“Goolsby now has four dogs, seven cats, a fish and a bird.”
The woman in the article has over 10 animals. This isn’t a renters vs landlords thing this is an irresponsible pet owner.
You should instead be asking why they chose an obvious outlier to represent pet owners. That one lady has 10+ pets doesn’t change that 2/3rds of families have pets and only 20% of rental housing allows cats and dogs of all sizes.
It’s a very odd choice.
I am a renter with pets, and don’t think landlords should be forced to accept renters with pets.
I also acknowledge that pets can do an insane amount of damage to a property if not properly cared for.
I helped my brother repair the damage from a squatter (long story) after he allowed 4 dogs to completely destroy the interior. We were sanding pee saturated studs and priming over them, after ripping out all of the drywall, just to try to defeat the stink.
That’s more damage than any plausible pet deposit can hope to cover. It was absolutely disgusting.
People can also cause insane amounts of damage, that doesn’t mean it’s the norm. I’m sorry about your brother’s property, but that’s not a reason to allow banning of pets. Nightmare tenants (or squatters) exist, it’s just the gamble taken for renting out an investment property. Most pet owners take care of their pets and have no serious problems, after all, they’re actually living with the results of their pet care.
As someone who works in pest control and spends a lot of time in people’s houses, especially those that are nasty and need my services, I assure you, most people live with the results of not only their lack of pet care, but their own. I’ve seen some shit and there’s more nasty fucking people than you think. They don’t even know they’re nasty either, like it’s my fault they have roach issues because they haven’t admittedly cleaned their house in 17 years. (Not exaggerating)
You’ve got a sampling bias, because, as you mention, one of the main reasons people need your services is because they’re nasty, and anything serious enough to impact the apartment’s value is well outside of even that norm. Most people absolutely do not simply let their pets pee wherever they want, because they don’t want to live that way.
True, but plenty of these people are quite well off and just simply don’t notice it. I have a lot of clients who aren’t actually nasty but their habits are. As the saying goes, it takes all kinds, I guess.
Not denying I have a sampling bias, but I’ve seen plenty of people who just seem oblivious to their lifestyle choices.
I installed internet into people houses for fifteen years. My sample is pretty broad. It is far nastier than most people realize. There majority is decent but it would be close to one in ten is very nasty then another one in ten that will have nice common 'public guest ’ areas but when their basement and different story. It is really hard to tell from the outside and often the people seem normal. Hording is really common but then you get hording wet garbage as well.
I think it’s a perfect reason to ban pets.
I do not owe you the house I paid for. You have to apply for it like everyone else and agree to the terms of my lease. If you don’t like it, literally rent from anyone else, but you are not entitled to my property. Peroid.
I do not owe you the house I paid for.
Even small-time landlords are not typically paying for the house. They’re just considered a better loan risk than the tenants.
Are you suggesting that they do not pay some monthly fees for said house? Or more important, are you suggesting they won’t have to pay one hundred percent of any damages done to said house? The government or bank will cover that?
I’m suggesting that they not only turn a profit in most cases, but that also they keep all of the equity.
I said that in the past tense for a reason. I paid off my house before moving and renting it out. That’s not the bank’s house, that’s my house, and you are still not entitled to it.
And let me be clear, I don’t care what the law is, I will continue to discriminate against my applicants for any reason that suits me. Do you have dogs, too many kids, or job hop too often? Then your application is going in the trash. I don’t fucking need you, so come right if you’re going to come at all.
If you don’t agree with the terms society requires of landlords you are free to sell the property and invest in something else.
Some of you soft bitches need to hear this. The world doesn’t owe you sht. Fight for what you need, but blame yourself if you fail.
Except you actually don’t get to unilaterally decide who can live in your house. You can’t ban black people, you can’t ban children, you can’t ban the handicapped. And soon, if you live in California, you may not be able to ban pets. You live in a society, with rules for what you can and cannot do with the real estate you own.
And how do you realistically plan to enforce that? I have 100 applicants a month for 1 house that has never been vacant. If the current tennant ever decides to leave, how can you expect anyone to pick a potentially bad tennant when a potentially good one has the same right?
Again, that’s an outlier and an anecdote.
Outlier. Anecdotal. Do you actually have reliable statistics to say otherwise, or are you walrusing?
I mean, it’s definitely anecdotal. But I agree neither of them are using actual stats to back up anything.
I would wager that the average wear and tear exceeds $50+/mo or whatever the going rate is. The average animal will just wear things down stupidly fast. Rubbing on walls, carpet wear, stains, and then the extra thing every pet dies at least once, all adds up, and repair time and materials aren’t cheap. I think OP’s situation is probably in the more extreme side, but animals degrade property.
i’ve owned pets all my life. they’ve never wrecked anything, not potty in the house, rubbed on walls, stained or worn carpet. they did die, but what does that matter? it didn’t do anything whatsoever to the house. and this seems to be the norm when i’ve visited others with pets too. for sixty years now.
Why do you think pets dying wears out your property? 4 people cause more wear than 2 which causes more wear than 1. Kids cause wear and tear and yet generally speaking rent is a singular figure based on the value of the property. Landlords usually buy the cheapest flooring they can get and clean it between tenants until it actually falls apart virtually always changing flooring between tenants for obvious reasons. You want to collect rent per month and then redo the cheap flooring as infrequently as you were already planning on. The only difference is that the flooring you intend to throw away will be slightly more worn when the tenant leaves not meaningfully increasing costs for you while you collected $600 a year.
deleted by creator
I haven’t rented in over a decade, and it’s great. I will ideally never have to again. That said I 100% believe that landlords should have no obligation to allow pets, especially for free.
Renting houses, I would say half the pet owning renters would result in some pet related damage. A rug replacement or scratched wall. Repairable but not expensive. Then there would be one in ten that could do a significant amount of damage. Pee being the biggest one. A rug replacement is free thousand dollars. Let cats pee everywhere and you can have costs exceeding 40,000 dollars.
There is no real easy way to know which renter you have.
There are a lot of disgusting ass motherfuckers that let pets piss and shit wherever, and don’t bother cleaning it. I don’t understand how people are ok with a room of shit, but I’ve seen it house shopping more than once.
I would agree with you more if there wasn’t such a housing shortage and an increasing number of properties being swallowed up by large rich renters.
It steadily means that people have little choices, and are forced not to be able to have pets in their lives. Something people have been doing with dogs and cats for thousands of years.
If there’s a risk, renters should be required some reasonable cost or deposit to cover it (not something gouging).
Edit: in general, too, I think that the normal “rules” of capitalism should go out the window when we’re talking about basic human needs like food, housing, or health care.
deleted by creator
To be fair, right after that, the article says:
Haney said his legislation would likely limit the number of pets landlords must accept and allow landlords to require pet liability insurance. Details on how many pets would be covered under the bill are still being worked out.
But I also don’t think this bill is worth giving a shit about when people without pets can’t even afford to rent.
That’s true, I think it’s disengenuous of the article to try and play both sides here. Luckily I don’t live in the hell hole that is San Fransisco.
Whether you do or not, people have to because that’s where the jobs are. And they can’t afford to. And that’s the real problem.
Learn to plumb or be an electrician. Both are very in demand and pay well.
While i support trades, specifically those that have unions, even a journeyman plumber would have problems affording rent at $37.80 per hour. The average rent in San Francisco is $3276. Not including taxes, medical, retirement, food, Union dues, or anything else, a plumber would have to work 100 hours to cover rent. Using round numbers, that far exceeds the target of rent being 30% or less of someone’s income.
That would also involve moving to less expensive areas where the pay is good and cost of living is lower. Not everyone that lives in the bay area should live in the bay area.
What solution would you like to see that resolves the pay to rent gap? I’m pretty sure cities need the trades people, we’re just haggling over “how” now.
So wait, is anyone supposed to be left there other than the few well off people who can already afford it comfortably??
How do you expect that not to immediately collapse?
I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Do you think everyone in San Francisco can be a plumber or an electrician?
People need to do things like work the espresso machine at Starbucks because, at least for now, we don’t have robots to do it. And they can’t afford to live in the city.
No, not everyone in San Fransisco can be an electrician or plumber, but the many that are complaining about high prices of rent can learn a trade and move to lower cost areas where the pay is good. The people working Starbucks espresso machines are in the same boat. If you’re working 40+ hours a week and can’t find a place with roomates to live you need to move somewhere more affordable.
If you’re working 40+ hours a week and can’t find a place with roomates to live you need to move somewhere more affordable.
Fine. Who is going to make the coffee? Or flip the burgers? Or wash the dishes? Or deliver pizza?
Should San Francisco not have any low-cost food options?
Because you sure don’t sound like you think service industry workers deserve more pay.
And both destroy your body. People who say what you just did neglect to explain that they can’t walk stairs without pain and their shoulder aches painfully when it gets cold.
Weak, my grandfather was a master plumber, lived his whole 92 years completely fine until he caught the black lung after 9/11. The people’s whose bodys are destroyed are the ones who don’t take care of them in the first place, take care of your body, prioritize yourself, and you’ll be fine.
Blah blah you have an anecdote. George burns worked until nearly 100 and lived a terribly unhealthy lifestyle. Don’t copy him.
Sad that you couldn’t leave a simple comment without insulting hundreds of thousands of people for no reason. Pretty pathetic really.
It’s sad millions of people want to live wall to wall in a city that treats illegal aliens and street shitters better than the tax payer.
lol lol stop. You literally don’t believe that.
No, people like that drink their right wing Flavor Aid and assume the talking points reflect reality. The person everyone is arguing with also believes that rent will come down if Starbucks employees leave, ignoring both the actual price fixing scheme in the rental market and the fact that prices keep being driven up by external factors unrelated to the labor and consumer markets in San Francisco.
The City of San Fransisco is currently more worried about making space for illegal immigrants and homeless people more than improving the lives of taxpayers and upstanding citizens. Any govenment that has such housing epidemics that they must overegulate to even try and have a semblance of normalcy while also touting the area as a safe haven for illegals is corrupt.
LOL you’re never going to stop pushing your personal narrative against reality, are you? Why even come here to spout nonsense that people will attack you over? You should find a MAGA rock and hide under it again.
Do you have a source for this claim?
Yawn
I mean, a fish is pretty negligible in this case, but yeah. There’s no way that 4 dogs and 7 cats are being given an acceptable quality of life in a rental. Honestly, I take issue with dogs in apartments, point blank, as conforversial of an opinion as I’m sure that is. The cherry on top is the bird, which tells me everything I need to know about this woman.
This bill will result in all rental costs increasing slightly. You can legislate anything but the costs will always be one hundred percent covered by those using the services. There is no way around this.
I own pets and love them but I can expect an additional cost to house them.
Alternate take: the post rental cleanup industry becomes more competitive.
It won’t. Will simply result in more damages this increase in overall rent and less people willing to invest in rental properties this fewer homes to rent. Thus a double hit on increased rental rates.
similar to how min wage eats into profits and ceo pay without affecting overall employment, the scam deposit fee bullshit industry can actually absorb the hit and I’d wager more rental managers would just start using actual cleaners instead of their cousins phony cleaning company that charges way too much
You can legislate anything but the costs will always be one hundred percent covered by those using the services.
This smells of what I’ve heard described before as “the fallacy of immutable profits”. Landlord profit margins aren’t set in stone. The state could pass any number of additional renter protection measures to force landlords to eat the costs if they wanted to.
But they won’t
You can not force people to become landlords. Pass all the laws you want but that just means fewer and fewer places to rent. Is that hard to understand? What do you think happens when there are 100 houses to rent and 200 families needing shelter? Prices keep rising until it becomes profitable for people to invest money into rental.
What the protection measures result in is pretty much only large commercial operations can be landlords due to the need of someone trained to get the maximum out of renters and have the ability to navigate the courts if they do any damages. We see that already as rental costs rise and low inventory is common in most markets.
The government could actually force people to rent out vacant property if they wanted to, but that doesn’t really have much to do with anything.
deleted by creator
Sure. Because doing something about landlords charging way too much for rent would help too many people.
There’s tons of legislation, proposed and enacted, aimed at lowering rent prices, primarily aimed at increasing supply. Things like prohibiting zoning restrictions that limit single family housing, providing incentives for infill developments and affordable housing bonuses, and allowing rent control ordinances.
The article doesn’t say “there is only one bill related to housing this legislative session and it’s for pets”. Just because a bigger problem exists doesn’t mean you have to ignore every other problem until the big one is fixed.
Landlords prohibiting pets is a housing issue because it effectively limits the housing that is available to people. I know when I was looking for an apartment because I had two cats that eliminated probably 50% of housing options I had. I don’t know what this does to the market overall, but I’d bet it does something.
Per ownership is also an objectively positive thing, both for animals in shelters that need homes and for the mental health of people. Landlord restrictions functionally turn pet ownership into a privilege only available to the landed gentry. It’s shitty.
So anyway, this bill addresses a problem and does some good. Just because it won’t singlehandedly solve all the country’s housing affordability problems in one swoop doesn’t mean you have to dismiss it.
Love this take. Thank you!
I haven’t seen any of this in my state. California isn’t the whole world
There’s tons of legislation, proposed and enacted, aimed at lowering rent prices, primarily aimed at increasing supply. Things like prohibiting zoning restrictions that limit single family housing, providing incentives for infill developments and affordable housing bonuses, and allowing rent control ordinances.
If that is the case, I have certainly not been hearing about them. Maybe those are what should be reported on rather than this, which is nowhere near as consequential.
I have been seeing political commercials for at least 3 different bills/campaigns to write bills aimed at fixing housing issues recently; though they are all California specific. One of which uses the motto “the rent is too damn high.”
I am not in California (anymore) but I would definitely like more information if you have it.
“If I haven’t already come across it, it doesn’t exist, because I am aware of everything that is reported on” right?
Or, you know, an example could be given rather than me just “trust me bro.”
https://www.assembly.ca.gov/schedules-publications/todays-events
Our state government tackles a ton of stuff on the regular. There’s literally too much stuff going on for anyone to keep track of all of it.
Amazingly we can have multiple conversations at once.
Great, when are lawmakers going to start having multiple conversations at once?
When we break the Repuglicans hold on the legislature.
I see you don’t have any pets.
I have two dogs and a fish.
Please outlaw pet rent. I get a refundable deposit, but pet rent is bullshit.
As deposits sometimes aren’t sometimes aren’t enough, I’d also go for needing a pet-owner plan with their renters insurance.
One of the things that has prevented me from finding a new apartment is my cat. Been on the market for ages, and 90% of listings are automatically off the table because they don’t allow pets. It’s an extremely common restriction. This would be a huge win. Obviously doesn’t solve any of the more important problems with landlords and excessive rates; but it’s definitely something that a lot of people would notice and benefit from.
This is so weird. Around where I live most apartments accept pets up to, usually, 50lbs with a pet deposit and only bar certain breeds. Some have quantity restriction as well but very few won’t accept pets at all.
Trust me it’s not weird at all. I’ve lived in bigger cities in nine states, every single one of those had severe limitations when it came to any pets unless they were fish. Some areas are more lenient than others but I had a hell of a time finding a place that would except a medium sized dog in every single city and never once did I not pay an additional deposit as well as additional “pet rent”
Sometimes even fish because an aquarium malfunction can cause serious damage.
Hmm. Never had trouble in CA.
Moving there in 2 weeks from Oklahoma and had no issues finding houses that allowed pets myself. In fact most seemed to welcome them.
The rental market for houses is kinda weird out here. It’s the apartment complexes/ condos/ multi-family units that have the ridiculous restrictions. In my city more than 70% of the residents rent.
Also welcome to the state, we have bumpier land out here than OK, also trees.
Yeah it is absolutely beautiful. We are in Sacramento and the company flew us out last month to check it out before we committed and we are in love with it. I’m an outdoorsy type so it’s great for me. Looking forward to milder summers than here for sure.
Yo, every pet owner on the planet thinks their pet is perfect and its like pretty much almost never the case. Pet owners will downvote me, but that piece of chewed trim is not cute. Property damage to rentals caused by pets also keeps property vacant between renters for repairs.
So the landlord will use the money from the rent to personally hand repair that furniture himself, right? He won’t just jack up the price and hire a cheap fixture repair place, right?
It’s not just furniture, piss soaking into the floor for extended periods of time can require work to fix. I bought a house that had a renter with a large dog and I had to rip up the floor to find the spot soaked through to the subfloor where the dog always peed during the day while the owner was out, it reaked.
Okay. That would happen if you bought from a non renter too. Pets are a part lf the human experience and humans need housing. Landlords can live with the costs or sell up so people can buy.
Pets don’t need to be “part of the human experience” any more than drugs do. They’re optional and some people choose to have them and some don’t. Some people don’t like pets and don’t want to be forced to live around others’ pets.
Have you even thought for a second that some people might CHOOSE housing based on the fact that a community doesn’t allow pets? And by “mandating all landlords allow pets” you are eliminating housing options for these people? God you people are like religious zealots and think everyone should be forced to believe in the same things you do.
Friggin crazy fascists. “You’re going to like my pitbull (oh he’s harmless and you’re dog-racist if you believe otherwise) and now I want to force you to raise your kids around my untrained shit factory and step in his crap and listen to him bark constantly or you’re a horrible person.”
Holy hell I hate you with the passion of a thousand suns.
Lol
Well it didn’t take long to go from “housing is a human right” to “pets are a human right” lmao
Imagine cum guzzling landlords rights on Lemmy of all places lmao
next the peasants might be asking for healthcare lmao
Or they can just not allow pets wtf?
Or we can mandate that pets should be allowed because humans want pets and landlords have driven humans out of home ownership, so now they need to be massively regulated.
If landlord’s don’t like it, they can sell up and people can buy homes again.
Not all humans want pets. And those humans don’t like to be forced to live among other people’s pets.
Oh that definitely overrides anything else. I don’t like the colour orange so I’ll just go ahead and claim no one else can have orange stuff incase we need to room together
This dog?
Actually, at least in my state, tools and labor done by a landlord can’t be listed as an expense for taxes. If they hire someone they can list it as an expense on taxes.
Well, the only thing my dog did was start to lose her bladder control before I put her down. But she managed to make it to the pee pad every time even then.
Not all dogs bro. My girl was perfect. Didn’t even bark. I’ll probably never find another one like her though.
Sorry for your loss. There really are perfect good bois and good girls out there. I have met a couple.
Babies and old people shit in carpet way more than pets, make more noise too.
That is definitely not true, and it’s obvious you’ve never let an apartment.
My sister’s kid has definitely left more shit on my carpet than all 4 of my cats combined.
You, as a landlord, simply have no idea whether pets or people shit in your apartment. It’s not radioactive waste, people can just clean it up.
Way to be disingenuous
Way to disregard other people’s experience, easy to do if you never leave your basement.
Not at all true.
Some of my pets are shits, some are angels. My wife thinks some are angels and some are shits.
We were very fortunate to find a place the; landlord doesn’t seem to care about, and the previous tenant was a… Crazy pet owner, rumor was he was breeding dogs, so the floors were shot already, no monthly pet fee, no extra pet deposit, no need to have them repair anything, we probably won’t get the deposit back, but I doubt we would’ve if we had an up to snuff place, as our puppy was still learning the difference between outside and inside (he knows now)
Uh, case in point. You found a place trashed by pets, brought your ‘shits and angels’ in to wreck it more, and are oblivious to their effects on a home. This is what I was talking about.
The rental was vacant for months before our moving in, not earning any money, the “repairs” on it were sub par where done at all, the property is almost certainly illegally subdivided, the landlord offered a “give me sex for no rent next month” agreement with the other tenant (who had never brought up financial difficulties, nor is in a spot that would require leniency), has turned down multiple grants to take care of fire damaged trees on the hill sloping towards our back door, and it’s their only property in my state from looking at the other holdings dude is a slum lord. Also we’re paying way too much for the amount of upkeep that’s being put into the place. Also learned from a neighbor (who renovated, might have had the idea to flip the house) that the person who built 3 of the houses on this street (including ours) “followed a code, but it wasn’t {states} code. We’re out in the boonies, nobody wants any more attention here than required. If we hadn’t rented this place it would probably still be on the market what they were asking for it (half hour of heavy mountain road out of town), but we get no questions asked, a 2 car garage, no electric gas or water bill (hence illegal subdivision) and twice the sqf for less than what we’d be paying for half that space, no garage, and"communal” billing rates.
We’re being taken advantage of financially, they don’t ask questions (was one of the selling points) regarding our animals. Our animals btw haven’t trashed the place, they don’t urinate outside of their designated areas, they don’t tear up the carpets or chew on the walls, nature is taking care of plenty of those things, but the animals we keep have nothing to do with it.
“When you put them all into a package, it’s so rife with possibilities for errors on the part of the landlord,” Gulbransen said. “That makes people think twice about renting out that empty unit.”
Oh no.
Plus, she said the state already has laws in place to protect renters with disabilities or mental health issues who rely on emotional support or service animals.
Oh, well since they are already bending over backwards following ADA guidelines obviously that’s argument enough
Btw to those who didn’t read the article, it also mentions how a lot of pets are surrendered because the owners couldn’t find housing that accommodates them.
Lmao ITT: cats and dogs have evolved next to humans for thousands of years
Commentor: well that’s the first I’ve heard of this, they probably don’t even tip their landlord!
I assume this (and really any extra mandates for landlords) is going to drive more small/private landlords out of the business, and that won’t necessarily increase housing availability on its own, but will instead be filled by larger corporate landlords that can afford to deal with administrative work required. As I’ve gotten older, I’ve found small landlords to be where you can find the best experience (but also maybe the worst, it’s more variable), having just corporate landlords feels like you’ll always get a shittier place (minimal work done) for market rates.
Definitely a YMMV situation, with corporate landlords when I’ve called them out for breaking the law they usually backpedal. Mom and pop landlords in my experience always attempt to skirt around laws and just out right down respect them.
The golden experience to me has always been small businesses landlords who aren’t quite corporate yet, might own a building or two, but generally small in the grand scheme of things. They ofc eventually sell out to the corporate ownership anyways.
This bill also assures soundproof apartments and funding to enforce waste pickup right?
It can and should come out of the profit margins of the landlord.
In Belgium landlords can’t prohibit pets. In reality they often say pets aren’t allowed anyways, but if you keep quiet until after everything is signed they can’t really do anything about it. Of course pissing off your landlord by doing something they specifically requested you avoid isn’t going to keep them on good terms, and if it’s an option, finding a home that allows them is better.
Of course this law only applies to pets that are suitable for the space. If you keep a massive dog in a tiny studio appartment you might find yourself in legal hot water, but something like a cat should never be an issue.
Depends on the breed. My best friend in university had an absolutely MASSIVE Newfoundland Retriever, and they were quite happy in a 450 sq ft efficiency apartment. I’ll fully admit that is cheating, as Newfies routinely get to 200-250 lbs, but they are lazy as all fuck, and mostly nap all day.
That makes people think twice about renting out that empty unit.
Yes I can totally see landlords being so dismayed by the new complexity of housing rules that they just let the $150,000 they could have earned in high rent areas over the next 5 years just go to pot instead of hiring a professional property manager or selling. Sure real.
Granted I’m not in California, but is this actually an issue? As someone with fairly intense dog/cat allergies it’s actually been really hard to find NON-pet-friendly places to rent - those seem to be the exception rather than the rule.
It seems like different areas of the country have different rental “cultures”. Where I live now it’s incredibly difficult to find a pet-friendly apartment, with or without any sort of fee or deposit. And most locals think it’s normal and well justified. In the places I’ve lived previously it was mostly just restrictions on large dogs or reasonable limits to the number of pets. I’ve spent my entire life around pets (both my own and those of family/roommates). It feels VERY weird to me that the many people here don’t consider owning pets a normal lifestyle choice many people make even if they’re not in a position to own their own home.
Was somewhat common in San Francisco to see no pets allowed listings last time I rented there.
bar property owners from asking about pets on applications, prohibit additional monthly fees for pet owners — or “pet rent” — and limit pet deposits.
I love animals and have a dog, but it seems like all this will do is raise everyone’s rent.
They are going to raise rents anyways, might as well get a dog out of it.
If I have the liability of ripping up carpet and subfloor to eliminate the piss smell, you’re rent is going way the fuck up pal.
Adam “The Father of Capitalism” Smith, on land leeches:
"the landlords love to reap where they never sowed and demand a rent even for its natural produce.”
If you can’t risk it then don’t buy it 🤷🏽
or…transfer the risk on to you. As your behavior is the risk.
I’ve run out of landlord necks to shit down. Any of you human beings got one you’d borrow me?
You’re obviously a shitass, but since you asked: a dog bit through my hand right before a music gig. The owner pulled the classic “oh she’s never done anything like that before!” and gave zero reprimand to the dog and didnt answer “WHY IN THE FUCK IS IT UNLEASHED IN PUBLIC??!”
Idk who you’re replying too but, yeah dogs should be on leashes. No exceptions.
I don’t really see how this relates to landlords being made to accept pets. Most people will opt for a more expensive home than part with their pets
