One Hefty Pet Deposit

Jon Schultz suggests (Letters, Sept. 26) that landlords should be forced to take pets and that he would be willing to pay a proper deposit. The deposit would have to be about $5,000 to pay to redo the apartment when used as a giant cat box.

After removing the carpet and all the baseboards, then washing the concrete five times, I was told I needed to sand the concrete to get the smell out.

The drapes were in shreds, the doors scratched, blinds chewed on, etc.

I also needed to pay tradesmen extra to seal the walls before painting and to handle the filthy carpet.

This did not occur only one time but several times. Landlords already deal with dirty tenants; pet owners are often another breed.

ELIZABETH THOMPSON

Cypress

Schultz wrote that one good way to help alleviate the pet overpopulation is to make it illegal for landlords to discriminate against pet owners.

He wrote that he would provide an adequate security deposit to support his pets’ damage.

If he had been the last tenant in my rental house, he would have had to pay a security deposit of two years’ rent to support the damages incurred by one small puppy.

The carpet had to be replaced, but the carpet pad was glued to the hardwood floor by dog urine. A month and many man-hours later, the carpet was ready to be installed, but the smell will be in the house forever.

Why do people like Schultz impose their fetishes on landlords and not buy a low-cost condo? This would allow them to find out the facts about pets the hard way.

BOB GORMAN

Lomita