Comments on: No pets for rent http://www.missionmission.org/2011/08/29/no-pets-for-rent/ Saluting San Francisco's Mission District Mon, 27 Apr 2026 13:23:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.6.1 By: Nay http://www.missionmission.org/2011/08/29/no-pets-for-rent/#comment-56152 Nay Mon, 11 Jun 2012 08:02:05 +0000 http://www.missionmission.org/2011/08/29/no-pets-for-rent/#comment-56152 My cat will never draw on the walls with marker, spill milk into the rug, or throw something into a glass window. He won’t leave the water running or flush something that jams up the toilet and not say anything when it overflows. He doesn’t scream or jump at all hours to drive you crazy with complaints from the neighbors.

My landlord actually makes out like a bandit. Her rates are (now) above market since people are willing to pay more for an increasingly rare nice place, (considering current rental competition) that allows dogs. 5 of 8 of her last tenants have had dogs. Not one has had a young child.

]]> By: Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable http://www.missionmission.org/2011/08/29/no-pets-for-rent/#comment-38836 Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable Thu, 01 Sep 2011 18:12:46 +0000 http://www.missionmission.org/2011/08/29/no-pets-for-rent/#comment-38836 Again, as I have pointed out already, I am not saying that you, personally, will not go through a ridiculous and expensive eviction procedure for such a trivial lease violation. I am not calling you a liar; I believe you when you say that you, personally, would be willing to evict someone for something that minor.

What I *AM* saying, once again, is that, generally speaking, landlords are NOT going to go to that great trouble and huge expense to evict someone for something so trifling. I have never even heard of anyone being evicted for violating a no pets clause. Has it ever happened? I’m sure it has! You can’t be the only landlord out there who is so eager to cut off your nose to spite your face. However, my point is that the odds of it actually happening are very, very low.

Your advice to ‘just find a place that allows pets’ seems to be missing the original topic of this post: Many landlords specify “no pets” in their lease agreement. I strongly stand by my advice: it is better to seek forgiveness later than permission now. I believe that the odds of anything worse happening than needing to pay an additional pet deposit are vanishingly slim.

]]> By: Glenparker http://www.missionmission.org/2011/08/29/no-pets-for-rent/#comment-38826 Glenparker Thu, 01 Sep 2011 16:31:20 +0000 http://www.missionmission.org/2011/08/29/no-pets-for-rent/#comment-38826 Veggie, I have evicted tenants, comes with the territory.I know the costs and the time it takes. And I don’t care about the costs; if I evict you for breaking the lease then I just want you out. Last year I payed 12 grand to get rid of a particulary nasty tenant. Didn’t enjoy rewarding the bitch for her behavior but the problem is gone and I now have a delightful new tenant that causes no problems. I’ve also evicted two guys who bolted at the first letter from my lawyer. That was a cheap one. My buildings are long payed off, I can absorb the hit every now and then. But I play by the rules the city has set up and I expect the people who sign the lease to do the same.
You however are dishonest and sign your name to a legal document knowing you will not honor a clause you don’t like. Instead of doing the work to find an apartment that takes dogs you instead deceive. Everyone plays but the rules but you.
What if the other tenants like that no dogs are allowed in the building? Maybe they have allergies or have had bad experiences with dogs and want to live in a building where thet don’t have to deal with them.
You never answered my question because if you did you would reveal you have very little integrity, if any.

]]> By: Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable http://www.missionmission.org/2011/08/29/no-pets-for-rent/#comment-38807 Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable Thu, 01 Sep 2011 05:26:55 +0000 http://www.missionmission.org/2011/08/29/no-pets-for-rent/#comment-38807 Of course I don’t tell them before hand. That would be tantamount to asking permission. As I said: Better to seek forgiveness than permission, in this case.

I’m not sure why you take issue with my statement that it is expensive to evict someone. Aside from legal/filing fees and your own time, there is also the lost revenue. I mean, unless you are used to tenants continuing to pay rent whilst you are attempting to evict them? Because, I assure you, that is not generally the case. A quick googling reveals that the current median rental price for, say, a 1br apartment in San Francisco is well over $2000. (Disclaimer: I have no idea how “hotpads.com” comes up with these figures, and cannot vouch for their accuracy or lack thereof).

So, let’s take a very conservative number and say that, with San Francisco’s court system, it might take you three to six months to evict a tenant who chooses to contest the eviction. (This is assuming that there are no extra issue involved, such as the tenant not having anywhere to go, or having a medical condition, or being elderly, etc.. all of which can make an eviction take far, far longer than a few months.) Hell, for the sake of this thought experiment, lets choose the low end of 3 months. That’s $6k in lost rental revenue. Poof. This is not even assuming that the tenants damage the property before they vacate (and, trust me, I have heard some real, REAL horror stories in that regard from friends who own rental property in the city). That’s a hefty chunk of change to pay for, essentially, the privilege of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

And, to answer your question, I have absolutely been involved in eviction procedures in San Francisco. No, I have never been the one being evicted. Rather, I have been a witness for either one side or the other in different cases. I have also worked extensively with the SFTU on my own cases when I needed to get security deposits back from landlords.

If you really think that evicting someone is so easy and fast, I would, once again, suggest that you are in for a very rude awakening the first time you try. You can call it “SFTU Propaganda” if you wish; you can even argue that the legal process is unjustly weighed in favor of tenants. However, you pretend that it is easy to evict someone for such a minor violation at your own (financial) peril.

]]> By: Glenparker http://www.missionmission.org/2011/08/29/no-pets-for-rent/#comment-38806 Glenparker Thu, 01 Sep 2011 04:30:44 +0000 http://www.missionmission.org/2011/08/29/no-pets-for-rent/#comment-38806 Veggie, do you tell your soon-to-be landlord that you’ll be ignoring the no pets part and getting a dog before you sign the lease or do you wait until after to reveal your deception? Why not just find an apartment that allows dogs if you find that SF landlords have no problem with them.
You keep talking about the thousands of dollars I’ll lose in evecting a tenant. Have you ever evicted anyone? You’ve been listening to too much SFTU propaganda. The only tenant that has ever asked for a dog has been living in the same unit since the mid-70s and is paying less than $600 for a one bedroom in Noe Valley. I told her the same thing I keep telling you: if she gets a dog everybody in the building now has a green light to get one too. If she feels that strongly she can always find an apartment that allows them. Funny, she’s not willing to roll the eviction dice with me.
For the forth and final time I will ask you: does your signature mean nothing on a legal document? Do you ignore other lease clauses or just the ones that you personally don’t like?

]]> By: Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable http://www.missionmission.org/2011/08/29/no-pets-for-rent/#comment-38726 Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable Wed, 31 Aug 2011 18:23:58 +0000 http://www.missionmission.org/2011/08/29/no-pets-for-rent/#comment-38726 Glen: I think that we’ve established that you have some sort of problem with dogs in your building(s) that makes you willing to forfeit thousands and thousands of dollars in a long and arduous eviction process. However, you seem to be under the misapprehension that that is, at all, a common attitude. Most landlords are logical and reasonable, and want tenants that pay their rent on time and not cause problems for other tenants/neighbors or damage the premises. Anything else is lost time and lost money.

To use your own analogy, a drummer playing in the middle of the night certainly qualifies as causing problems that impact the quality of life of the other tenants (and possibly even neighbors). Therefore that is a problem that requires addressing.

As for your suggestion of getting a pet in a no-pets apartment and seeing how it works out, well, as I said in the first place, that is what I have always done. I have never encountered a landlord who was willing to waste the time and money to go through the eviction process for such a minor violation. The worst that has come up is the need for an additional security deposit to cover any possible damage from said pet, which is an eminently reasonable solution.

]]> By: Glenparker http://www.missionmission.org/2011/08/29/no-pets-for-rent/#comment-38707 Glenparker Wed, 31 Aug 2011 06:14:55 +0000 http://www.missionmission.org/2011/08/29/no-pets-for-rent/#comment-38707 Veggie, I have never done a “wasteful” eviction. If I am to the point of having to evict someone there’s certainly good reason. You keep saying that breaking the no-pets clause in the rental lease is trivial but you are wrong. You think landlords won’t try to evict you (especially if you’re paying below market rent) because it’s not worth the time and expense? Adopt a puppy and let us know how it turns out.
I don’t know why you won’t listen but ok one more time. If I allow one tenant the quietest, smallest, sweetest dog I lose the ability to deny dogs to all other tenants. And I cannot discriminate on size or breed. It’s simply not worth the risk for me, with mainly studio apartments, to allow dogs. Can you not respect this?
How would you feel if the drummer who lived above you was practicing at two in the morning every day. Is it ok that he ignores the “trivial” quiet hours clause in his rental contract as you ignore the “trivial” no dogs clause? What if the landlord decides to ignore the “trivial” clause where it states that he pay the water and garbage and
instead ask you to pay? Fair? Again Veggie I ask, what good is your word if you won’t honor it in a legal contract?

]]> By: Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable http://www.missionmission.org/2011/08/29/no-pets-for-rent/#comment-38699 Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable Wed, 31 Aug 2011 04:37:14 +0000 http://www.missionmission.org/2011/08/29/no-pets-for-rent/#comment-38699 Glen: Well, it isn’t up to me to tell you what you, personally, will or will not do as a landlord. If you want to put yourself through the extended, laborious, and wasteful process of an eviction for something as trivial as a violation of a no pets clause, that is certainly your prerogative. Good luck with that.

However, I’ll repeat what I said above: Really, it is foolishness to think that any reasonable landlord would opt for that trouble.

As I think you’ve confirmed for us, there are definitely a subset of NON-reasonable landlords out there. Happily, though, they are in a definite minority, in my experience. And I say this as someone who once had to go to small claims court to get his deposit back from a k-razy landlady who accused him of stealing the doorknobs and window locks from the apartment and replacing them with cheaper versions.

]]> By: Glenparker http://www.missionmission.org/2011/08/29/no-pets-for-rent/#comment-38697 Glenparker Wed, 31 Aug 2011 04:05:36 +0000 http://www.missionmission.org/2011/08/29/no-pets-for-rent/#comment-38697 Veggie, I’ve evicted plenty of people in SF. I know the deal. Phone call to the lawyer. Yea it costs me but we have a signed lease for a reason. You keep stating breaking the no-pet clause is a trivial matter. It’s not. If you bring in a dog I will evict you. I don’t care about the cost or time; i want you gone and in the end you will be. I’ve been doing this shit a long time. I dont allow dogs. You sign your name saying you won’t have a dog. We have a deal, right? Again Veggie I ask you; does your signature on a legal document mean shit?

]]> By: Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable http://www.missionmission.org/2011/08/29/no-pets-for-rent/#comment-38685 Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable Wed, 31 Aug 2011 00:04:31 +0000 http://www.missionmission.org/2011/08/29/no-pets-for-rent/#comment-38685 Glen: Have you ever tried to evict someone? Because you keep mentioning a “3 day notice”. That means nothing. A notice to quit is nothing but a notice that you intend to to begin the long, arduous, and extremely expensive process to actually get the people out. This is a process that can take several months, and even longer, depending on the circumstances.

If you really think it would be that easy and fast to get someone out for something as trivial as breaking a no-pets clause, then you are in for for an extremely rude awakening the first time you try.

]]> By: Cranky Old Mission Guy http://www.missionmission.org/2011/08/29/no-pets-for-rent/#comment-38666 Cranky Old Mission Guy Tue, 30 Aug 2011 20:09:37 +0000 http://www.missionmission.org/2011/08/29/no-pets-for-rent/#comment-38666 Oh, go fuck yourself, hard, with a big red dildo with leather straps.

]]> By: Henna Skye http://www.missionmission.org/2011/08/29/no-pets-for-rent/#comment-38663 Henna Skye Tue, 30 Aug 2011 19:44:36 +0000 http://www.missionmission.org/2011/08/29/no-pets-for-rent/#comment-38663 I’m a volunteer with Bernal Heights Transgendered Vegan Pitbull Rescue. We’re organizing a demonstration to raise awareness of the rights and dignity of all animal-tenants in San Francisco being systematically stripped away by the ultra right wing conservative Glen Parker and his money-hungry, property-owning cronies.

Who will stand with us? We need each and everyone of you reading this to come out and show your support. We have a licensed life coach sitting on our board, and she’ll be on site to hand out service animal recommendation letters free of charge for any members that do not yet have theirs. Full details will be available at our website upon our return from The Playa.

]]> By: Cranky Old Mission Guy http://www.missionmission.org/2011/08/29/no-pets-for-rent/#comment-38660 Cranky Old Mission Guy Tue, 30 Aug 2011 18:56:09 +0000 http://www.missionmission.org/2011/08/29/no-pets-for-rent/#comment-38660 HITLER HITLER HITLER!!!

]]> By: GG http://www.missionmission.org/2011/08/29/no-pets-for-rent/#comment-38645 GG Tue, 30 Aug 2011 16:31:46 +0000 http://www.missionmission.org/2011/08/29/no-pets-for-rent/#comment-38645 OK, I’ve posted way too many comments on this post, but I have to speak up here because this really bugs me. My cousin is blind and has a service dog, and gets hassled all the time by people who don’t understand service animal laws (i.e. telling her she can’t go x place, take her dog in their cab, etc.). IMHO, when you fraudulently get service tags for your clearly non-service (and possibly ill-behaved) dog, you’re creating a bad public impression of service dogs and making it harder for people whose lives depend on them. So yeah, it’s easy, but that doesn’t mean you should do it. Just my two cents.

]]> By: GG http://www.missionmission.org/2011/08/29/no-pets-for-rent/#comment-38644 GG Tue, 30 Aug 2011 16:28:26 +0000 http://www.missionmission.org/2011/08/29/no-pets-for-rent/#comment-38644 You know who else thought puppies were cute? HITLER.

]]>