Here is the latest “what are they thinking?” proposal from the ever creative city of San Francisco; a new proposal from S.F. Animal Control that would force property owners to accept pets in their rental units.

As a major pet lover (& owner of 2 dogs & 2 cats) and pet friendly rental property owner, I fully support providing pet friendly rentals and have a screening process for pets (dogs in particular).  I also encourage my small group of clients who I handle leases for to go pet-friendly.

It should be a property owners personal choice to allow pets and NOT something that the city should force on property owners.  There is also tremendous liability that property owners can face if there ever is an issue with a pet.  I’m sure & hope that all pet-friendly property owners have been even more diligent in the screening of dogs after the horrible mauling of Diane Whipple in 2001.

There are also restrictions from insurance companies as to what dog breeds are allowed on a property.  This proposal just does not make sense for either property owners or tenants!!

What are your thoughts?

Full details as provided from the November Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute (SPOSFI) newsletter:

In its October 8 public meeting, the S.F. Animal Control and Welfare Commission proposed a new law that would prohibit property owners from excluding pets in rental units.

Still in the discussion phase, the proposal has yet to be referred to the Board of Supervisors, whose approval would be required to make it law. In keeping with the SF/SPCA’s “no-kill” policy, the Commission aims to increase pet-friendly housing to increase the number of pet adoptions. In fact, SF/SPCA has extended its efforts to cities far beyond San Francisco.

While admirable in theory, it is entirely unacceptable to import animals to San Francisco from other jurisdictions and expect (require) property owners to bear the burden by allowing them into their rentals.

In 2007, when the Commission first proposed to increase the number of pet-owning tenants in the city, the Board of Supervisors made it clear that it did not want property owners compensated for the substantial added wear-and-tear and liability created by pets.

Not only did the Board vote against implementing a 5% rent surcharge to pet-owning tenants; it ousted the three commissioners who had supported the idea. In its proposal, the Commission has clearly failed to foresee the serious repercussions property owners and tenants alike would suffer under such a mandate.

Property owners will inevitably be held responsible with the impossible charge of maintaining their tenants’ comfort as non-pet-owning tenants pass through common areas. Irresponsible pet owners will put a strain on tenant relations as allergy-suffering tenants are forced to endure daily exposure to animals, tenants who fear certain animals are forced to interact with them daily, and tenants are disturbed by animal smells and noises which will inevitably emanate from
their neighbors’ apartments.

In addition, the Commission proposes allowing only “non-dangerous” pets in the mandate. However, any animal behaviorist will tell you it is impossible to determine an animal’s temperament purely by breed or species.

San Francisco property owners do not need more laws dictating how they manage their buildings. Instead, they should be given incentives to voluntarily allow pets into their buildings.

Posted by: