Puppy Forum and Dog Forums banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I believe every state must pass legislature that asks property groups low income and otherwise to DESIGNATE a PET FRIENDLY AREA in their community! (whether it be a strip, a floor or an entire complex) BUT they MUST have that option without exception.
Every apartment complex must have a percentage of their units which allows dogs and cats (with or without breed restrictions).

Ofcourse as a responsible pet owner all the rules will apply in safe walking and socializing of pets hygiene and clean up but there HAVE to be more options out there for renters! the #1 reason these days for abandoned pets is the economy! People are loosing jobs, loosing homes... the first thing to go is the family pet.

MAKE IT EASIER FOR PET LOVERS TO OWN PETS!(you shouldnt have to sacrifice your lifestyle to own a pet or lower your standards) MAKE IT SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE TO TAKE YOUR PETS WITH YOU WHEREVER YOU GO. MALLS, BEACHES, RESORT VACATIONS PACKAGES - INCLUDE THEM.

Make more pet friendly homes and apartments! I say this should be legislation because there arent too many options for people who own pets in the renting community! I recently relocated to the Philly area and faced the same issue! I was one of the lucky ones who was able to find a very nice apartment, pet friendly and within budget. But I still have neighbours who dont understand in their words "why are there so many dogs out here all the time!" I want to scream when you read your rent agreement did you not NOTICE in big letters where it said Big Dogs OK.??? Go live in a non pet friendly community if you cant stand it so much!

This is my solution to the problem for the people who want pets but cant have them. And I think it will make a huge dent in the overpopulation. In a perfect world we can prevent irresponsible breeding and neglect but we dont live in Utopia so the next best thing is to creat a HUGE wave of legislature, make options available for pet owners to keep their pets and make society AWARE that this is a problem and it needs to be fixed.

For every home lost to a pet let us make another one by giving people the option to not having to surrender their pets because they have to downsize. Maybe WIC like programs should apply to dogs as well! Low income and job loss should qualify pet owners to get free pet food or deep discounts wherever possible.

Sadly the numbers of pets surrendered to local shelters has tripled in the past 6 months. This influx is the by-porduct of our failing economy.

As pet lovers, activitist, humanitarians we have to take a stand and educate the vastly untapped community out there of how beneficial pet ownership is and there ARE opitions out there.

My goal is to create legislature mandating that Property groups leaglly MUST provide options for pet owners to rent in their facilities. Not for free but at a cost but IT MUST be an option.

Last but not the least if any of you agree with me and would like to try I would love pointers on how to get started.This is NOt an easy road but it is a noble one and I cant wait to get sarted!
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,477 Posts
Although I understand and empathize with your ideas, I don't think mandating private entities will produce the desired results. Even if the costs are to be picked up by the pet owners themselves, additional pressure will be put on management groups to recoup losses by irresponsible pet owners who disappear with a collection notice. These costs will be passed along to other non pet owning (or responsible pet owner) renters. My thought process says there's a reason many apartments and property groups don't allow pets.

Maybe things are different out here in Colorado, but I have never had a problem finding a place that allows dogs (always been a renter). Sure, it might take a bit more leg work and time. Being a pet owner means that it's MY responsibility to find a way to keep my pets, the landlords/property groups don't owe me anything. Don't mind me, I'm just VERY wary of anything being mandated through legislation. There are usually unintended consequences that end up costing us ALL more money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,184 Posts
It's a nice thought but I'm not sure if this is a very feasible or economically viable plan. Owning a dog really is a luxury and it cost money to take care of them. I'm not so sure everyone should have pets when some barely make rent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,997 Posts
Horrible idea. If I own an apartment complex, it's a fact that people with animals are more likely to do damage to my apartment than people without them. Humans don't tend to spray or pee on the carpet. Humans don't tend to scratch or chew through walls. Both cats and dogs have been known to do these things. This damages my property, lowers the value of my investment and forces me to make repairs that I'm oftentimes going to have to pay for out of my own pocket at least partially. If I refuse to rent to pet owners then I must accept the fact that a certain percentage of the population will never, ever do business with me. If I am willing to accept that fact why should that be illegal?

I've said before that if I was to rent my house out I would probably not rent it to a dog owner. Fish, hamsters, gerbils, etc.... are one thing, but I would not rent to a dog owner. I purchased my house from a dog owner who kept their dog inside. The carpet smelled like dog odor and some areas of the carpet were stained from accidents. I had to replace all the carpet in my house. If I'm a landlord why would I want to potentially have to do that every time lose a renter?

If legislation like this were to pass, fine, but I get to set what the extra cost is to have a dog. You know what it is for low income housing you speak of - $5,000 a month. Yep. If you rent without a dog, I'll charge you $400 and pay for utilities. You want a dog, it's an extra $5,000 a month. I'm required by law to allow you damage my property, but you're gonna have to pay for the privilige. Don't like it? Do business some place else. Gonna put restrictions on how much extra I can charge? Bull****. Now I'm getting a lawyer. This is my property. I own it. I paid for it. Why do I suddenly not have the same right Wal-mart does? They can refuse service to anyone, why can't I?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,296 Posts
Terrible idea. Besides effectively raising the cost of living in every place affected by this kind of legislation, it's a massive infringement on property rights. As a pet owner, I'd be ashamed of any attempts to force my personal preferences upon an unwilling public due to legislation like this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
Discussion Starter #6 (Edited)
I dont deny any of the concerns shown here today. And I also respect every point of view however different it is from my own.But I would like to point a few things out:

I don not believe destructive dogs are the norm. This is the direct result of poor pet ownership. I also mentioned in my post that THE GROUPS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MONITOR AND PLACE AS MANY RESTRICTION AS THEY LIKE upon Pet owners. AS LONG as they GIVE PET OWNERS THE OPTION TO RENT WITH THEM. The ultimate choice is the pet owners WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO RENT UNDER SUCH RESTRICTIONS.

I also want to stress THIS POST is MY PERSONAL BELIEF! I am a responsible renter and pet owner .My home is spotless and my dogs are and have always been well raised! I have never had to replace walls carpets or any such thing. I recently sold my home and relocated and do not wish to buy in this market.Since I havent been a renter in so many years I was appalled at how little my choices were for a pet friendly apartment. I was looking for a luxury apartment in a good neighbourhood close to parks...and I came by so few.
One respone is particular caught my attention.

Westhighlander :"Owning a dog really is a luxury and it cost money to take care of them. I'm not so sure everyone should have pets when some barely make rent"

NO where in my post did I suggest that anyone who is struggling to put food on their table should now shell out for a pet also! If the broad conception is that "renters" are somehow poor let me correct you that they are NOT. In fact in this economy and rotting real estate market it is the renters who are better placed financially than the owners. It is also a smarter choice for young people who do not want to go into debt not knowing if they will have jobs tomorrow.

With that said I DO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENT POINTS MADE HERE AND I RESPECT ALL OF THEM.

I am not saying this should be across the board for everyone and anyone. Consumer education is important when purchasing a pet from a pet store, breeder or an individual. The notion that every adult is not capable of making an educated decision in the matter of pet ownership is offensive to me. I know that there are those out there who shrug off their responsibility, live in shabby ruin and let they pets become unbalanced and destructive. I understand this is a very common site and experience.

But to vehemently DENY legislation that manadates that the option be PROVIDED by PROPERTY GROUPS ( I do not mean every single unit) is harsh! Property groups most times have 5 to 6 properties around the state and one of which could be made pet friendly or a small portion of several could be made pet friendly. This is not extreme or unfair to ask or expect in my opinion.

It is nice to be able to sit in our living rooms and discuss what a disaster it will be for property owners to be left with property damage by irresponsible renters.... but keep in mind these are businesses with insurance and are making a profit also. While good poeple with good intentions fall by the way side and poor pets get shunted to shelters and rescue and worst abandoned on the streets, killed or maimed. Why judge a broad group of people by the negative examples set by a few bad apples.

If you were to weigh the severity of paying a few extra dollars to save a life and cutting down on your current cable bill or maybe not buying a Prada purse or giving up one starbucks coffee a week....
Somehow the choice to make seems pretty straight forward to me.

I love reading everyone's opinions and look forward to more from you all.

Horrible idea. If I own an apartment complex, it's a fact that people with animals are more likely to do damage to my apartment than people without them. Humans don't tend to spray or pee on the carpet. Humans don't tend to scratch or chew through walls. Both cats and dogs have been known to do these things. This damages my property, lowers the value of my investment and forces me to make repairs that I'm oftentimes going to have to pay for out of my own pocket at least partially. If I refuse to rent to pet owners then I must accept the fact that a certain percentage of the population will never, ever do business with me. If I am willing to accept that fact why should that be illegal?

I've said before that if I was to rent my house out I would probably not rent it to a dog owner. Fish, hamsters, gerbils, etc.... are one thing, but I would not rent to a dog owner. I purchased my house from a dog owner who kept their dog inside. The carpet smelled like dog odor and some areas of the carpet were stained from accidents. I had to replace all the carpet in my house. If I'm a landlord why would I want to potentially have to do that every time lose a renter?

If legislation like this were to pass, fine, but I get to set what the extra cost is to have a dog. You know what it is for low income housing you speak of - $5,000 a month. Yep. If you rent without a dog, I'll charge you $400 and pay for utilities. You want a dog, it's an extra $5,000 a month. I'm required by law to allow you damage my property, but you're gonna have to pay for the privilige. Don't like it? Do business some place else. Gonna put restrictions on how much extra I can charge? Bull****. Now I'm getting a lawyer. This is my property. I own it. I paid for it. Why do I suddenly not have the same right Wal-mart does? They can refuse service to anyone, why can't I?
agree with you completely. If such legislation is passed YOU as the landlord SET the rules! I have not suggested that everyone should be affected by this. ONLY PROPERTY GROUPS! GROUPS have sometimes more than 5 to 6 units in the state I would like to see the law mandate such GROUPS and GROUS only be asked to set one unit or small portions of several units be designated as pet friendly!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,184 Posts
If you were to weigh the severity of paying a few extra dollars to save a life and cutting down on your current cable bill or maybe not buying a Prada purse or giving up one starbucks coffee a week....
Somehow the choice to make seems pretty straight forward to me.

[/I]
Clearly a luxury if this is the case.

Statistically renters are poorer than home owners, that's a fact.

Now is the ideal time to buy a house. Be greedy when others are fearful, someone really rich said that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,477 Posts
My next question would be: ¿What happens to insurance premiums once this legislation is enacted? It all rolls downhill from there.

The disdain for any private business' right to make profit is appalling and seems to be spreading.

My suggestion would be for you to enter the market as a "group". Compete on the basis of your own superior services. Create a business model that can be replicated by others for profit. Don't have government force it on people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
329 Posts
MAKE IT EASIER FOR PET LOVERS TO OWN PETS!(you shouldnt have to sacrifice your lifestyle to own a pet or lower your standards) MAKE IT SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE TO TAKE YOUR PETS WITH YOU WHEREVER YOU GO. MALLS, BEACHES, RESORT VACATIONS PACKAGES - INCLUDE THEM.
There is no way I would want dogs in Malls,Restaurants and everywhere a human can go.If I wanted that I would move to France where they already have this in effect.Not everyone's dog is as socialized,friendly,well behaved,housebroken ect.. like my dogs are.I would hate to have to worry everywhere I go with my children if someones CA dog is going to bite them.Or have to see and smell urine and poo everywhere I go (not to mention the disease issues that come with this).Or imagine people with DA pets that take them everywhere and they lunge and try to attack every dog that comes within range.

While your idea in theory sounds nice in reality it would be a nightmare ...but hey if you really want it that bad like I said France already has some of those ideas in effect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,997 Posts
I recently sold my home and relocated and do not wish to buy in this market.
Totally off topic, but why in the world would you not want to buy in this market if you have the money to do so? There's a fire sale out there on real estate and interest rates are at all time lows. This is the best time in 30-40 years to buy real estate. But back on topic.....

agree with you completely. If such legislation is passed YOU as the landlord SET the rules! I have not suggested that everyone should be affected by this. ONLY PROPERTY GROUPS! GROUPS have sometimes more than 5 to 6 units in the state I would like to see the law mandate such GROUPS and GROUS only be asked to set one unit or small portions of several units be designated as pet friendly!
Currently, if I'm a landlord, I do set the rules. The rules I set say no dogs. You think I should be forced to rent to dog owners. Why? Why should I be forced to make that an option? Why should I be forced to offer that? There are other options on the market. There are places that will rent to people with dogs. Why should it be a crime for me to not rent to a dog owner? I can currently legally discriminate against people with bad credit because I think they're going to not pay me. I can discriminate against people who's previous landlords give them bad recommendations. I can discriminate against people who are unemployed. Why should I not be allowed to discriminate against people who have dogs? Do you deny that dogs are more likely to do damage to property than no dog at all?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
If I were renting out anything, I would not want to rent to dog owners. I'll give my reason why (might be a little long sorry).

When I was younger, my family moved out of the country (my dad is now retired Navy and my mom is Filipina, so when they got the opportunity to be stationed in the Phillipines we did). My parents decided to put our house at that time up for rent, as we had plans to come back afterwards. We did come back after about two years (and a volcanic eruption that shipped us out early) only to find that our home had been destroyed, by the renters who had 2 large dogs.

There were huge holes dug in the back yard. My mom's favorite fruit trees were dead, which was extremely sad because she made the best peach cobbler and apple pies from those trees!!! The picket fence had to be fixed. The house was COMPLETELY infested in fleas. I have no idea how the renters lived there, much less their dogs, you couldn't walk into the house barefoot or with shorts on without being completely covered in flea bites. And this was just walking from the front door through the living room to the back door.There were broken doors and chewed up trim. The renters created a HUGE headache for my parents in having to spend all kinds of time and money replacing the carpet in the entire house, repainting, getting doors fixed, getting trim fixed, getting the backyard back into a decent shape, etc..... The flea infestation was a big headache just by itself!!!

So unfortunately, it is because of those bad apples out there that do ruin it for other people.

I myself have two large dogs, and back when I was renting, I found it harder to get around the BSL (my oldest dog is a GSD mix) than finding a place that would allow large dogs in. From my own experiences, I don't blame housing owners for not allowing rent with dogs. It takes a bit more time and effort to find a suitable place, and maybe even not the PERFECT, most convenient place, but there are nice places out there for people with dogs.

I also am of the belief that legislation can create more problems sometimes than they are trying to solve. I, personally, would spend more of my time fighting BSL and pushing for more responsible dog ownership than for creating more laws.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
Discussion Starter #12 (Edited)
Thanks Everyone again for the second wave of responses! I am really glad I wrote about this and it has been an education and I am glad you are all writing in.

Let me take the opportunity to thank you all first and also point out some things I notices most prevalent in the responses.

There are an overwhelming number of you who own dogs, are dog advocates yet feel you cannot deal with dogs everwhere ar malls and vacation....because they will dirty up the place.

Maybe I have really good dogs but they dont eliminate without reason or without letting me know and part of being a responsible dog owner is to PICK IT U and WIPE IT UP.

Okay thats all I have to say about that.

Next a little off topic : The HOUSING market! ( I comment specifically to westhighlander who made the assumption renters are struggling to make rent and I wanted to point out RENTERS are not all on the verge of going hungry or a dying breed)

Let me tell you that buying a home in this market and this economic state is a disastor. Government is encouraging people who can afford it to take a RISK. Homes do not have equity in them if you loose your job or in my case staying mobile is an asset in our line of work. You are at a loss because homes are not moving and selling is not as feasible as it used to be 2 -3 years ago. Not buying is a sound financial judgement. BUYING is what got us here along with the corporate greed (that is for another forum all together)

Let me also state again I am not talking about PRIVATE homeowners who choose to RENT their homes. IF YOU DO make the homes pet friendly thats your choice. I am SPECIFICALLY talking about the large coporations that own 5 6 and 7 large units in the same city 10 to 20 in the state! THAT is whom I am talking about

As far as government INVOLVEMENT...make no mistake YOU are paying for the money every year given out to government funded organizations that save rescue and place abandoned pets in good homes. Let us not be delusional about whether every one of these organizations use that money for THAT purpose. YOU are being taxed for countless things from cell tower usage to road work which never gets worked on but you pay for.... Lets not get started on that shall we????

As for France allowing free reign for pets I have no comment on that at all. I didnt ask to emulate the French my intention is to make options available for good people who live in America who will care for their pets and find homes for the most innocent of them all. As for the presumption that I have lievd a hard life and discriminated against so I want to stick it to the next guy because I am an angry unfulfilled person isnt becoming of a charitable or kind human being. To the person who insinuated that all I have to say is : BE NICE YOU ONLY HAVE ONE LIFE TO LIVE. MKAE IT THE BEST POSSIBLE LIFE YOU CAN LIVE.
My intent for this post was to help the poor creatures I see through the various rescues I visit and have a chance to help. Those faces stand out to me. I dont see the difference between them and my own.That is where my thoughts and opinions originate and thats where they end.

There is no way I would want dogs in Malls,Restaurants and everywhere a human can go.If I wanted that I would move to France where they already have this in effect.Not everyone's dog is as socialized,friendly,well behaved,housebroken ect.. like my dogs are.I would hate to have to worry everywhere I go with my children if someones CA dog is going to bite them.Or have to see and smell urine and poo everywhere I go (not to mention the disease issues that come with this).Or imagine people with DA pets that take them everywhere and they lunge and try to attack every dog that comes within range.

While your idea in theory sounds nice in reality it would be a nightmare ...but hey if you really want it that bad like I said France already has some of those ideas in effect.
RRM...,

If by your post you are implying I should move because my opinion does not resemble yours then I think you are the one with the problem. The last time I checked this IS a free COUNTRY and your golden statue was not planted at the street corners.
I find your statement OFFENSIVE.

We are all here to talk what we feel and think not ask people to move to another country because you cannot appreciate differences of oppinion! HOW DARE YOU?

Thank you for not responding to me any further. I have no time for angry self righteous people who cannot contribute positively my this discussion....unfortunately there are no countries out there for me to recommend to you.
Good day!

Clearly a luxury if this is the case.

Statistically renters are poorer than home owners, that's a fact.

Now is the ideal time to but a house. Be greedy when people are fearful, someone really rich said that.
westhighlander,

First you said you think renters are generally poor (can barely make rent). Now you have a problem with people who have money. You are not contributuing to the discussion...if you are having a bad I can understand dont scoff me because I have an opinion and am willing to stand up and speak about it.

You dont have to agree with me. I never went on the presumption that you or anyone would. But JUDGING me without cause is not becoming of a 'senior member of this forum'.

I simple suggested that legislation be enacted to help renters have a choice when hunting for a home to TAKE their pets with them. So as to NOT having to surrender them. I did not say this will become a reality and what is even more shocking to me is the way apparent DOG LOVERS are only willing to accomadate dogs when it is convenient to them. What a toddler's perspective of life that it!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,399 Posts
There are an overwhelming number of you who own dogs, are dog advocates yet feel you cannot deal with dogs everwhere ar malls and vacation....because they will dirty up the place.

Maybe I have really good dogs but they dont eliminate without reason or without letting me know and part of being a responsible dog owner is to PICK IT U and WIPE IT UP.
Yes, you have good dogs, I have good dogs, the majority of us here have good dogs, but the sad fact is, somewhere around 90% of the people in the US DO NOT train their dogs and they are the ones who ruin it for everyone else.

If I rented out a property, I would allow dogs, but I'd want to see their CGC cert first.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
Discussion Starter #14 (Edited)
Although I understand and empathize with your ideas, I don't think mandating private entities will produce the desired results. Even if the costs are to be picked up by the pet owners themselves, additional pressure will be put on management groups to recoup losses by irresponsible pet owners who disappear with a collection notice. These costs will be passed along to other non pet owning (or responsible pet owner) renters. My thought process says there's a reason many apartments and property groups don't allow pets.

Maybe things are different out here in Colorado, but I have never had a problem finding a place that allows dogs (always been a renter). Sure, it might take a bit more leg work and time. Being a pet owner means that it's MY responsibility to find a way to keep my pets, the landlords/property groups don't owe me anything. Don't mind me, I'm just VERY wary of anything being mandated through legislation. There are usually unintended consequences that end up costing us ALL more money.
I completely understand your perspective in the issue and I appreciate that you have been kind and courteous in how you responded to me. I have had people tell me I should move to France to laugh at me because they think I am rich and greedy and have nothing better to do with my time! well....what can I say discussions such as this one brings out the best and the worst in people.

Yes, you have good dogs, I have good dogs, the majority of us here have good dogs, but the sad fact is, somewhere around 90% of the people in the US DO NOT train their dogs and they are the ones who ruin it for everyone else.

If I rented out a property, I would allow dogs, but I'd want to see their CGC cert first.
Yes I agree with you. And I will not come to their defense only people like you and I who have good dogs and most importantly we know the pleasure of having well behaved GOOD dogs and they enhance our lives. And that every dog has the potential to be a balanced good dog.

I am not saying we should all go out now and push to pass legislation I hope one day this can be a reality. Some day.

Thank you for sharing your views with me today.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,997 Posts
There are an overwhelming number of you who own dogs, are dog advocates yet feel you cannot deal with dogs everwhere ar malls and vacation....because they will dirty up the place.

Maybe I have really good dogs but they dont eliminate without reason or without letting me know and part of being a responsible dog owner is to PICK IT U and WIPE IT UP.
That's great for you and I applaud you for that. All dog owners should be that way. Don't make the assumption that all dog owners are. If you do you are being very naive. Many dog owners are not that way.

Let me tell you that buying a home in this market and this economic state is a disastor. Government is encouraging people who can afford it to take a RISK. Homes do not have equity in them if you loose your job or in my case staying mobile is an asset in our line of work. You are at a loss because homes are not moving and selling is not as feasible as it used to be 2 -3 years ago. Not buying is a sound financial judgement. BUYING is what got us here along with the corporate greed (that is for another forum all together)
You could not be more wrong on this. You could try, but you would have a hard time. This is a horrible market to be a seller in that, you are correct. It is an awesome market to be a buyer. The market could not be better to be a buyer. This assumes that you have a job and money for a down payment, but lets be honest, you'd need that no matter what the economy is doing. Interest rates are at an all time low and real estate is on-sale. There are a lot of desperate sellers on the market right now. There has not been a better time in decades to buy real estate. It's a bad time to sell, but it's an excellent, excellent time to buy real estate you can actually afford. If you don't have a job and you don't have a down payment you should never have bought in the first place. If you are there right now and you don't own a home and you're sitting on a pile of cash for a down payment, you aren't drowning in debt, get out there and buy a freaking house. They're on sale right now. Let's not get greedy and tie up half our income in a house payment, but by all means, buy a house.

Let me also state again I am not talking about PRIVATE homeowners who choose to RENT their homes. IF YOU DO make the homes pet friendly thats your choice. I am SPECIFICALLY talking about the large coporations that own 5 6 and 7 large units in the same city 10 to 20 in the state! THAT is whom I am talking about
There are private individuals who won 5-6 units. Would you include them as well?

As for France allowing free reign for pets I have no comment on that at all. I didnt ask to emulate the French my intention is to make options available for good people who live in America who will care for their pets and find homes for the most innocent of them all.
The intention is good, but those options are already available out there.

My intent for this post was to help the poor creatures I see through the various rescues I visit and have a chance to help. Those faces stand out to me. I dont see the difference between them and my own.That is where my thoughts and opinions originate and thats where they end.
Again, your intention is good. I don't think people giving up their dogs because they're moving is the real reason they're giving up their dogs though. I really don't buy that.

Now, since I've been mean to you the whole post, I will try to help you out. If you really, really still feel that this is a great idea the first thing you need to do is get a petition together. You need to sit down and write down specifically what you want. Define what you mean by corporation. How many units must I own before this legislation applies? Define what you mean by "allow dogs." Can an owner set restrictions on size of dogs, how many dogs, etc...? What restrictions can he set (i.e. can he say only dogs half a pound or under?)? Can he raise rent in these situations? If so, by how much? $100 a month? $200? $5000? You mentioned earlier applying this to low income housing. What do you define as low income? This needs to be discussed in the proposed legislation. How big does the pet friendly area have to be? If I own 6 units, how many of them must allow dogs? Be very, very specific. You can write this up in Word or any other similar program on your computer.

Then you need to attach this proposition to a petition and collect signatures. You need hand written signatures. E-mail petitions carry very little weight as it's just too easy to forge signatures. Don't get just signatures, get full names, addresses, phone numbers and e-mail addresses if possible. This makes it easier to later verify that all of the signatories do live in your municipality and are registered voters. Obviously you local council members are not going to care about the opinions of those who live in the city 20 minutes away. You can collect these going door to door or even in front of the local pet store (if they allow you) or a local rescue (again, if they allow you to).

Once you collect a few thousand signatures (and the amount you need is going to differ based on how big a city you live in) then you can approach the local city council. Housing regulations like these are almost universally done at the local level so the city council is the place to go. The procedure differs here as some councils have open time during meetings in which people can present petitions like this one, others do not. Contact your local councilman/councilwoman and tell them you have a petition with several thousand signatures on it and would like to present it to the council. They'll tell you what (if anything) you need to do at this point. What will happen now is the council will either take your bill under consideration (in which case it then becomes your responsibility to pester them until they take some sort of action), vote on your bill themselves (in which case you must lobby them all) or they will put the bill on a local ballot for the next local election (in which case you will have to lobby your entire town). It's a very rough process and hard work to boot, but it's the process you have to follow.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,184 Posts
westhighlander,

First you said you think renters are generally poor (can barely make rent). Now you have a problem with people who have money. You are not contributuing to the discussion...if you are having a bad I can understand dont scoff me because I have an opinion and am willing to stand up and speak about it.

You dont have to agree with me. I never went on the presumption that you or anyone would. But JUDGING me without cause is not becoming of a 'senior member of this forum'.

I simple suggested that legislation be enacted to help renters have a choice when hunting for a home to TAKE their pets with them. So as to NOT having to surrender them. I did not say this will become a reality and what is even more shocking to me is the way apparent DOG LOVERS are only willing to accomadate dogs when it is convenient to them. What a toddler's perspective of life that it!

For every home lost to a pet let us make another one by giving people the option to not having to surrender their pets because they have to downsize. Maybe WIC like programs should apply to dogs as well! Low income and job loss should qualify pet owners to get free pet food or deep discounts wherever possible.

I'm just pointing out statistical facts and addressing some of your points. Who is judging you? You are asking for a subsidy in one form or another from property owners or the government.

Your sentence about low income pet owners leads me to my statement about people barely making rent. I never said renters are poor but it is statistically true that home owners on average have higher salaries and disposable incomes than renters.

Where in my post do I say I don't like rich people?? If that was true I would hate most of my friends.

How am I not adding to the discussion, the foundation of your argument is fundamentally incorrect. I'm just pointing it out.

Anyone can be a senior member, just keep posting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
Discussion Starter #17 (Edited)
Hulkmaniac,



Hulkmaniac : That's great for you and I applaud you for that. All dog owners should be that way. Don't make the assumption that all dog owners are. If you do you are being very naive. Many dog owners are not that way.

No, I do not make the assumption that all dog owners are worthy of being that. Or that their dogs are as well behaved as mine. My intent here is to state 'MY' case. Not defend those who cannot raise balanced pets (their pets are a reflection of their own fears and the energy they project) Thats a another topic of discussion fpor another day.
I dont think I am 'naive' may be I am but I know I am not condescending to anyone who is naive either.

Hulkmaniac :You could not be more wrong on this. You could try, but you would have a hard time. This is a horrible market to be a seller in that, you are correct. It is an awesome market to be a buyer. The market could not be better to be a buyer. This assumes that you have a job and money for a down payment, but lets be honest, you'd need that no matter what the economy is doing. Interest rates are at an all time low and real estate is on-sale. There are a lot of desperate sellers on the market right now. There has not been a better time in decades to buy real estate. It's a bad time to sell, but it's an excellent, excellent time to buy real estate you can actually afford. If you don't have a job and you don't have a down payment you should never have bought in the first place. If you are there right now and you don't own a home and you're sitting on a pile of cash for a down payment, you aren't drowning in debt, get out there and buy a freaking house. They're on sale right now. Let's not get greedy and tie up half our income in a house payment, but by all means, buy a house.

The market may be great to buy in if you know for a fact you will not loose your job, if you will find another job in your state and will not need to move to take one. If you take your svaings and dump it onto a home and you loose your job and your thrown into a pool filled with jobless people looking for work, a house payment and no or little savings in your account to survive on.
If you read my posts you would see that I said my work involves MOBILITY which means I can move at ANY time. So if I put my house on sale in this slow sellers but in your words an awesome BUYERS market???? I will be up the creek without a paddle!
Let me guess you are either a realtor, mortgage broker or a recent home buyer....justifying your position. Thats great for you! But not so much for me.

On the house market stance we clearly have to agree to disagree. We have very different vantage points into the situation.

Hulkmania : There are private individuals who won 5-6 units. Would you include them as well?

I am murky on that point only because I am pointedly focusing on groups that have 15 to over a 100 units per complex all over the city and more all over the state! I am talking about dedicating a 'small' percentage of that to PET OWNERS. It is a very reasonable and moderate request. I am not including landlords of private sinlge homes or even row homes to be inclusive in that! I am not demanding EVERYONE to open their rental doors to packs of dogs that breed fleas and tear holes into dry wall. It is a modest request but yet I am facing such an extreme response to it. Why?

Iam not so scared for myself asking for signatures to petition this to become law as I am for the law maker who signs the bill into law! My God if this is the reception I get on a forum then he should be afraid for his physical safety!:(

Anyway...its all good!



I quite enjoyed the whip lashing Thank you.:)

But I thank you immensly for the information you provided me with! You are the first to give me step by step guidelines and I appreciate it. It gives me hope that among the 10 who say no there will be 1 who will say yes.:) There is POWERin the number ONE.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,296 Posts
What does it matter whether it's a corporation that owns the building, or an individual? What if it's an individual who owns multiple properties? Regardless of who owns the property, the kind of legislation you're proposing is a major abridgement of their rights as property owners. It imposes a massive cost on the property owner for what is, at best, a minimal benefit. That cost isn't going to be borne by some faceless corporation, it's going to be borne by everyone - the property owner, the other tenants, and the taxpayers.

You're basically asking for the government to legislate your own personal preferences without regard for the rights of others because you don't want to bear the cost of ownership yourself.

Sorry - no sale.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Westhighlander,

Where in my post do I say I don't like rich people??

You said this in your earlier post :Now is the ideal time to buy a house. Be greedy when others are fearful, someone really rich said that.

Who is judging you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by suzette
If you were to weigh the severity of paying a few extra dollars to save a life and cutting down on your current cable bill or maybe not buying a Prada purse or giving up one starbucks coffee a week....
Somehow the choice to make seems pretty straight forward to me.

[/i]

You said :Clearly a luxury if this is the case.

I was simply pointing out examples on some things that can be cut out to make room for somethings that are more meaningful in life.


How am I fundamentally wrong in my thinking like you state above?

Because I believe large property groups can afford to designate a small percentage of their rental units to pet owners??? And add clauses to the rental contract it will ulitmately be the renter's decision to sign or not to sign the lease.
I am wrong to ask that we do something across the board to prevent people from sneaking in pets without the homeowners kowledge....

As for low income pet owners I didnt mean for someone barely making it to go out and get a dog to starve with! I said there should be options for people who own pets but are already low income. People who live in slums own dogs! They get them from rescues who dont check the facts and dont ask the right questions. I am talking about giving them the options they need to keep these pets in their lives without giving them away or throwing then out car windows! Free services are offered to poor moms to be to support their children so why not pet owners who ahev fallen on hard time?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,477 Posts
In the end, I think the best thing any of us can do is force the public to see our well behaved dogs. When we looked at our current residence for the first time, it was unnerving knowing that the ad AND the phone call said "no pets". But I insisted that we take the time to go look. At the time we had two dogs and two cats. We took them with us and the owner was forced to meet my dogs due to our arrival and cordiality. Long story short, the dogs (and cats) were allowed with a deposit equal to one animal spread out over six months. It just takes some kutzpah and gumption. In my years of selling cars I have learned that people are, in general, afraid to confront other people on what they believe are set in stone statements. I will never accept "no pets" as a legitimate reason to disqualify me from renting, I can sell my product. Put a little lipstick on that pig and you've got yourself a dwelling!
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top