Forum
« Steam Boiler Replacement Question Crown Heights Historic District »
June 19, 2009
Tenants Want a Dog
Our tenants have asked to allow them to bring a small (under 20lbs) dog into their apartment – French bulldog, or something along those lines. We never had a dog of our own. Thus, we are hesitant, and would love to hear from more experienced landlords.
It might be useful to note that the tenants are roommates. They live upstairs from us, and one floor will be separating our apartment from the dog.
Comments
We let tenants have a dog in our apartment, and I have to say I don't think I'd do it again. The hall smells like dog, despite the tenants best efforts there is dog food in the apartment all the time around the bowl which attract vermin, and he's scratched up several areas of door/wall.
On the other hand if they are good tenants and you want to keep them... make sure you take some additional security deposit and write some kind of lease rider to get down on paper what they have agreed to pay for in relation to having the dog in the house.
Posted by: 11216 at June 19, 2009 4:10 PM
I would generally just say no way.
But if seems like very reliable very mature people and it seems they are homebodies I might say yes. Otherwise you'll have some dog barking all the time because they are gone all day to work - then go out later in evening and running around all weekend.
(and definitely no to any dog less than 1 year old).
Posted by: Petebklyn at June 19, 2009 4:11 PM
I would generally just say no way.
But if seems like very reliable very mature people and it seems they are homebodies I might say yes. Otherwise you'll have some dog barking all the time because they are gone all day to work - then go out later in evening and running around all weekend.
(and definitely no to any dog less than 1 year old).
Posted by: Petebklyn at June 19, 2009 4:11 PM
I have allowed dogs two ways, by accepting a large security deposit and by requiring proof of obedience training. The second option works great, the first didn't work as well.
People who train their dogs develop a richer sense of who their dog is and what it needs. They tend wind up with great companions that know where to poop and pee, are reasonably quiet and polite, are not bored enough to scratch incessantly or otherwise do damage, and are no harder on an apartment than a person.
People who pay large security deposits may or may not have developed a sense of what having a dog actually entails, and may wind up shrugging their shoulders when their bored, neglected dog chews at the molding, or can't figure out how to pee outside, because they figure at least they've already paid the deposit on this damage.
I think that a big security deposit sets an expectation that there will be damage, and that seems stupid. So instead I will accept a new tenant pet if the pet shows me some great manners and if a trainer that would vouch for them. And I check the dog's references in the same way I check the tenant's.
What you are proposing is dicier, because the dog is an idea and not a reality that you can meet and decide on. And people tend to start out having a dog with the best intentions, and then life intervenes, and it takes a lot of character and strength, really, to keep prioritizing the dog.
Perhaps a hybrid solution would work. If you know these people and you feel confident that they can follow through on a promise to religiously attend a puppy class (if they are getting a puppy) and a basic obedience class, then I would go for it. But at the same time, take a $2000 deposit that is refundable after the training is completed and you have seen the dog's behavior and talked to the trainer about how the owners did in the class.
Posted by: vanburenproud at June 19, 2009 4:31 PM
gimme a break. Proof of obedience training. Dont be a dick, just say no if you're that kind of anal landlord.
Posted by: MAT at June 19, 2009 4:38 PM
I've allowed it several times & not had a problem. The training proviso is an excellent suggestion.
Posted by: Arkady at June 19, 2009 4:40 PM
Over-Controlling landlords should find some other way to pay their mortgages (yes, I know it's "YOUR" property).
Some dogs smell, others have an "odeur"; if you like and/or have animals it's no big deal.
The thing about dog food and vermin is ridiculous (why were you checking their kitchen anyway?), if the tenants are sloppy, they could do all kinds of other things sans dog to bother you.
Dogs will cause some damage to floors (and hopefully nothing else) so asking for, say $500 extra deposit is reasonable (not $2000!). That's what I did.
Posted by: cmu at June 19, 2009 4:50 PM
Anyone who's calling me anal has never seen an apartment after an untrained dog has lived in it for a year. It's simple: Dogs can cause an amazing amount of damage when they're not trained, but don't when they are trained.
Is asking a tenant for a credit report anal? What's the difference?
I think it's way worse to ask all dog owners, even the ones who know their dogs won't cause damage, to pay an enormous security deposit.
Posted by: vanburenproud at June 19, 2009 5:03 PM
And as someone who's actually fixed the damages done to an apartment after an untrained dog has lived in it for a year, $2000 is totally reasonable.
In my situation, in the nineties, the damage was $1800 in materials alone, and I took $1300 in deposit, so I lost money even though I did all the work myself. A large swath of floor was soaked in urine and needed to be replaced. There was no more base molding in most of the apartment. I replaced three doors. All the screens in all the windows. Some drywall. The lower kitchen cabinet doors. The linoleum in the floor was done. The landscaping in the backyard was wrecked.
A deposit should reasonably accommodate a worst-case scenario. A dog can do way more than $2K in damage.
Posted by: vanburenproud at June 19, 2009 5:16 PM
HAve they had the dog a long time? A reference from the previous ll may help.
Posted by: denton at June 19, 2009 5:18 PM
Regardless of maturity level or damages, I would not want to hear a dog running back and forth on the floor above me. For me, it would be a very polite but clear no.
Posted by: Mrs. Limestone at June 19, 2009 6:09 PM
I think the op mentioned that the current tenants have lived there for awhile and are now interested in getting a dog. Although, I am a bleeding heart for animals,I think I would have reservations with a tenant bringing in a new animal they don't know yet into the apt. I wouldn't say no way, but I would have to think about it as it's not so much the potential damage that would bother me as it would be possible barking,squealing, yelping etc etc
good luck
Posted by: gemini10 at June 19, 2009 6:21 PM
Mrs L: read again: one floor separation. Dog footfalls would have to be heavy indeed to go though that.
Any tenants-with-dogs want to chip in? I can't believe the anti-animal sentiment here, no wonder people don't like landlords.
When my tenants said they wanted a dog, it was simple; they'd been there 2-1/2 years; they were quite mature, friendly and careful; use your judgement OP, as I did...if my tenants could've been flakey (as, obviously, vanburen's was, and I still have a hard time understanding how any middle-class tenants could be so sanguine to destruction) I might have refused.
Posted by: cmu at June 19, 2009 9:12 PM
My experience was similar to cmu's. Our tenants (we're a two family house) had been great tenants for two years and said they were thinking of getting a dog. We trusted them, laid a few basic groundrules and said "sure". Their Golden Retriever became a much beloved member of the household, and we really missed all of them when they moved a few years later. Frankly, dogs also add a nice level of security. I never minded the dog barking when someone came to the door or rang the bell. As for damage, it was a non-issue...my neighbor whose tenants had cats had much more damage to deal with when they moved out than we ever did. As long as we like the tenants, we'd allow a dog anytime.
Posted by: parkslopemom at June 19, 2009 9:34 PM
To clarify, I own a dog myself and have rented to dog owners successfully. I am not anti-dog. I'm anti bad dog owner.
The reason I make an external rule about training is because I am a softie about dogs, and because it's hard to tell when someone is going to become a bad dog owner. I don't think it's the same as flakiness. I think that living with a destructive dog is a deep kind of denial that's a function of knowing that you are responsible to a life that you can't take care of. From what I can tell, all this destruction just kind of turns into something that the owners just... watch happen. It just becomes the new normal.
If you are in doubt about the pervasiveness of the I Shouldn't Have A Dog Lifestyle, go to a dog run or park and stand near the people who only go to the park on the weekends. Within five minutes you'll be listening to a litany about the poop in the house, ruined doors, food stolen off the stove, angry neighbors...
I can't imagine having a dog that messed up my life like that. I would fix it. But people do it all the time. I think it's smart for a landlord to protect oneself from that crazy train. And I think it's better to protect oneself without banning dogs entirely.
Posted by: vanburenproud at June 19, 2009 11:21 PM
just say that you or someone else is "deathly allergic."
Posted by: slick at June 20, 2009 1:09 AM
"just say that you or someone else is "deathly allergic."
advice by 'slick'. need i say more?
Posted by: cmu at June 20, 2009 11:40 AM
Sometimes I wonder if it's the posters here that need training as opposed to the animals. Genya - this totally your call and it should hinge more on the fact that you are a tenant in the house. How much of a potential nuisance factor are you willing to tolerate? Pet deposits/security for damages is more straight forward.
Posted by: Crownlfc at June 20, 2009 12:03 PM
Dogs can easily damage a wood floor. Be careful. I don't allow dogs.
Posted by: troll at June 20, 2009 5:39 PM
Dogs can easily damage a wood floor. Be careful. I don't allow dogs.
Posted by: troll at June 20, 2009 5:39 PM
Ha Ha - you guys are wound up to tight.
We own a dog - top floor of a brownstone, no one in the building has a single complaint. Our floors are wooden - and look perfect.
You guys are loosers, no wonder people bitch about landlords with people like you around - i've got an idea for you...dont rent out your apartments if you are worried about 'wear and tear'.
Posted by: deanc at June 22, 2009 1:52 AM
In my experience as a landlady, I've had more damage by kids and 20 somethings than any pets (except for my own problem cats).
Posted by: rh at June 22, 2009 12:47 PM
As someone who frequently rents houses for the summer I'm always annoyed by how difficult it is to find a rental property that allows pets. This restriction limits my selection and ability to negotiate price. Generally I offer to leave extra security and I've never failed to get my full security back at the end of the season.
First, my dog does less damage and makes less noise than mamy people's children, but I've never heard of anyone requiring extra security for teens or infants.
Second, size restrictions make no sense. I've run into several people who refuse to take "large" dogs (sometimes that means more than 20 pounds.) If anything, small yappy dogs can cause more problems than large dogs.
I understand that some people have allergies (although paying attention to the breed can mean less likelihood of shedding) and I'd understand if someone wanted me to pay for a thorough cleaning when I vacated.
If your tenants have proven to be responsible people what makes you think they'll want an animal damaging their property?
Posted by: ivan at June 22, 2009 2:27 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.