No pet? HA! (by Harold [MA]) Jul 19, 2016 1:14 PM
No pet? HA! (by JAC [OH]) Jul 19, 2016 1:32 PM
No pet? HA! (by John... [MI]) Jul 19, 2016 1:44 PM
No pet? HA! (by Mike45 [NV]) Jul 19, 2016 2:51 PM
No pet? HA! (by Marie [MO]) Jul 19, 2016 3:46 PM
No pet? HA! (by RentsDue [MA]) Jul 20, 2016 8:18 AM
No pet? HA! (by plenty [MO]) Jul 20, 2016 2:37 PM
No pet? HA! (by amy [MO]) Jul 20, 2016 7:00 PM
No pet? HA! (by John... [MI]) Jul 21, 2016 6:46 AM
No pet? HA! (by amy [MO]) Jul 21, 2016 9:52 AM
No pet? HA! (by LisaFL [FL]) Jul 21, 2016 10:05 AM
No pet? HA! (by John... [MI]) Jul 21, 2016 10:39 AM
No pet? HA! (by LisaFL [FL]) Jul 21, 2016 11:03 AM
No pet? HA! (by John... [MI]) Jul 21, 2016 11:55 AM
No pet? HA! (by amy [MO]) Jul 21, 2016 12:03 PM
No pet? HA! (by John... [MI]) Jul 21, 2016 12:55 PM
No pet? HA! (by LisaFL [FL]) Jul 21, 2016 1:40 PM
No pet? HA! (by John... [MI]) Jul 21, 2016 4:54 PM
No pet? HA! (by John... [MI]) Jul 21, 2016 4:56 PM
No pet? HA! (by LisaFL [FL]) Jul 21, 2016 6:44 PM
No pet? HA! (by Blue [IL]) Jul 21, 2016 7:38 PM
No pet? HA! (by amy [MO]) Jul 21, 2016 8:06 PM
No pet? HA! (by John... [MI]) Jul 22, 2016 8:30 AM
No pet? HA! (by LisaFL [FL]) Jul 22, 2016 9:11 AM
No pet? HA! (by John... [MI]) Jul 22, 2016 9:31 AM
No pet? HA! (by LisaFL [FL]) Jul 22, 2016 1:03 PM
No pet? HA! (by John... [MI]) Jul 22, 2016 2:45 PM
No pet? HA! (by LisaFL [FL]) Jul 22, 2016 3:10 PM
No pet? HA! (by amy [MO]) Jul 22, 2016 8:20 PM
No pet? HA! (by LisaFL [FL]) Jul 23, 2016 6:57 AM
No pet? HA! (by Marie [MO]) Jul 23, 2016 8:18 AM
No pet? HA! (by John... [MI]) Jul 24, 2016 3:15 PM
No pet? HA! (by IllinoisTim [IL]) Jul 27, 2016 5:05 AM
No pet? HA! (by Harold [MA]) Posted on: Jul 19, 2016 1:14 PM Message:
So you say "no pets" so did I. but the tenant can ask any Dr for a note to have their "therapy dog." I thought you could not accept a therapy dog. only had to accept a service dog. Lawyer said I have to, (this tenant sent me a "certificate" that they got onlline for 80 bucks certifying its a "real" therapy dog,..and for that they get a picture ID of the dog and for a little more a jacket for the dog that says "service animal"). Apparently you also cannot accept a pet fee.
So of course now,..everyone in the building wants a dog and she's informing them to ask their Dr for a note,..(what Dr will not give a note when their pt says they the "neeeeed" it for their sanity,anxiety or whatever.)
I wish there was a requirement that Dr.s had to write a long report, what psychological test really have been run and present to to a board for approval as Drs hate writing a rationale of why they prescribe something,...it might cut down on this nonsense a bit)
Or maybe only a Psychiatrist or Psychologist only after they have seen them for a while .
I went with no pets after spending over the years of tens of thousands in pet damage. Now it seems that people can take advantage of the emotional/therapy pets and the only thing keeping them from getting a pet is the fact they don't know these laws,.....YET. --24.63.x.xx |
No pet? HA! (by JAC [OH]) Posted on: Jul 19, 2016 1:32 PM Message:
One of the reasons why I have a short initial lease then go to month to month. I can raise the rent with a 30 day notice at any time to compensate for my costs rising. --74.215.xx.xxx |
No pet? HA! (by John... [MI]) Posted on: Jul 19, 2016 1:44 PM Message:
First of all, we've discussed this 100 times, so you really should do a search and read the other threads. But, just to clear up a few things for anyone that stumbles across this later...
1. It isn't a "Therapy" animal. It's an Emotional Support Animal. They are not the same thing.
2. You don't actually have to take "Therapy" animals. But, again, that isn't what we're talking about here.
3. They don't need a "certificate" or "picture ID" of the dog. All they need is a letter from a healthcare professional -- on letterhead -- stating that the person has a disability and that the animal helps them to have the "same opportunity" as a non-disabled person to use and enjoy the housing/community.
4. The "Service Animal" jacket is actually illegal in some states now -- because this is NOT a "Service Animal." Service Animals are not the same thing as Emotional Support Animals.
All that being said, yes, you are correct -- this is regularly abused and is a growing problem for all of us landlords.
- John...
--97.91.xx.x |
No pet? HA! (by Mike45 [NV]) Posted on: Jul 19, 2016 2:51 PM Message:
John: +1!
I still like carpets in the bedrooms of my houses, but I am seriously re-thinking this.
--76.3.xxx.xxx |
No pet? HA! (by Marie [MO]) Posted on: Jul 19, 2016 3:46 PM Message:
RE: Emotional Support Animals. As John from MI stated, this is a growing problem for landlords. I did talk to a government official who answers questions from landlords to help them avoid discrimination lawsuits. He told me that the letter from the healthcare professional does not need to indicate the specific health problem of the Renter but it does have to note that the dog is necessary for the mental health of the Renter. (Service animals are for physical health issues.).
I would honor a letter on letterhead from a medical professional dealing with mental illness. (Although I did not ask the government official about this--I would tell the Renter that I was going to call up the medical professional to verify the letter, if it was possible.)
After the emotional support animal enters the home, it is treated like the Renter. Although we cannot charge pet rent or additional security deposit for the animal, if it causes other Renters to be inconvenienced by barking in the night or damages the home, I would warn the renter that I would have to start eviction proceedings. If only damage, I would charge the security deposit accordingly when they leave.
--98.156.xxx.xx |
No pet? HA! (by RentsDue [MA]) Posted on: Jul 20, 2016 8:18 AM Message:
Around here the big complexes are really the only ones who actually accept pets. They charge dearly for it too. So I charge the same rent they do. If they are going to force you to take them you might as well be compensated for it. It gives less incentive for those who are going to try to sneak them in or pay $39.95 for an ESA letter online. --71.10.xxx.x |
No pet? HA! (by plenty [MO]) Posted on: Jul 20, 2016 2:37 PM Message:
HA! Is right.
Trump card. Don't renew their lease, or raise the rent. --66.87.xx.xxx |
No pet? HA! (by amy [MO]) Posted on: Jul 20, 2016 7:00 PM Message:
As much as I love pets, I love people more. My daughter is SEVERELY allergic to dogs. She works with us in our rentals sometimes. We have had tenants with dogs in a few and she is absolutely MISERABLE working there. We try to say no pets, even though we know that we miss out on a big part of the market of pet owners. It's not worth it. I'm sorry, but it isn't fair that I have to put my daughter through hell for a person who abuses the laws for a pet. I realize that some people really do need the comfort of a pet. I think they should be clear about this from the beginning of the tenancy, and if the tenant should need a an emotional support pet mid-tenancy and the landlord is not okay with it, then the tenant could have the option to leave the tenancy early and get their deposit back(if everything else is ok) My daughter can't go into some stores that allow dogs. Even though I know it is rare to be so allergic, people in all situations and walks of life have problems, and I think we should ALL have a say and choice in the matter. ESPECIALLY when it is potentially life-threatening.
I had a tenant with a dog. She moved out, and in moved a lady who had lupus. Sensitivity to residual dog forced her into the hospital and eventually to move out. She found out that she was allergic to dog during the tenancy, and we never told her the place had a dog before, and by her attitude I believe she is truthful(she had a signed note from her doctor). What do we do about these people that need a place to live too? I think that is a form of discrimination, to not be able to provide a PET FREE home, like some of the major hotel chains can. --65.31.xxx.x |
No pet? HA! (by John... [MI]) Posted on: Jul 21, 2016 6:46 AM Message:
Those seem like pretty extreme/rare examples though. While there is abuse and I hate it too -- let's look at the other end for a minute. Let's look at just real, confirmed, obvious Service Animals -- such as the classic seeing-eye dog leading a blind person.
Would you feel the same way? Do you think people should be able to refuse a blind person because their daughter that "sometimes helps with the rentals" is allergic to dogs? Or do you think it is a more reasonable accomodation that the landlord simply doesn't use their daughter to help work around that unit so that the blind person can have a place to live?
Do you think a landlord should be able to deny a blind person with a seeing eye dog because, one day in the future after they move out, someone with lupus and a dog sensitivity MIGHT move in?
Again, I get where you are coming from. We have a real problem with "fake" emotional support animals. We all agree with that. But you seem to be taking some rare/extreme examples to try to come up with a way to deny even legitimate animals. That doesn't seem fair either nor a good solution.
- John...
--207.241.xxx.xxx |
No pet? HA! (by amy [MO]) Posted on: Jul 21, 2016 9:52 AM Message:
John,
You are right. I guess I went out into left field. I took the long way and never made it home, really! My point is that it's a slippery slope.
Landlords should have a choice, too but the laws are making it harder for us to have any choices. I knew an acquaintance who wanted to rent from me. 17 years old. She didn't fit the criteria. But she asked for some ways to be able to get into a place, and I gave her some tips like getting job history, finding a cosigner, looking for a cheaper place, etc. Feeling comfortable with me, she then said "well, I have a dog. ANd if a landlord won't take me because of my dog, i'll just say it's an emotional support animal and it's against the law." So even kids are learning these little tricks.
I am a compassionate, caring person, who loves animals and genuinely feels for those with disabilities. I HAVE children with disabilities AND pets. I shared with you the story of my daughter and the tenant with lupus because acceptance of the abuses(and I mean ABUSE ONLY)of the system in using emotional support animals, people with these types of disabilities will in turn have decreased opportunities for housing. These disabilities are LIFE THREATENING. If you do for one, you will eventually have to do for all.
Here we go down the slippery slope. I'm trying to say "what's next?" "What regulations will we have to endure next?" The only solution is discretion and choice.
Because if you are going to choose one type of disability, then you will eventually have to choose all disabilities. (as is being seen with the transition from accepting not only service animals(legit) to emotional support animals (both legit and some not so much)) The lady with lupus had a disability(auto-immune condition that increases her likelihood for allergy). a potentially life-threatening one. Some landlords may not remember that a property had a dog or cat two or three tenants ago and some would argue that tenants should have the right to have a place to live where they are not absolutely MISERABLE, or in the hospital. (Of course, then we could eventually get into someone who sues us to remove every speck of leftover dander just to make the place habitable for their needs for one tenancy.)
I would never want to deny someone that had a seeing eye dog the opportunity to have housing. OR anyone else the opportunity to have housing. Of course, if someone with a seeing eye dog approached me for housing I would not and could not turn them away unless something on their application told me otherwise.
I am missing out on MANY tenants because I have begun to choose not to accept tenants who have pets. I am losing money, time and energy wading through who would have probably been great tenants because they have a pet. I make this choice not for my daughter, but because of the excessive destruction that many pets have caused to my property. In this decision to go pet-free, it would be great if I could be helpful to someone like my daughter or the tenant with lupus who needed a place to stay that was pet-free but that's not why I do it.
This overregulation of our businesses has to stop somewhere.
And furthermore, we should have the right to choose. PERIOD. --65.31.xxx.x |
No pet? HA! (by LisaFL [FL]) Posted on: Jul 21, 2016 10:05 AM Message:
I agree with you Amy. We should have the right to chose.
As more of the bs gets pushed down our throats we some will likely choose to exit this business. So much reasonabless is being lost with the landlord having to assume too much risk.
I know when the day comes that I must take un-neutered pitbull puppy emotional support animal that it will be time to sell. So far they haven't come up with a way to force us to remain landlords. --65.35.xx.xxx |
No pet? HA! (by John... [MI]) Posted on: Jul 21, 2016 10:39 AM Message:
Amy: You can't have it both ways. The problem is that if we had the "right to choose", then too many landlords would deny even seeing-eye dogs because they just don't want to deal with it. They would deny people that need a wheelchair ramp built because they don't want to deal with it (even though they don't take on the cost burden to build it, of course).
THAT is why it is the way it is. So, again, the problem is not CHOICE. Because some landlords would abuse that too. The problem is the abuse on the "emotional support animal" side of things. Laws have simply not kept up with the popularity of that abuse.
So, I'm not normally one for more regulation. But the reality is that laws to help stop discrimination against those with disabilities exist for GOOD REASONS and NEED to be there -- because too many landlords would not take them if the laws were not there.
Therefore, the problem is on the other side of things: preventing the ABUSE of such disability laws.
That is what I see as the only real potential solution to this. Trying to change things so that landlords can just "choose" no matter what will clearly lead to discrimination against those with legit disabilities, unfortunately. So we need more regulation related to claiming a disability and support animal -- not less regulation for the landlords.
Again, that's the opposite of how I normally feel about regulation. But, in this case, when it comes to discrimination of the disabled, the reality is simply that too many landlords would not comply if they had "the right to choose" as they wanted.
- John...
--207.241.xxx.xxx |
No pet? HA! (by LisaFL [FL]) Posted on: Jul 21, 2016 11:03 AM Message:
I disagree John. Just like there are plenty of landlords who cater to those with pets there would be plenty who cater to or would be happy to make reasonable accommodations to those with disabilities.
It's a slippery slope when one claims their rights are superior to your rights and the government then places the liability and financial hardship on the landlord. Fewer landlords result in fewer choices for everyone. --65.35.xx.xxx |
No pet? HA! (by John... [MI]) Posted on: Jul 21, 2016 11:55 AM Message:
It doesn't matter that there would still be "plenty" that would cater to them! Discrimination is discrimination -- period.
That's like saying that it should be fine to not rent to black people because "plenty of landlords would still cater to black people" or to not accept people with children because "plenty" of other landlords would take them!
People with disabilities are a protected class for a reason. I completely disagree that it would be fine to remove them because "plenty of other landlords" would accommodate them.
THAT is the slippery slope that we should be worried about! Sheesh.
- John...
--207.241.xxx.xxx |
No pet? HA! (by amy [MO]) Posted on: Jul 21, 2016 12:03 PM Message:
Ok John,
I get what you are saying. As a mom of a child who most likely will have to have some lifetime support and maybe even housing support I GET IT. (I hope not, but it is a realistic possibility) I agree with you that those with disabilities would need to prove the disability. I agree that some landlords who don't have an iota of what a particular disability means, would go to many lengths to avoid dealing with it.
I've gone through all the paperwork and necessary documentation for my own son. I anticipate though that even with all those regulations there will always be loopholes around it. There's always going to be jerks who will never have the humility to understand.
The point is that it is getting to where you can't do anything without someone saying you are wrong or forgot somebody.
I mean, it's terrific that we have parking spots for the handicapped, bathroom stalls that accommodate wheelchairs and I AM SO GRATEFUL FOR THAT. I support that. But I also recognize and support small mom and pop landlords that cannot afford to make accommodations like wheelchair accessible doorknobs and jamb widths. Our properties would have to be completely rehabbed to do this. Right now, we have a CHOICE not to do that. I WOULD LOVE TO DO IT, BUT I CAN'T AFFORD IT. It is us who are losing out on the possibility of a fantastic renter who just happens to be in a wheelchair, but I can't do it at this time.
--I also don't think it would be right to force a landlord to accept Section 8.(and all the regulations and laws that go with the inspections) Slightly different topic, but you get the idea.--
The free market that our country was built upon or "laissez-faire" is falling apart. Where there is a need, there is a market. But,when you cannot keep up with one part of the market, you are forced to abandon the rest?
It is recognizing the abuse of the system, and our govt force-feeding us more regulations.
What is sad is that somewhere along the line, some landlords took a look at persons with disabilities and discriminated. Now all of us that have different reasons for denying an applicant or a situation are called discriminatory.
LisaFL- I wish I could explain this with your tact. Thank you for further clarifying my point.
--65.31.xxx.x |
No pet? HA! (by John... [MI]) Posted on: Jul 21, 2016 12:55 PM Message:
Amy: Landlords (Mom-and-Pop or not) are never required to pay for accommodations like wheelchair accessible doorknobs and jamb widths after the fact. In other words, the cost argument really doesn't make sense. You wouldn't be forced to put those things in (and have to pay for them) if someone that needed them applied. It would only be the case if local code or laws decided that they were required -- and, in most cases, existing buildings would be grandfathered in.
Or do you just mean you are worried about that as a slippery slope issue that might force you to do it later? Again, I think that is a "not very likely" issue to worry about. Or, at least, still not as important as keeping the disabled as a protected class (which is basically what we were talking about when it comes to offering landlords "a choice" on such things).
Again, I generally agree with you about the free market. But I also understand the need to protect certain people from discrimination because, put simply, too many landlords would NOT take some protected classes of people if they weren't forced to. And, in those cases, I don't think the "free market" would sort it out.
In the end, my whole point is this: the problem is not the lack of landlord's choice on whether or not to take disabled people. The problem is that it is too easy for someone to get classified as "disabled" to abuse the system. So, again, "fixing" that lies in making it more difficult to cheat -- not in making it easier for landlords to "decide" to not take them because it is "their right to choose."
- John...
--207.241.xxx.xxx |
No pet? HA! (by LisaFL [FL]) Posted on: Jul 21, 2016 1:40 PM Message:
Amy you have far more tact than I do.
I understand where John is coming from, I just disagree with him.
The property owner, with all the risk and liability should have the right to choose who they rent to. They shouldn't be forced to cater to anyone but that is essentially the way things are going and part of the reason prices are increased for everyone.
Technically you're not supposed to charge more for a family of six than you would for a single person and why not? Six people come with more wear and tear and potential liability than one. But that's the system we have. --65.35.xx.xxx |
No pet? HA! (by John... [MI]) Posted on: Jul 21, 2016 4:54 PM Message:
Well, we can agree to disagree. A blanket "the property owner should have the right to choose who they rent to" is simply not good enough when it comes to discriminating against certain groups. I don't think many would agree with you that a property owner should be able to decide that they won't rent a place to someone that was a woman or jewish or hispanic. So why is it ok to discriminate against someone because they are disabled? Again, we have laws about not discriminating against protected classes for a reason. They simply SHOULD be "forced" to accept someone in certain circumstances (i.e. the protected classes).
The problem isn't with those laws. The problem is with people cheating their way into a protected class. Again, TAHT is what we should be worried about. Not being able to discriminate against the disabled simply because we are the property owners!
- John...
--97.91.xx.x |
No pet? HA! (by John... [MI]) Posted on: Jul 21, 2016 4:56 PM Message:
I should clarify one thing there so it isn't taken out of context. I'm not saying that LLs should be forced to take someone just because they are a protected class. I mean that they should be considered just the same as someone that was not. I'm not at all suggesting that we should HAVE to take a disabled person. I'm saying I agree with the idea that we should not have the "right" to not consider them just because they are disabled and we are the "property owners." Again, I think those laws are there for good reason.
- John...
--97.91.xx.x |
No pet? HA! (by LisaFL [FL]) Posted on: Jul 21, 2016 6:44 PM Message:
John I do agree with you in theory. It's the forced nature I disagree with. A landlord should be able to choose the best suited tenant.
If I feel that want I single, no animal tenant then I should be able to hold out for one. But alas, I could be sued for not taking an application from the two working parents whose three children will be left home alone for hours unsupervised after school. Or the one with their two loving emotional support untrained animals that will be locked in the house for 8 plus hours a day.
It gets even more ridicuLous when I allow pets and have a reasonable pet policy but I'm not allowed to apply them to the myriad of fakers claiming to have emotional support creatures of all types.
It's not about discriminating against the disabled. It's about preventing the landlord from applying equal standards to them. It's ridiculous that they can't be required to have the animal spayed or neutered, or that they carry liability insurance, as an example.
So what happens? Rents and deposits and income requirements are raised for everyone instead of only for those requiring special treatment. It's discrimination in reverse. --65.35.xx.xxx |
No pet? HA! (by Blue [IL]) Posted on: Jul 21, 2016 7:38 PM Message:
Cuurent T has a girlfriend. About a year ago he approaches me about putting her on the lease. I have real no real problem with that. I meet her, I give her an application, and then she tells me she has a cat. I say absolutely no pets. She says "my doctor knows it makes me feel better. I have a lot of anxiety." She does not say, "it's an emotional support animal."
So I don't bring it up either. She decides not to move in for whatever reason I don't know. Yesterday I get a text from her that she really does want to move in, she is filled out the application, and can I meet her tomorrow Friday to pick up the application etc. I ask her about the cat. She says it's going to live with her mother. She says it's too old to be moving around anyway.
This bad move out that I'm fixing the horrible dog Pee stained floors, has about got me turning my head around like that chick in the exorcist.
So I replied to her text "I just had a moveout where I'm repairing horrible urine soaked floors. I'm telling you now in no uncertain terms should you sneak an animal in your Tenancy will be immediately terminated. Do you understand me?"
I thought I want absolutely positively for them to understand this is not gonna happen.
Since she is not yet my tenant and she did not pull the ESA card, I feel confident doing this.
--66.87.xx.x |
No pet? HA! (by amy [MO]) Posted on: Jul 21, 2016 8:06 PM Message:
John,
I think you have a good point John, that some people don't care and would rather not take the disabled. That is wrong. I'm just not okay with being forced to rent to someone against the rules that I have set for everyone else.
I appreciate your caring so much about the disabled. It was not my intention to upset you. You can tell your heart is in the right place. :) --65.31.xxx.x |
No pet? HA! (by John... [MI]) Posted on: Jul 22, 2016 8:30 AM Message:
Amy: Yes, but you're missing the point. The "rules" that you have set for everyone else are that they cannot have a pet. That rule still applies to the disabled -- because it is NOT A PET. It is basically a medical device that assists them. Therefore, they DO have the same "rules" as everyone else -- they are not allowed to have pets. They ARE allowed to have a medical device that assists them -- it just happens to be a seeing-eye dog, for example.
No one is asking for different "rules" for the disabled.
Again, the main problem is with the abuse of saying they are disabled when they aren't -- not with the laws designed to protect certain classes.
- John...
--207.241.xxx.xxx |
No pet? HA! (by LisaFL [FL]) Posted on: Jul 22, 2016 9:11 AM Message:
No John. It isn't so. You're forced to allow animals who don't have to be treated as other animals. They aren't required to be neutered, they aren't required to have renters insurance, you can have a rule that says there must be a plan in place to insure they're not left unattended for more than X number of hours per day, you can't limit their number or size.
You must assume all the risk and liability and make special exceptions for their animals.
Everyone's animal provides emotional support. They want special treatment and we have a system in place that forces it on landlords without compensation or risk alleviation.
An animal is not an inert medical device and shouldn't be allowed to be treated as such. --65.35.xx.xxx |
No pet? HA! (by John... [MI]) Posted on: Jul 22, 2016 9:31 AM Message:
Again, we need to agree to disagree. Service Animals are NOT pets. The "rule" is that tenants are not allowed to have pets. That rule is the same across people with and without Service Animals. They are NOT being treated differently (which is what Amy was suggesting).
If you have a rule that PETS need to be neutered, so be it. That rule does not apply to a seeing eye dog, again, because it isn't a pet.
Again, people with Service Animals are NOT being allowed to be treated differently or have different rules. They are being asked to be treated the same as everyone else -- which means that you don't deny them due to a disability.
Again, I think you are still mixing the cheaters with the real people with real disabilities -- and THAT is the problem. I understand your frustrations with people that cheat the system. I agree it is a huge problem. But the solution lies in stopping the cheaters, not removing protections for legitimate people with disabilities!
You seem to again be saying that you should have the right to force a blind person to get their seeing-eye dog neutered! Or to have them sign some contract that dictates their seeing-eye dog's size! Again, that is unfair to the disabled person and is EXACTLY why we need laws protecting them -- because some landlords would put undue burdens on them!
Sorry, but if a blind person with a seeing-eye dog doesn't want their dog neutered for some reason, then they should have every right to do that without a landlord telling them that they can't rent from them! Again, this is EXACTLY the type of illegal discrimination that those laws were designed to protect!
I agree with you on the cheaters -- but you seem to be pushing that even for legit disabled people with legit service animals! That's crazy to me, sorry.
- John...
--207.241.xxx.xxx |
No pet? HA! (by LisaFL [FL]) Posted on: Jul 22, 2016 1:03 PM Message:
They are asking for special privileges that come with liabilities to the landlord for their animals. There is no protection for the landlord. Service animal or not, it's an animal. Not a piece of equipment. A landlord can be made to accept the service animal but it should not be without any protections.
As a result rents go up, security deposit amounts increase, income and credit worthiness requirements increase for everybody. This places an undue burden on everyone else. That's a problem that should not be overlooked but has been.
Being treated fairly should go both ways. --65.35.xx.xxx |
No pet? HA! (by John... [MI]) Posted on: Jul 22, 2016 2:45 PM Message:
Nope. Sorry, I don't buy it. You're actually arguing that landlords should not have to take seeing-eye dogs for the blind??
We might as well end this now. I don't think most here would agree with you to that extreme.
Now I really get why protections for the disabled are in place. You are exactly the problem that lead to these additional regulations. Your right to reject whoever you want ends at their right, as a blind person, to have the same chance at a place to live as everyone else.
Again, if you want to argue about ESA cheaters, then I'll agree with you. But you've taken it to an extreme that I think is unreasonable when you start saying that you shouldn't have to rent to blind people.
- John...
--207.241.xxx.xxx |
No pet? HA! (by LisaFL [FL]) Posted on: Jul 22, 2016 3:10 PM Message:
I didn't say blind people shouldn't be given equal consideration. Equal. Not special.
They should be willing to pay for their special needs to insure the landlord is protected.
Just assume the same responsibilities as any animal owner.
I'd have no problem renting to a disabled person with an animal so long as I was permitted to protect myself from liability. I do have a problem with my right to do so being denied.
I'd much rather rent to pet owners who haven't an issue with reasonable requirements regarding their animal than someone claiming they're emotionally dependent on their animal to avoid having to do so.
The absence of virtually any rules allowing for abuses hurts the legitimately disabled and causes discrimination against the truly disabled more than it helps them. Landlords must be able to protect themselves but it's becoming more and more difficult to do so. --65.35.xx.xxx |
No pet? HA! (by amy [MO]) Posted on: Jul 22, 2016 8:20 PM Message:
How about we all just call a truce. All of us feel misunderstood. I doubt that anyone on here is
discriminating.
I harbor no hard feelings, but this will be my last post about the subject as I too, feel misunderstood.
Look, my point is that it feels like eventually everyone is going to have a "disability" because it isn't being monitored. The fakers love to watch out for the loopholes and have ruined it for everyone in all aspects.
The problem that I have, and that LisaFL has is that there is nothing to hold up those fakers once they come to our property. You can't put ANY rules on them because of their emotional support animal. You cannot recoup your costs from an "animal" deposit because you dont get to ask for one. So, if you want to catch one faker you have to monitor EVERYONE.
I don't allow cats or dogs anymore in the first place. That to me, means all cats and dogs. So, if I have made this rule of no cats or dogs, I have sacrificed that market of cat and dog owners at the discretion of my business. So, to me, ANY person that I have told no cats or dogs should say, "well I need to find a place that DOES accept my cat or dog."
It will be interesting when our properties will be forced to accept someone who can freely smoke medical marijuana as well. I know this would affect a lot of landlords who despise smoking in their property.
If the gov't requires this of the landlords of our country's disabled, would it be too heartless to hold those tenants also accountable for their animal?(and soon to be smoking habits.) EVERYONE else has to be held accountable. If the animal has been properly trained, there should be no problem with the government offering to pay the deposit and hold the tenant ACCOUNTABLE for repayment to them for any damage that their animal causes.
You say that the animal is likened to a piece of medical equipment; a device to help them. If a piece of medical equipment malfunctions, ie, an oxygen tank explodes, a bed puts an enormous hole in the wall, who will cover the expenses? The tenant or the govt.
I just feel threatened that the govt can come in and treat us ALL like we are discriminatory for a few "faker" landlords who turned truly disabled away because they didn't have it in their character to try to understand the disability.
And the fakers who treat the landlords that have rules like they were made to be broken.
--65.31.xxx.x |
No pet? HA! (by LisaFL [FL]) Posted on: Jul 23, 2016 6:57 AM Message:
Well said Amy!
I had to laugh at a message I read from another landlord asking what happens when someone claims their girlfriend or boyfriend qualifies as their emotional support animal....being as they're technically fauna, and provide emotional support. It's out of control. --65.35.xx.xxx |
No pet? HA! (by Marie [MO]) Posted on: Jul 23, 2016 8:18 AM Message:
You are so right Amy. Most of us are good, fair people just trying to supplement our income and working darn hard. As a senior, I remember 'before.'
Before, health insurance companies, before consumer packaged goods fake foods, before manipulation of the money supply, before good jobs were scarce, before savings rates were almost zero percent and before the government was 'protecting' so many segments of the population by making broad-sweeping legislation that was not well thought out before roll out.
I don't expect it to get better for landlords in my lifetime. In fact, I expect it to get a whole lot worse. I'll stay in the game until a play is made that I just can't overcome, Checkmate, and then I'll start selling.
--98.156.xxx.xx |
No pet? HA! (by John... [MI]) Posted on: Jul 24, 2016 3:15 PM Message:
I agree that the problem is the fakers. I disagree that the best way to fix that is to allow landlords to ignore decent anti-discrimination laws for the disabled.
Again, it needs to be fixed by slowing the fakers -- not be allowing landlords to take less disabled people and/or charge them more/extra/whatever.
And I'll also be done with just saying that. We aren't going to make much progress here anyhow.
- John...
--97.91.xx.x |
No pet? HA! (by IllinoisTim [IL]) Posted on: Jul 27, 2016 5:05 AM Message:
Haven't been on here in awhile. I now rehab and flip only. This thread is a great example of why. I learned my lesson. Several times over as a matter of fact. I no longer rent and don't sell any other way than cash only. If a person's credit isn't good enough for the bank with all their resources to take a chance on them I've found that it's certainly not good enough for me to roll the dice on them either.
When I grew up pride came from being responsible for taking care of yourself, your family, your community and being a good provider and neighbor. We now have an ENTITLEMENT society mindset thanks to our politicians relentless efforts. Deception is no longer something to be ashamed of but rather is just common practice. Turn on your TV and watch the news today for examples. Pride now seems to come from bragging about how a politician, agency, business or individual person figured out how to take advantage of the government or anything/anyone else that might seem to have had more than the one bragging about it. These people study the programs and laws on their own and self-serving agencies of all sorts seek them out to encourage the mindset and enable them and keep them informed about the latest ways of how to take advantage. They get together and compare notes, then calculate and carefully set up and execute their plan. Doubt if that is going to be changing, too many benefiting from taking advantage of the system: the politicians, the agencies, the recipients and a multitude of providers of all kinds of "stuff" they all need in their efforts.
Adopt and adapt or take a stand, your choice. However, as you consider your approach to your future you might just keep in mind how well the little mom and pop grocery stores, clothing stores, drug stores, bakeries, etc. that were so much a part of everyday life even 30 years ago are doing today. Be a champion and fight to the death, as many of them did, or study, modify and implement actions which will allow you to do the best you can to survive and provide as close to the service or product you find fulfilling while protecting yourself and your family as best you can. It can be done. Good luck! --70.195.xx.xxx |
Reply:
|
|