Your Tax Dollars At Work: A Right to a Dog

[Veldan Rath]

Because we were talking about the banning of cats (a topic you brought up as an act if animal bigotry, a bit tongue in cheek) and you go to dog bites? I get where you are going but you switch gears like a teenager who has never driven a standard shift before.

[GGT]

Vrrooom! It's all in the same vehicle.

The title and OP article questions a "Right" to a dog, even a "helper dog" in housing that prohibits pets....and how rental/lease or building codes should deal with that. It's a logical shift to differentiate between "pets", animals that can be dangerous, and therapy or "helper animals".

I'd say people do have a "right" to a non-human "helper" (when prescribed by physicians). ie, It would be discrimination to prevent a blind person from having their guide dog -- even in housing that doesn't allow pets -- because it's not a "pet". It gets more complicated when therapy animals are used for emotional/socialization needs, and residency pre-dates their ailment. It might make sense to allow chickens or cats, but not falcons or lions.

[Veldan Rath]

Yet you quoted me re: cat pee and then went to dig bites, without acknowledging that is a legit reason why landlords don't want cats.

[Loki]

Nope, they're all spieciecists.

[GGT]

Veldan, are you stuck in 2nd gear?

Sure, there are legitimate reasons for landlords not wanting cats -- or other animals that can damage the building or cause horrible odors. I conceded that early on. Ferrets throw their feces on walls, and live 'feeder food' (like crickets for anoles or mice for tarantulas) can be incredibly stinky. People with leaking fish tanks can cause water damage, too.

Some pets fall into the nuisance-to-neighbors category, like barking dogs, chirping/squawking birds. Others are known to be dangerous to people, with high rates for unprovoked attacks and mauling, mostly in the canine category. Just ask any postal carrier, delivery person, cop, or ER doctor.

We can't fault the landlords for trying to keep their tenants happy, while also protecting their building, following their liability insurance policy conditions, AND local codes/ordinances. It does seem easier to simply "ban" any/all pets, put that in the lease, and treat it like an unconditional legal contract. Well, good luck with that.

Can we shift into driving gear now?





Edit for speed: How different might the OP article sound....if the tenant/lease example was a War Veteran?

There are military dog-handlers trying to keep their dogs after tours of duty, living off-base. Sometimes their "helper dogs" are "retired" from military duty. Should they lose their apartment/condo homes because all animals are prohibited in the lease?

What about the Vet returning home with missing limbs, or vision, that needs a "helper animal" to be more mobile or independent? Should they have less consideration than the lady in 4B whose purse-dog technically violates the lease agreements?



*To Dread in particular: what about that guy on the upper floors of your building, with hundred-gallon fish tanks, stressing structural weight-bearing loads, and using more than 'his share' of the building's non-metered water? Does he get a pass because the fish are considered to be a form of "therapy" that calms his nerves, or because fish are not considered "pets".....or are they regarded as personal objects of Art? Is he paying a higher rent premium to cover his particular risk of tank leakage/flooding to lower levels -- or is it bundled into every other tenants' rent?