21:21 on 2012/05/06 Reply  

• Marc 21:26 on 2012/05/06 Permalink

  This no pets allowed rule must go. In Ontario and possibly other areas, no pets allowed is not tolerated. The other thing I’ve never been able to figure out is why people who have pets accept a dwelling where pets aren’t allowed. That leads to abandoned pets.

• Kate 21:48 on 2012/05/06 Permalink

  That’s an issue, and it’s sad, but I think we’ve had seasons with very low vacancies and poorer people being forced to move out of buildings being turned into condos – it adds up in some cases into people accepting lease conditions they don’t like. I can’t imagine willingly abandoning an animal that trusts you, though.

• steph 21:50 on 2012/05/06 Permalink

  I’ve heard that the regie will not evict anyone for disobeying this clause in the lease for small pets. It doesn’t help your relationship with your landlord though.

• Susana Machado 01:57 on 2012/05/07 Permalink

  I know anecdotal evidence counts for nothing, but here is a story. When my parents bought a duplex about 20 years ago my mom wanted a no pets rule because she didn’t want the noise or the trouble. The first tenant, what appeared to be an otherwise normal lady told my mom that she only had a cat that was well behaved and never scratched anything. So the parents decided, it’s a cat, how bad can it be? Well the cat was not very well trained and she kept the litter box on the (carpeted) stairs going upstairs. Within a couple of weeks it started to smell downstairs in our appartment. Dry cat pee. The cat seemed to pee on, behind, on top of, next to, under and above the dumb litter box. Not that she changed it very often, so I don’t really blame the cat. We told her about the smell, but she said it didn’t bother her. The Régie said they couldn’t do anything. When she left the next year the carpet had to be removed and the five lower steps removed as well because the pee had gone through the wood. For years later when it got very hot and the AC wasn’t on it still smelled. Not much, but to this day cat pee beings awful memories.

  I know most tenants aren’t like that. But you go through 10-12 tenants in a lifetime as a landlord and and you really don’t want to deal with animal pee smell seeping through the walls. Sometimes it is just easier to say “no pets”.

• Raoul 07:31 on 2012/05/07 Permalink

  Stinky litters suck, thats why i do mine twice a day and prefer clumping litter so it doesnt smell –

  but honestly, an unhygienic person isn’t limited to just cat litters in their laziness – theyre the same people who leave garbage bags in a closet/under-staircase for weeks before taking them out, who let publicsac pile up in a box in front of their door, etc. etc.

  A pet ban might eliminate one of those nuisances, but i would argue that pets arent the problem, its the owners who dont take care of themselves, their space or their pets. Anyways you know what im talking about, cat pee is only one of half a dozen smells that i would rather not live next to.

• Raoul 07:37 on 2012/05/07 Permalink

  by the same token ive also known plenty of people who werent suited to take care of animals. mostly lonely types who want the company but wont actually take care of their pets, simultaneously driving up demand for petshops (and puppymills) while creating more abandonment.

• Chris 07:57 on 2012/05/07 Permalink

  Forcing landlords to allow pets could have unintended consequences. There are already many disincentives to property owners renting. Chiefly, they can’t raise prices to market rates, and so it’s often much more profitable for them to sell. That’s part of why our rental stock is going down and down. Forcing yet another rule upon them could make matters worse. I’d certainly have the worry of something like Susana’s story happening.

• ant6n 10:44 on 2012/05/07 Permalink

  Mmmh, maybe they could have a rule to always allow pets if the renter gives a 2/3-month deposit that can be used for any damages of the apartment related to the pet. Still doesn’t solve the noise issue, though.

• Kate 16:45 on 2012/05/07 Permalink

  Well, my cat doesn’t make a bad smell AND she does her bit to discourage mice. So should the landlord cut my rent? : )

• Josh 17:46 on 2012/05/07 Permalink

  Aren’t there allergy considerations that play into this, too?

• Ephraim 17:49 on 2012/05/07 Permalink

  It also has to do with the fact that in Quebec we can’t ask for a security deposit. If you can’t ask for one than you want to limit the damage that can be done. Even if you can go after a tenant with a judgement at the regie for up to 30 years, the likelihood of collecting is minimal.

  There is a woman who has cats, dogs, squirrels, pigeons, etc in an apartment. Who is responsible when she leaves for the costs of cleanup and detox. Cat pee is actually considered a toxin (ammonia) and has to be removed, cleaned with enzymes and then painted with oil or shellac based paints. If pet owners were responsible, that’s one thing, but there are those who aren’t and the landlord shouldn’t have to bear the costs, it’s not normal wear and tear.

• ant6n 18:33 on 2012/05/07 Permalink

  @Kate
  A security deposit is not effectively increasing rent, except for the interest on the deposit.

• Alison Cummins 06:06 on 2012/05/08 Permalink

  We’ve included a statement that our tenants can’t keep a dog larger than 10 kg. Our thinking is that a small, old and incontinent dog produces less pee than a large, old and incontinent dog.

  We haven’t (yet) had to deal with misplaced cat pee. It will piss us off, but people need their kitties.

• Frances 06:14 on 2012/05/08 Permalink

  Dogs bark. Big ones bark loudly, small ones yap annoyingly. When they run and jump, you can hear them on bare floors (i.e. no carpets). The sound carries every bit as much as a loud stereo. I support retaining the right to have a pet ban in apartment buildings. One issue that hasn’t been talked about very much is the whole idea of keeping pets to begin with. An argument can be made that keeping dogs – especially large ones – in the city is not appropriate at all. Their barking, in aggregate, outdoors is essentially noise pollution, and is disturbing at night.
  And, (in case someone is tempted to reply to this)… No, I shouldn’t have to move to the country. I have the right to expect some peace and quiet in my home (apartment) in a residential area of the city. Dog barking is every bit as a disturbance as car alarms going off. In my experience, too many dog owners don’t take adequate responsibility for their pets, and other people’s needs into consideration.

• david 08:27 on 2012/05/08 Permalink

  Children make noise. Big ones shout loudly, small ones cry annoyingly. When they run and jump, you can hear them on bare floors (i.e. no carpets). The sound carries every bit as much as a loud stereo. I support retaining the right to have a children ban in apartment buildings. One issue that hasn’t been talked about very much is the whole idea of keeping children to begin with. An argument can be made that keeping children – especially large ones – in the city is not appropriate at all. Their joyful playing, in aggregate, outdoors is essentially noise pollution, and is disturbing at night.
  And, (in case someone is tempted to reply to this)… No, I shouldn’t have to move to the country. I have the right to expect some peace and quiet in my home (apartment) in a residential area of the city. A noisy child is every bit as a disturbance as car alarms going off. In my experience, too many parents don’t take adequate responsibility for their children, and other people’s needs into consideration.

  Lighten up Frances (sorry, couldn’t resist).

• Kate 08:54 on 2012/05/08 Permalink

  I tend to be in the camp that the human benefits offered by animals are so important that a little pee or barking is negligible. And unless you ban dogs completely, it’s kind of meaningless anyway. Where I live, the owner doesn’t allow dogs, but I still have to hear several dogs out back at times, and a woman across the street has a beagle that doesn’t just bark, it produces a loud hysterical baying that sounds like someone’s killing it with an axe.

  Also yes, the kids playing in the back alley can be loud, especially when they do that competitive screaming thing kids always do, sooner or later. But what can you do? It’s life, going on around you.

• Diane Perodeau 09:17 on 2012/05/08 Permalink

  We should be aloud to have pets, pets are the best thing that can happen to people who live alone, Animals are not worst them kid!

• Mary 13:24 on 2012/05/08 Permalink

  If I was a landlord, I would just love to be able to ban children in my property, but I can’t. They are far more of a nuisance than any pet can be. As far as pets go, I live in France and you cannot ban pets in rentals. I’ve lived in many different appartement buildings and have never heard of any problems caused by people’s pets so far.

• ant6n 21:10 on 2012/05/08 Permalink

  Well, kids will one day pay our pensions, dogs won’t. Even worse, dogs are parasites that replace human children. And living in a city, they are much more likely to have psychological issues than children. Overall I’d say it makes more sense to have kids in cities, rater than dogs.

• MdC 03:22 on 2012/05/09 Permalink

  Kids won’t pay for MY pension (where I live) and I think you may be a bit deluded if you think you’ll actually get a pension someday. In the mean time, I am the one paying for people breeding with my taxes, so that they can have all the benefits that I can’t get as a childfree person. So please don’t lecture about pets vs kids, at least you don’t have to pay for my pets.

Reply Cancel reply

Required fields are marked *

Name *

Email *

Website