The San Francisco Animal Control and Welfare Commission is expected to encourage the SF Board of Supervisors to push SF landlords to become much more accepting of renters who own pets — and at least one Supe has said he’s already amenable to the idea.

As of right now, landlords have the right to decide if they’ll allow pets in their buildings, but pet owners argue that they should have a right to move in with their pets. One commission member has even called the debate “a civil rights issue.”

Charlene Premyodhin, who owns a Rottweiler-German Shepherd mix, told ABC7 she found it really hard to find a landlord that would let her move in with her dog.

“The place we’re living at now, the only reason we’re allowed to have a dog is because our cousin is the landlord. But at every other place, we haven’t been able to have a dog,” she said.

Noni Richen, president of the Small Property Owners of San Francisco, says that landlords are up in arms about this issue because they’re losing control over their own property. Richen feels that a large security deposit is sometimes not enough to cover damages that pets can make.

The proposal that officials are discussing this afternoon is one they hope would reduce the number of pets that are turned into the SPCA or euthanized by owners who cannot find housing where pets are allowed.

The issue came up about three years ago but nothing was settled. However, the proposal might already have a friend on the Board of Supes — District 6 Supervisor Chris Daly told the Appeal (from this afternoon’s very noisy SEIU rally) “the sticking point with the previous proposal was that it involved a surcharge for pet owners. My understanding is that this proposal has done away with that surcharge, so I’m in favor of the concept of it this time around.” Daly hastened to add that he “hasn’t seen the current proposal in full, but I support the concept.”

Please make sure your comment adheres to our comment policy. If it doesn't, it may be deleted. Repeat violations may cause us to revoke your commenting privileges. No one wants that!
  • wiggles

    uh, like presa canarios?

  • wiggles

    uh, like presa canarios?

  • cedichou

    How about water beds? They are unduly discriminated against. Tragically, they end up in land fill too many times because landlords won’t accept them either.

  • cedichou

    How about water beds? They are unduly discriminated against. Tragically, they end up in land fill too many times because landlords won’t accept them either.

  • Celbridge

    State law already requires landlords to allow waterbeds in buildings that received a certificate of occupancy after January 1, 1973 (California civil code section 1940.5).

    Requiring landlords to allow pets is not unprecedented. Ontario Canada’s Residential Tenancies Act voids any clause in a lease that prohibits pets. Link

  • Celbridge

    State law already requires landlords to allow waterbeds in buildings that received a certificate of occupancy after January 1, 1973 (California civil code section 1940.5).

    Requiring landlords to allow pets is not unprecedented. Ontario Canada’s Residential Tenancies Act voids any clause in a lease that prohibits pets. Link

  • Fred

    What about the right of neighboring tenants not to be exposed to the constant noise from little yipping dogs? I am thrilled that my building is no-pets, which enabled the management company to evict the clandestine yippers that moved in next to me.

  • Fred

    What about the right of neighboring tenants not to be exposed to the constant noise from little yipping dogs? I am thrilled that my building is no-pets, which enabled the management company to evict the clandestine yippers that moved in next to me.