From the President
By Eric Andresen
Some of us will never be able to forget the horrible scene and consequences of the Diane Whipple dog-mauling case. The televised coverage, the “in depth” news reports and the ensuing courtroom drama have dramatically changed the way most of us think about dogs in general and about our own pet policies. However, the knee-jerk reaction to disallow all dogs, or even all pets, is not entirely appropriate and may actually prove to work against us.
Few of us readily agreed to allow pets in our buildings—even long before the Whipple horror. In addition to our new concerns regarding the safety of our tenants and their guests, there are issues regarding noise, pet waste and cleanliness just to name a few. Current circumstances clearly lead us to err on the side of extreme caution, but in doing so, we might actually miss out on a good opportunity to secure reliable and conscientious tenants.
There is little doubt that each of us will view large “scary” dogs in a new light. This is a common and completely normal reaction in response to what we have witnessed recently. In fact, we have learned that we face liability issues in situations where dogs are allowed, especially if an incident has happened that gives us cause for concern. In order to protect ourselves, our worry over potential liability has to be given substantial merit— within reason. Worrying about the actions of an obviously timid, small dog is an overreaction. Losing sleep over the presence of a large, scary dog however, needs to be addressed.
Any time you allow the presence of a dog, by agreement or permissive action, you must be prepared to monitor the dog’s actions and take reasonable steps to ensure it is not posing a threat to other residents or visitors to the building. This does not mean that you must become a dog expert or clairvoyant, but if you feel uncomfortable around the animal, then you need to make appropriate inquiries. There are three steps you can follow. At the very least, contact our local animal shelter to report your concerns and ask for guidance. Second, meet with the dog's owner and discuss your concerns along with recommendations for prudent precautions. Last, alert the other residents of the building to the steps you have taken regarding the dog’s temperament and urge caution on their part. CAA has a great “Issue Insights” paper on dog-related problems with some guidance about what to do. Go to caanet.org and click on “What’s New” for links to this information.
Now, let’s look at the upside potential of allowing pets into our buildings. First, there are a significant number of prudent and responsible pet owners out there who have found it extremely difficult to locate rental housing. These individuals fully recognize the potential concerns of property owners and are usually willing to do “whatever it takes” to secure a decent place to live with their pet. Responsible pet owners will provide landlords with significant information about their pet, recognize the need to provide additional attention and care for their pet, and understand the potential liabilities their tenancy may create.
Let’s think about this for a minute. With so many potentially good tenancies out there, and given the current slump in market conditions, shouldn’t you at least consider allowing a pet into your unit under the proper conditions and with sufficient oversight? By refusing flat out to accept such a tenancy, aren’t you “shooting yourself in the foot,” and missing a golden opportunity to secure a good rental rate from a good tenant? In my opinion, there is little doubt that those who have overreacted to the Whipple tragedy are doing more harm to their pocketbook than the damage that might result from a minor liability claim. We could take advantage of the current situation and find ourselves better off financially if we just use a little common sense and prepare paperwork that assures a sufficient paper trail.
If this approach makes sense, then take the time to look into offering your vacancies to tenants with pets. You certainly can demand a higher rent and a larger deposit from a pet owner. Remember, there is likely to be more wear and tear with a pet and, as a consequence, you should expect fair compensation. You can use the CAA’s Pet Agreement (available from SFAA), which includes significant protections against liability and also allows you to document the tenant’s responsibilities and the potential for eviction should the pet get out of hand or pose a danger. Also, you are not unreasonable if you demand veterinary documentation about the pet, thus beginning that “cautious” paper trail you may need.
Sufficient protections from liability are available through the use of professional forms and common sense. Your willingness to allow pets increases your access to a substantial market of tenants, placing you well ahead of the game.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the SFAA or the SF Apartment Magazine. Eric Andresen owns West Coast Property Management and West Coast Property Maintenance Companies, is the past-president of the Professional Property Management Association of San Francisco and was the author of the original Residential Tenancy Agreement. Eric also serves on the Executive Board of the California Apartment Association and many other leading industry organizations. He can be reached at 415-885-6970. © Copyright 2002.