SF Animal Commission, Supes Might Make It Harder For Landlords To Say "No Pets"
The San Francisco Animal Control and Welfare Commission is expected to encourage the SF Board of Supervisors to push SF landlords to become much more...
These are the comments for SF Animal Commission, Supes Might Make It Harder For Landlords To Say "No Pets"
(4)
News Headlines
- "New York has been a serious disaster": Officials Laud SF's Green Taxi Program
- Muni Driver Attacked By Cane-Wielding Passenger
- Man Armed With Knives Barricades Himself In Anger Over Eaten Chicken
- Charges Of Elder Abuse, Negligence After Dementia Patient Dies Of Exposure
- Mission District Woman Arrested For Allegedly Throwing Dog From Third-Floor Window
- Suspicious Package Found In Federal Immigration Court Building Deemed Harmless
- New Victim Comes Forward In Phony Doctor Case
- "I'm going to gobble him up": Mirkarimi Granted Visitation Rights With Son
wiggles said:
November 12, 2009 8:38 PM
Reply
uh, like presa canarios?
cedichou said:
November 13, 2009 10:32 AM
Reply
How about water beds? They are unduly discriminated against. Tragically, they end up in land fill too many times because landlords won't accept them either.
Celbridge said:
November 14, 2009 6:06 PM
Reply
State law already requires landlords to allow waterbeds in buildings that received a certificate of occupancy after January 1, 1973 (California civil code section 1940.5).
Requiring landlords to allow pets is not unprecedented. Ontario Canada's Residential Tenancies Act voids any clause in a lease that prohibits pets. Link
Fred said:
November 16, 2009 11:00 PM
Reply
What about the right of neighboring tenants not to be exposed to the constant noise from little yipping dogs? I am thrilled that my building is no-pets, which enabled the management company to evict the clandestine yippers that moved in next to me.