ANIMAL WATCH--At the Personnel and Animal Welfare Committee meeting on Wednesday, November 18, Councilman Paul Koretz made an abrupt adjustment to wording of a motion that could crush the rights of residential landlords who maintain pet-free buildings in Los Angeles.
Although the action element of the motion was rephrased—possibly based upon letters of opposition or concerns by other members of the committee--there is no indication that Koretz has amended his mindset that landlords are obligated to help the city reach a mythical “no kill.”
The preamble to the motion still indicates that ‘mechanisms’ are justified, and Koretz apparently still feels it is his job to determine if provisions in other cities should be considered to develop “…approaches applicable in the City of Los Angeles” (CF 15-0843.)
L.A. property and business owners cannot ignore Koretz’ history of relentless crusades to empty animal shelters into residential and commercial communities.
The premise that, “…West Hollywood and New York City have adopted laws which help to facilitate the adoption of pets by rental tenants,” also still appears in the motion. And Koretz concludes such programs and concepts in other cities should be considered as a basis for developing approaches applicable to the Los Angeles.
So, the Koretz/O’Farrell motion clearly approves enacting laws to “force” landlords to increase animals in rentals--which may not be adopted pets, but could be obtained from breeders. A 2012 survey by the American Humane Association found the source of pet dogs is: Family/friends (38%), Shelter/Rescue Organization (22%), and Breeder (16%).
Under the guise of "striving to achieve ‘no kill’ status,” Koretz is joined by at least two of Mayor Eric Garcetti's newly appointed Commissioners to force (or fool) landlords into renting to tenants with pets.
Accepting pets in rentals is definitely to be encouraged, but it cannot—and should not--be legislated. The rights of those who choose to, or must live in a pet-free environment for health reasons, are of equal importance.
New committee members David Ryu and Marqueece Harris-Dawson will, hopefully, along with other Council members, demand that alternatives are studied, including financial-incentive programs to help more landlords voluntarily accept pets.
Government has already imposed more than enough regulations on rental-property owners in Los Angeles. The Council needs to consider that costs of additional laws will merely cause more local owners to sell their properties to developers (whose inquiries fill mailboxes) and further decrease the number of units available to low-income residents.
Apparently Councilman Koretz has not read, or isn’t sharing with his colleagues, the LA Times report on August 12, 2014, that, “More than 70% of apartment renters reported owning pets…, according to a survey by Apartments.com.” That means landlords are already providing homes for this 70% without being compelled to do so.
In fact, many newer complexes in L.A. now have amenities for pets in their design; such as, pet exercise areas and grooming facilities. Apartments.com tells us the rental industry, “…is moving toward accommodating the needs of this important and growing segment of renters.”
PetFinders.org, the nation’s leading on-line list of pets in shelters, states in its current Top Ten Reasons for Relinquishments that the number of dogs and cats impounded because of “Landlord Not Allowing Pet” is only 6%.
Paralleling Koretz desire to remove the choice for landlords to provide, and tenants to choose, a pet-free building, two of Mayor Garcetti’s newest appointees to the L.A. Animal Services Commission--Larry Gross, a tenants’ rights advocate; and Roger Wolfson, a television writer--have demonstrated at public meetings an inappropriate antagonism toward landlords.
Neither Gross nor Wolfson has any noted expertise in the field of animal welfare or property management. (Gross stated that owning rental property is “not his thing.”) Both are reportedly attorneys.
Wolfson stated at two recent meetings that he wants the Commission to consider a policy of LAAS not entering the breed identification of dogs on kennel cards or paperwork; so that, if tenants adopt from the shelter, landlords cannot refuse “certain” shelter dogs (mainly, Pit Bulls) because of their reputation.
In other words, Commissioner Wolfson proposes that, if breeds are not identified, landlords could be “fooled” or forced into accepting a dog they might otherwise reject because of liability (some insurance companies don’t cover certain breeds) or because of safety concerns or the comfort of other tenants.
Larry Gross, who is Executive Director of the Coalition for Economic Survival, posted on Facebook that, “If we are to achieve our goal of making L.A. a “No Kill” city, finding homes for our shelter animals will mean that many must be placed in apartments.” [Emphasis added.] The dictionary defines “must” as ‘have to,’ ‘be required to,” or be “compelled” by a rule or law.
At a recent Commission meeting, animal activist Daniel Guss removed the stack of flyers advertising the “Pets in Rental Housing” meetings, purportedly organized by Gross to teach tenants’ their rights to have pets in rental housing and landlords’ rights and responsibilities. The flyers are displayed prominently with the official copies of the agenda/reports at Commission meetings.
{module [1177]}
Although Gross’ name is not shown, Guss stated that inviting the public during official city meetings to attend these “workshops” and conducting an activity which could benefit him professionally by increasing his access to potential clients for his advocacy services is a potential conflict of interest. However, the flyers appeared again at the next Commission meeting.
Gross recently contended that L.A. tenants could not even afford a $1 a month raise (in regard to the $75 pass-through of earthquake retrofitting costs), yet he invites them to the shelter to take home their “new best friend.” Apparently Mr. Gross has not paid a veterinary bill lately.
Gross’ past writings and quotes show no mention of pets or “no kill.” Is it possible that shelter animals have just become the latest boon to tenants’ rights advocacy?
Many landlords attended the November 9 “workshop” to discuss serious problems with bad pet owners in their rentals and expressed serious concerns for the animal’s welfare. They should have been advised to consult an attorney for advice or to contact an organization such as Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles (AAGLA) or Apartment Owners Association (AOA), rather than receiving legal advice at a public meeting.
Renting to pets must be a personal choice, involving the desire and ability of a landlord to provide a comfortable and safe environment, free of excess noise and sanitation conflicts, and where there will be harmony in common areas. The tragic fatal dog attack on Diane Whipple in a San Francisco elevator at her apartment building emphasizes this need.
No matter how much a landlord personally loves animals, renting to pet owners—especially in properties limited by the constraints of rent control--must be a sound business decision, based upon a realistic assessment of benefits vs. liability and whether the property owner can assure safety for both the animals and humans. It is not a decision for the City Council.
(Animal activist Phyllis M. Daugherty writes for CityWatch and is a contributing writer to opposingviews.com. She lives in Los Angeles.)
-cw
CityWatch
Vol 13 Issue 95
Pub: Nov 24, 2015
