Editorial News Alert: Barger Betrays Property Owner for Pets

Editorial News Alert

Barger Betrays Property Owner for Pets

By Janet M. Gagnon

Senior Vice President, Government Affairs and External Relations

On December 17^th, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted 3-to-0 in favor of a motion from Supervisors Hilda Solis and Lindsey Horvath to pursue adopting an ordinance mandating that multifamily owners with properties under the County’s rent stabilization and tenant protections ordinance (RSTPO) to accept at least one pet per rental unit, prohibit any pet weight restrictions, and prevent any owner from requiring a pet (security) deposit or charging of pet (additional) rent. In a last-minute reversal by Chair Kathryn Barger abandoning multifamily property owners and supporting this ill-conceived and misleading motion, Chair Barger went against her earlier announcement of abstaining from voting on this item to voting in favor of it resulting in it passing.

TAKE ACTION NOW!

All multifamily owners with properties in unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County should immediately send emails to Chair Barger and all the Supervisors to voice your strong opposition to the pursuit of this extremely damaging and dangerous mandatory pet ordinance by clicking here. If the link does not work for your system, please see the attachment at the bottom for a complete list of email addresses for the Supervisors.

Now is the time for owners and property managers to make their voices heard in strong opposition to these proposed new requirements before it is too late. For those AAGLA members who sent emails to the Supervisors in response to our Red Alert, thank you and please send follow-up emails now that this motion is moving forward. For those of you who did not respond to our Red Alert, now is your second chance to do so. We need all “hands on deck” if we are to stop this pet ordinance that will increase your liability, cause damages to your property, make it even more difficult to obtain insurance coverage, and also put your renters in physical danger of mauling and allergic reactions!

Why Did Supervisor Barger Abandon Owners?

We surmise that the only reason that Chair Barger switched her vote was to appease Supervisor Solis’ unreasonable and inappropriate demand that the motion move forward at that particular meeting. Just before the start of the meeting, Supervisor Solis chose to pull this item from the agenda for discussion and place it on consent to avoid input from constituents, including AAGLA, all who are strongly opposed to this pet mandate both in substance and form. As a result, this item was heard at the end of the meeting after Supervisors Hahn and Mitchell had left the meeting. 

As Chair Barger has recently instituted weekly Board of Supervisors meetings, Supervisor Solis could have requested that this item be held for the next meeting in only one week, so that Supervisors Hahn and Mitchell would have an opportunity to vote on the item. Alternatively, Supervisor Solis could have proceeded with the motion with Barger maintaining her original, stated position of abstaining (as she had announced publicly at the beginning of the meeting) and it would have failed. Accordingly, the only reason that this motion passed was due to Chair Barger changing her vote at the last minute and turning what would have been a victory for multifamily private property owners (or at least continuation of the fight) into a defeat.

The Motion Is Grossly Misleading 

AAGLA had zealously opposed this motion in advance of the meeting both in substance and due to its grossly misleading language. This motion has been highly promoted by Supervisor Solis as being only a request for a “report back” to discuss the issue and was purportedly not intended for adoption of an actual ordinance. However, the motion clearly states in Section 1C that it includes recommendations for “adopting an ordinance.” We urged Supervisor Solis (and the other Supervisors) to amend and remove these three words, “adopting an ordinance,” so that the language would match Supervisor Solis’ claim that the motion was intended to only request a report back. We were at first met with strong resistance and then specifically told false information by staff that Supervisor Solis would be offering amendments to change the language to clarify that the motion was only to be a report back for discussion purposes. No such change was ever made to the language despite making other small changes prior to the vote. This motion is clearly a wolf in sheep’s clothing and the true intent is to create a NEW ORDINANCE requiring multifamily RSTPO owners to accept pets.

The Litany of Problems That Will Be Caused

Below are some problems that these requirements would potentially cause for rental housing providers. Please feel free to include them in your emails to the Supervisors.

• Liability / Property Insurance. We all love pets, but pets pose major liability. Rental housing providers are already having a very difficult time obtaining and maintaining property insurance.  Many insurers have left the state due to claims arising from fires (one is currently burning in Malibu) and litigation risks. Insurance rates have gone “through the roof” and insurers are looking for reasons to drop existing policies for multifamily owners (and even single-family homeowners too).  Many insurers will NOT insure pets based on a specific breed of dog, and these breeds are not something housing providers have any input on and are based on the insurers policies as to what is acceptable risk. Weight is often a substitute for a list of specific breeds as the list differs among insurance companies and is updated frequently by them. If the County requires the acceptance of such pets, based on either breed or weight, that is on any “non-insurable” list, then the owner will be dropped by their insurance carrier. No insurance means no rental housing (as buildings are converted to condominiums or “McMansions” as “for sale” properties) and renters are without homes in the unincorporated areas.

• Properties Unable to Accommodate Pets. Older properties under the RSO are not necessarily equipped to accommodate pets. They do not have outside areas for pets to relieve themselves. Many have carpet in common areas that will become severely damaged by pets. Carpeting will also absorb pet dander causing health issues for other renters that are allergic to pets. It will be far cheaper for existing owners to sell these older buildings to developers to be torn down and the County will lose more affordable rental housing.

• Pet Deposit / Pet Rent. Pets cause damage to rental units (as well as common areas) and that is why a pet deposit is necessary. These are legitimate costs that must be paid for by the renter that has the pet in the form of a security deposit. Animal owners cannot control when the animal chooses to defecate, urinate, vomit, scratch up walls or floors, damage screens, chew on wood molding, etc. Prohibiting recoupment of these costs is unfair, unjust and likely illegal. Renters must be held financially responsible for the damage their pets cause to the rental unit.

• Harm to Other Renters. Pets are a threat and nuisance to other renters. Large pets can easily hurt young children and the elderly unintentionally and can be unpredictable when untrained and feeling threatened by quick movements. When dogs are mistreated or neglected by their owners, they can become vicious and cause serious harm, including death to other renters and even their owners. We have seen this repeatedly happening with medium and large dogs mauling residents, especially young children. 

Moreover, many medium and large dog breeds are intended as working dogs or guard dogs cannot be cooped up in a rental unit for 8-14 hours a day while the renter is away at work and school. It is cruel to the dog to do so, and renters are unable to afford daily dog walkers. As a result of mistreatment, dogs will act out with excessive barking, aggression towards people and destruction of property. Many renters now work from home or go to school from home or have young children asleep at home. Barking excessively is a serious problem for other renters in the building that literally live on the other side of a piece of drywall.

• Allergies / Fear of Dogs. Some renters have extreme allergies to pets and pet dander. Just as with secondhand smoke, pet dander does not stay in any one unit. Dogs are taken in and out of the property daily to defecate and urinate spreading dander as they go. Cats are often allowed by their owners to “run free” throughout a property spreading their dander as well.  Where are these low-income renters supposed to go if all RSTPO rental properties are required to allow pets? In addition, some renters (and owners) may have experienced dog bite incidents and fear living near or next to dogs.

• COVID-19. This motion conflates the general issue of pet ownership with the temporary issue of COVID-19 pets. If the concern is regarding COVID-19 pets, then the requirements need to be substantially narrowed to only address those specific pets.

Better Alternatives Exist

 There are far better alternatives to the problem of too many unwanted pets in the County.  

• Increase penalties for initial violation of owners failing to spay or neuter their pets. The current penalty of only $250 is grossly ineffective. The initial fine should be $1,000 to encourage owners to spay or neuter their pets with it being waivable for low-income owners provided that they get their pet spayed at the time the fine is accessed.

• Create a public service campaign to educate renters and homeowners that pets must be spayed or neutered and licensed with the County. Too many residents are completely unaware that pet ownership has these requirements, and it is the County’s responsibility to educate them.

• The County Department of Animal Services should do a more thorough job educating potential pet owners regarding the long-term commitment and responsibilities of being a pet owner and the potential costs, including the requirement that pet owners keep the pet for its entire lifetime and provide proper nutrition, training, exercise and medical care for the pet.  The size that puppies will grow into should also be clearly communicated along with the exercise requirements that individual breeds will require daily from their owners. Pets are living creatures requiring a lifetime commitment and not toys!

• The County Department of Animal Services should create a “good citizen” program for pet owners and their individual pets. The program should train owners in how to care and control their new pet and the pet should be required to complete basic training classes with their new owners. The County could then post a list of “good citizen” owners with their pets and promote it to rental housing providers that are willing and able to accept pets at their properties.

This article is for informational purposes only. If you have any questions regarding your property or specific tenancies and the requirements of any local law changes described herein, please consult with an attorney. 

REVISED MOTION

SUPERVISORS EMAILS