people do. Every day. And I have to be the one taking a risk to keep them from being surrendered, so be it.

[Amadrid]

Originally Posted by gizmo980

Yes, I would... being a pet owner myself, I appreciate how difficult it is to find pet-friendly rentals! And these days, people will just lie and call it a "service/ESA animal" if you don't, so might as well do it legitimately (and with a deposit). I'd like to think most pet owners are responsible like me, and if they're not, I could charge them for damages and/or evict them.

As someone who cares about animals, I also don't want to contribute to the shelter overcrowding - which is the snowball result of so many landlords (like the person above) saying no. I'd never give up a pet because of rental restrictions, but many people do. Every day. And I have to be the one taking a risk to keep them from being surrendered, so be it.

I have a pet, a 215# dog, and I've had a dog for the past 20 yrs. I dont see anything wrong with a LL renting to someone with a pet but personally I wouldn't do it. I've had a bad experience as a LL renting to someone who had a pet - that person was my "friend" and their pet damaged the house and they skipped out on me - oh well - lesson learned.

As for service animals, a homeowner that chooses to rent his/her home to someone isn't required to allow a service animal or "therapy" pet at all. It doesn't matter if the tenant is handicapped and has a licensed service animal either - the law doesn't require it.

Getting someone evicted isn't nearly as easy as one would think. Its a P.I.T.A especially in Ca. Now if you were in Nevada and were facing eviction - for the LL it's a piece of cake. 3 days an your out on your @ss.

[gizmo980]

Originally Posted by Amadrid

I have a pet, a 215# dog, and I've had a dog for the past 20 yrs. I dont see anything wrong with a LL renting to someone with a pet but personally I wouldn't do it. I've had a bad experience as a LL renting to someone who had a pet - that person was my "friend" and their pet damaged the house and they skipped out on me - oh well - lesson learned.

See, that's the problem! Landlords have one or two bad experiences, and then ruin it for the rest of us (pet owners) - and too few people are empathetic on this topic, even when they themselves have pets. Maybe it's because I've been a renter for so long, about 25 years now, but I just can't see myself adding to this problem. At least here in the Bay Area, it's becoming nearly impossible to find dog-friendly rentals! Cat-friendly places are a little easier to find, for the most part.

As for service animals, a homeowner that chooses to rent his/her home to someone isn't required to allow a service animal or "therapy" pet at all. It doesn't matter if the tenant is handicapped and has a licensed service animal either - the law doesn't require it.

The OP didn't specify homeowners, though... and I'm pretty sure if your place is a legal/licensed rental unit, you DO have to follow federal ADA laws (which require accepting service animals). I'm not a lawyer, though.

Getting someone evicted isn't nearly as easy as one would think. Its a P.I.T.A especially in Ca. Now if you were in Nevada and were facing eviction - for the LL it's a piece of cake. 3 days an your out on your @ss.

Never said it was easy, I just said that's what I would do... trust me, I know the process in California very well. And personally I think it should be somewhere in the middle, meaning not as difficult as it is in CA, but also not "3 days and you're out." I mean, who can pack up and find a new place in THREE DAYS? Some landlords have no compassion, either, and wouldn't even care if it were a family w/ children being tossed on the streets. But we digress.

[wac_432]

I specifically made my rental "pet friendly" because there are so many pet owners and so few pet-friendly rentals. However, I take advantage of a market shortage of pet rentals to jack up my prices by 20% over what I would charge for a no-pets place.

If the market weren't so tight on pet-friendly rentals I would:
- Have carpet/soft furnishings that might absorb oder and dander.
- Charge $2000/month (market rate).
- Not allow pets.

Because the market is ridiculously tight and people are very attached to their pets, I:
- Have cheap faux-hardwood floors that are sealed against urine/feces, hard window treatments, etc.
- Charge $2400
- Market my rental as pet-friendly.

I've had plenty of "bad" experiences with pet owners allowing their animal to destroy the place. However, there's a limit to the damage a pet can do. Generally the worst I've had to do was replace chewed/urine-stained drywall and doors. Repairs from 1-year of occupancy (my minimum lease term) have always run under $2000 (though often very close to this number), and I take them from the security deposit, provide receipts and a refund of the balance (if any) within 21 days, usually much sooner. No muss no fuss for the renters. I don't get upset if I come in to fix something and the place is ripped up and stinks. I renovated it to be resistant to pet damage, and I can get enough of the stink out so that the next pet owner that comes along is perfectly happy to rent it. I don't repair pet damage until they move out (and renters never ask, they actually try to cover it up, thinking I'm going to get annoyed).

Meanwhile, for the "burden" of dealing with the pet, I collect an extra $400 per month, which translates into $4800 per year--well above the maximum damage any pet could do, and much more than the increase in my insurance costs for having a pet in the place. I don't tell them I'm charging "pet rent", like some apartments. That's foolish. It just antagonizes your renters by judging and penalizing their lifestyle. I don't do that, I just market my property as "pet friendly" at well above market rates. Every time it goes vacant, pet owners JUMP at the chance to rent it! I haven't yet, but even if I get a destructive pet in there for multiple years and the damage eventually adds up to more than the security deposit, I'll have collected far more in extra rent than the accumulated damage. It's a great insuance policy.

It boggles my mind that pet owners are willing to shell out an extra $4800 per year for their furry companion, but they are, and it's quite lucrative for landlords willing to treat their rentals as a business and not get emotionally involved or do something dumb like antagonize their renters. They are my customer. Like any decent business owner, I want as much of their money as they are willing to pay, and I want them happy with the services they recieve.

[gizmo980]

Originally Posted by wac_432

I specifically made my rental "pet friendly" because there are so many pet owners and so few pet-friendly rentals. However, I take advantage of a market shortage of pet rentals to jack up my prices by 20% over what I would charge for a no-pets place.

If the market weren't so tight on pet-friendly rentals I would:
- Have carpet/soft furnishings that might absorb oder and dander.
- Charge $2000/month (market rate).
- Not allow pets.

Because the market is ridiculously tight and people are very attached to their pets, I:
- Have cheap faux-hardwood floors that are sealed against urine/feces, hard window treatments, etc.
- Charge $2400
- Market my rental as pet-friendly.

It boggles my mind that pet owners are willing to shell out an extra $4800 per year for their furry companion, but they are, and it's quite lucrative for landlords willing to treat their rentals as a business and not get emotionally involved or do something dumb like antagonize their renters. They are my customer. Like any decent business owner, I want as much of their money as they are willing to pay, and I want them happy with the services they recieve.

See, now YOU are a smart landlord!! This is almost exactly what I'd do in your position, and yes - we (pet owners) are willing to pay extra for the "luxury" of having our pets with us. Might be hard for you to understand, but when a dog/cat is like a member of the family, it's really not much of a choice for most of us. I would literally live in my CAR if it was the only way to keep them, especially in regards to my dog. He isn't just an accessory or piece of furniture, which I can toss away when it becomes inconvenient. He's my companion, exercise buddy, protector, and even stress reliever. Giving him up for an apartment, particularly after 13 years together, isn't even a consideration in my mind.

[gizmo980]

Originally Posted by dubblep

Its a bad idea to rent to pet owners?

Some people think so... but really, anyone (with or without pets) can be a bad tenant! I’ve lived in pet-friendly units/complexes for over 20 years, and for the most part haven’t noticed any major issues. Even if a dog/cat did cause some damage, that’s why security deposits were invented. But in my years of renting with animals, I’ve never had to pay for anything pet-related beyond maybe flea spraying & replacing a window covering or two.

[Amadrid]

The OP didn't specify homeowners, though... and I'm pretty sure if your place is a legal/licensed rental unit, you DO have to follow federal ADA laws (which require accepting service animals). I'm not a lawyer, though.

Yes you are correct - if it was an apartment building but a single family home rented by the owner without the use of a broker is exempt from the Federal Fair Housing Laws under the Fair Housing Act:

Here's an excerpt from the Fair Housing Act:

Housing covered by the Fair Housing Act
All types of housing, including public housing, are covered by the FHA except: 1. Rental dwellings of four or less units, where one unit is occupied by the owner; 2. Single family homes sold or rented by the owner without the use of a broker; 3. Housing owned by private clubs or religious organizations that restrict occupancy in housing units to their members.