Pet Peeves, as Seen From Both Sides

In the Sept. 26 issue (Letters), reader Jon Schultz of Torrance asks, “If I am willing and able to provide a security deposit that is as large as any damage my animals could possibly cause, then why should the landlord be allowed to discriminate?”

The answer, surely, is that most of Jon’s neighbors prefer not to walk through yards of doggy excrement on a daily basis, don’t want their small children bitten, are unhappy with dogs barking 24 hours a day and definitely favor not having their sleep disturbed by the neighbor’s cat giving voice to his romantic needs on the backyard fence at two in the morning.

PETER G. BROOKES

Chula Vista

*

Regarding Schultz’s letter suggesting that making it illegal for landlords to discriminate against prospective tenants based on pet ownership can somehow be of some benefit in alleviating pet overpopulation:

My response would be leave things status quo. Service animals for the disabled are already protected by law. And there are many fine organizations addressing pet overpopulation; give your donations of time and money to them, and let them do their good deeds.

A fair number of landlords currently welcome pets; please be satisfied and leave it at that.

Face it: All pets have “accidents” that are apparently acceptable, or denied, by a pet-loving tenant but not by the landlord when his carpeting has become a soaking biohazard.

Larger security deposits might seem reasonable. However this is also not the answer, because the law already dictates the maximum allowable security deposits. Yet let me tell you from experience, there are times that these princely sums are still not enough to cover the damages. The decision to allow pets or not should remain with the landlords.

MICHAEL VOSGANIAN

Woodland Hills