Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: mom4kittys
It's not a BAN per se, but the decision of the private property owner (landlord) whether dogs are worth the trouble. That's the essence of personal freedom, and the opposite of government interference e.g. in the banning of firearms.

I understand where he's coming from, I've never been a landlord, but I have seen some VERY irresponsible tenants. By and large, people don't appreciate what they don't own.

We did not have dogs when we lived in an apartment - we had cats. Now we own (in a non-restrictive covenant suburb!) and can jolly well do what we like with our own place.

But I think that a security deposit, to be employed towards repair/cleanup if the pets misbehave, is a reasonable compromise. Set the deposit high enough to pay for the cost of cleanup in most circumstances (I don't think six months rent covered the replacement of the wood floor and joists in the second BR in our old apartment, but that was an unusual situation.)

78 posted on 09/29/2006 4:59:41 PM PDT by AnAmericanMother ((Ministrix of Ye Chase, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies ]


To: AnAmericanMother

It just makes me mad that nobody considers the responsible ones. I still don't think it's right to eliminate them just because they label all pet owners as irresponsible. When housing gets tight or circumstances come about and people have no choice but to rent an apartment temporarily, then the animals are going to suffer from all of these control freaks because they will end up at the pound.


79 posted on 09/29/2006 5:05:59 PM PDT by mom4kittys (If velvet could sing, it would sound like Josh Groban)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson