By Christie Keith
November 2, 2009
bigstockphoto_No_Pets_Sign_2100655It’s the one law I keep coming back to as something I could get behind: Ban discrimination against pet owners in housing. And now I have some solid data to back up the fight.
The Petsavers Foundation conducted a study of the housing market for pet owners, and among their many findings were these:
The data suggests there is little if any difference in damage between tenants with and without pets. The biggest difference between damage from tenants with pets and those without was under $40, with an average of $323 in damage for tenants without pets and an average of $362 for tenants with pets. This was not a statistically significant difference (meaning that the difference is quite possibly due to random variation in the data rather than any real difference) and the amount is very small when compared to the extra deposit, rent, and other benefits received from renting pet-friendly housing.
Interestingly the $40 (at most) difference in damages for tenants with pets was much smaller than the difference found for tenants with children. Tenants with children on average had $150 more damage than tenants without children. If housing is divided into four categories based on whether children and/or pets are present, then for housing with children the people with pets caused on average $4 less damage. For housing with no children, the people with pets caused on average $25 less damage. In other words, when having children is accounted for, people with pets did not cause any more damage whatsoever on average than people without pets.
There’s a lot more, inc luding some measurable financial benefits to landlords who allow pets that, as noted above, actually outweigh the $40 loss in extra damage.
Since housing problems are the main reason people give up their pets, and it appears that landlords’ reluctance to rent to pet owners has no rational basis, what do you think? Should there be a law?
No comments:
Post a Comment