Do we want a right to companion animals?

caf said :

You have to do better than “It’s their property.”, because that argument would support any covenant in a lease agreement – how about “No premarital sex.”? There is obviously a continuum here from the tenants right to free enjoyment of the property they are leasing to the lessor’s right to protect their property. Ownership of pets appears to fall very close to that line, which is why reasonable people can (and do) disagree on which side it falls.

I don’t see at all why I have to do better than ‘it’s their property’, lest I come over to your property and avail myself. It is their property and they should be entitled to set such rules. As for ‘no premarital sex’, market forces would quickly send such a provision packing. However I absolutely support a property owners right to include such a term, despite my belief that it is completely ridiculous.

The tenant has a right to free enjoyment of the property subject to the contract that they voluntarily agreed to. I want to hear your justification for abrogating that. Build for me the philosophical case for the ‘right’ you have expressed.

You have to do better than “It’s their property.”, because that argument would support any covenant in a lease agreement – how about “No premarital sex.”? There is obviously a continuum here from the tenants right to free enjoyment of the property they are leasing to the lessor’s right to protect their property. Ownership of pets appears to fall very close to that line, which is why reasonable people can (and do) disagree on which side it falls.

johnboy said :

And having taken the lease, paid the rent, and committed to make good any damages what business is it of a landlord if you’re keeping a pet?

It’s their property. The no pet provision would have to be in the lease however.

And having taken the lease, paid the rent, and committed to make good any damages what business is it of a landlord if you’re keeping a pet?

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

I exercise my freedom to choose to have a cat in an apartment. Oh, you just meant choices that agree with yours – like in China, Zimbabwe, etc.

That is an appallingly glib response WMC. You have a freedom to have a cat in an apartment that you own. I suggest that your desire to make the decisions in other peoples property is much more analogous to the authoritarian regimes you have listed.

The pet thing is cultural; New Yorkers have all kinds of dogs in their apartments (large breeds too) and nobody bats an eyelid. When we lived in the USA, pets were widely accepted for most rentals, providing you paid a largish ‘pet bond’ that could be used to repair any damage done to the property during your tenancy or at the end of your lease. Many European countries have the same system. We always allow ‘well behaved’ pets in our rental properties (‘well behaved’ being pets that don’t dig, wreck stuff, do their business inside and don’t bark all day and night) because we have found that most pet owners are very grateful for the priviledge and ergo, tend to stay around for longer and really look after the property. I would also like to make the point that dog size is not a fair indication of suitability for apartment living – many really large breeds are very docile, clean and make perfect indoor pets (greyhounds for example, which are very popular apartment dogs in some countries).

Thanks Granny, I’m glad someone got it.

It was actually a thoughtful and well-written post. To a degree I think it’s like one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter, as in one person’s free choice is another person’s discrimination.

Bunbybear: You forgot to mention the nazis. Well done.

I exercise my freedom to choose to have a cat in an apartment. Oh, you just meant choices that agree with yours – like in China, Zimbabwe, etc.

I have a little experience around this issue, and would suggest that the concept of legislating to remove discrimination against pet owners is simply going too far.

It is my understanding that companion animals for the disabled and guide dogs already have a range of legislation in place to enable them to fulfill the functions they are trained to perform, they shouldn’t be an issue. While many/most/all of these animals are wonderful pets and friends, they are primarily working animals and belong to a category of their own. Don’t touch – that would be discrimination against the person who needs their help.

Then there are pets whose primary purpose is to love and be loved by their owners.

I have seen lots of pets in a no pet complex who have been left alone because they cause no problem.

I have seen pets in a pet accepting complex who have been no problem but have been targetted in an attempt to have them removed.

I have seen good and bad pet owners – the bad ones tend to be the ones who have little regard for any rules and minimal consideration for anyone other than themselves. The good ones tend to be mostly nice to people as well as animals and show much consideration and concern for the rights of others.

I have seen nice people who are blind to the indiscretions of their animals, and total arseholes who’s animals behave impeccably.

Regardless, these animals are pets, owned by choice rather than necessity. And it is a landlords choice wether he accepts them into his property or not, because it’s HIS property. If you don’t like your landlord’s choice, choose another landlord. If it’s a body corporate policy you don’t like, get on the executive (generally the easiest thing in the world as most people can’t be stuffed)and lobby for change. Or just lobby for change in the complex – you can raise any issue at an AGM and have it voted on. And in the meantime, obey the choices made by those who have taken the trouble to get involved.

Or if you really want to have legislation inplace for everything, pop on over to China, Zimbabwe, etc. and have a little taste of what that’s like, before dumping yet another freedom – freedom of choice.

If this goes through I’ll be renting out a 1 beddy in a high density civic apartment complex for my Irish Wolfhound.

I’m of two minds on this one. I’m a cat owner – I’m also a renter. I got special permission from the landlords to have the cat after we moved in (initially, the lease stated no pets – the special permission overrode that and it has subsequently been removed from the lease document).

I consider myself a responsible pet owner, like many others out there. In fact, I think we could unequivocally state that _most_ pet owners could be considered “responsible” … most have deep affection for their animals, and as such they keep them clean, fed, and suitably restrained and exercised. However some people become pet owners through accident rather than design – many of these are probably responsible owners also – but what about the proportion of those that aren’t? RSPCA and the like will attest to the fact that animals are mistreated every day. This isn’t occurring out in the streets, for the most part it’s happening in peoples’ homes. Animals being left to starve, or hunt for themselves; animals that aren’t desexed and aren’t restrained; animals that aren’t appropriately trained; animals that are not being groomed or otherwise maintained. Not only is it cruelty against the animals (which is not my argument), but it’s causing damage to the homes – in the form of cat hair, faeces, odours, fleas and other parasites, damage to fixtures and fittings … the list goes on.

JohnBoy’s proposal is a lovely dream – wouldn’t it be good if we all had a right to a companion animal? I for one think it’s a great idea. I’ve rented in Canberra for a number of years, and yes it’s extremely difficult to have a pet in a rental and near impossible to have one in a flat or unit. On the surface of things, it seems horribly unfair to deny responsible pet owners the right to have a companion animal. But until there’s a means test for responsibility in terms of animal ownership, the minority will (once again) be ruining it for the majority. JohnBoy’s proposal – unfortunately – is open to massive abuse.

I don’t think it is appropriate to start telling landlords that they must be prepared to take tenants with pets.

That said, I am not a landlord, but I do love animals, and have in fact put off buying a cat or dog because I knew it would cause problems trying to rent in an already very difficult market. I’m happy to say that my wife and I are finally buying a property, and will now get a cat in the next few months.

If I was a landlord, I would certainly consider a cat or small dog as long as it was approved by the BC, and I would be making sure there were strict guidelines and expectations. For instance, I’d have it written in to the contract that the carpet is cleaned every 6 or 12 months by a cleaner which specialises in hypo-allergenic cleaning, curtains cleaned etc etc. I also think it would be fair for the landlord to choose the cleaning company. At the time of vacating the premises, the tenant would also be expected to pay for any damage, deodorising etc.

I would like to think that most pet owners would be prepared to accept these extra measures, as well as paying a little extra in rent (no more than 5%). I know if I had a pet, I could not bring myself to leaving them, so I’d be happy for the extra expectations.

I think that if people wish to live in a pet free environment, they should be allowed to do so. The setting up of body corporates and lease agreements with such restrictions allows people to live in a situation that they want.

Personally I see very little value in living in such a place. The point is though, I don’t want to see the stuck up have their desire to live in a joyless gated community taken away. It’s not my cup of tea but I’ll be damned if I won’t let them drink it.

Johnboy’s proposal would represent a blanket situation covering the entire territory. I humbly suggest that we allow different horses for different courses, as it were.

I’ve seen many more humans and especially children that do far more damage to properties than any of my pets ever could.

And if it was my house and land I’d discriminate until my heart’s content (well as much as the law would permit anyway).

Definitely something that should be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

Forgot to mention the Tenants Advice Service phone line is open from 9.30 am to 1 pm Monday to Friday and can be pretty hard to get on to since demand is very very high. The website is the best bet to start off with.

The ACT Tenants’ Union runs a free phone service for tenants in the A.C.T. called the Tenants’ Advice Service (phone 6247 2011). It also has a website where many of the major issues facing tenants are addressed (www.tenantsact.org.au).

They are familiar with the issue of pets under the present arrangements. (From memory clause 66 of the standard ACT tenancy agreement deals with pets, but don’t quote me on that.) And there will be legislative change for body corporates in unit title situations, again from memory, and that proposed legislation will cover rights to companion animals. (Again don’t quote me, because an old man like me has a funny memory.)

Duke said :

……..glad you brought it up, coz I wish to stable a pony in the spare bedroom of the house i’m leasing, which sounds perfectly reasonable to me……..

actually, in the kitchen. far more hygienic….

I’ve never been sure why damage-by-pets is treated any differently to damage-by-humans. If it’s really significantly more likely, then allow a larger bond to be required if someone wants a pet.

WMC Brilliant summary. Nothing more to be said on this topic I suppose.

cherry picking woody.

Oops, forgot one:

– people would sooner forget all about investing in property altogether than let a cat inside the house. On the one hand, you have an appreciating asset, great tax treatment and healthy returns. On the other hand, it’s a cat. This will create a housing shortage in the future. Well, one worse than we already have, anyway.

If I can just summarise the arguments against so far:

– starting today, legislation should never use the word ‘reasonable’, said word being one of those heralding The End of Days;
– if we let people have a cat or a small dog, they’ll want a pony, a sheep or a junkie next, and nobody will be able to stop them;
– cat saliva can survive professional carpet cleaning and could pose a public health hazard for years to come, much like radioactive waste; and
– on principle, the government shouldn’t be able to tell landlords to do anything, and if you think you’ve seen legislation where they already do precisely that, you’re wrong.

I think that people shouldn’t be allowed to own investment properties at all, but Socialism is out of fashion.

What it I am allergic to cats? I am I required to rent my house to a cat owner, then never live in it again?

I understand that my landlord insurance will cover against situations like the one described above, and then the lucky person who did a runner will have a large insurer’s legal team up their a** to recover the costs. Sucked in to them too.

I’m also a landlord and allow my tenant to have pets. No reason not to. As the tenant and pet owner they are responsible for any damage to my property and if any occurs beyond that covered by loss of bond I can sue them. A long winded and painful process but generally effective. I’ve never had the need to do so as most pet owners don’t want to cover damages cost and know how hard it is to get a place that allows pets and take VERY good care properties.

Bad tenants are bad tenants. Back in the 80’s a lady did a runner on a property my father owned. She left numerous cats locked inside and the resultant smell meant it needed all the carpets and curtains removed and to be completely repainted. Neither I nor my father blame the cats; we blame the woman.

As I indicated there are legal avenues in place to cover landlords for damage done to their property so I see no need to add a freedom to have pets clause. Those landlords that don’t allow pets just make my place more desirable 🙂 Having said that I do believe there that if there isn’t already there should be something preventing discrimination against those people who require animals as care animals (guide dogs, etc).

As for the body corporate thing, my last body corporate also band pets but it was almost universally ignored. I know my neighbors have some rights but I should be treated as a responsible pet owner, innocent of having pets that are a menace/ producing excessive noise/ smell/ etc unless proven otherwise. I thought that was the was our legal system should work – innocent until proven otherwise?

I do not think it is wise for a Government to dictate what people can do with their possessions. If such an argument was to get up, I would expect to see people no longer investing in housing in the ACT, and seeing that the current government has underpinning most of the economic growth to date on construction, it would end in a poo fight.

The end result would be all these relatively nice looking apartment blocks becoming soviet style gulags where body corporates would be very unwilling to vote to shell out cash for refurbishments for fear of the government overturning decisions if they had such a foot in the door.

I dig pets, well dogs and I am more than willing to wait that wee bit longer until I have house that is owned by myself with the appropriate space for them to kick rather than adding a spanner in the works chasing ‘dog friendly’ rentals in any given place I have chosen to reside. I think this concept of renters attempting to dictate what their landlords or accomodation beneficiaries can do with their investments is simply cock and bull. If the shoe is on the other foot, would anyone honestly let someone else pull this off? I know I would be looking long and hard at any agreement and seeing if there are any departures from the agreement i can wave in their face whilst I am inserting a pair of size 10’s up their jatzie.

I think that it’ll be a hard sell telling landlords that they can’t deny a lease based on pets. I’d like to see it foisted upon the body corporate though – these things are little power trips for residents to impose their views over people who do own their own units/townhouses. Any possible objection to pets in a townhouse that is owner occupied can already be addressed through the various domestic animals laws – noise, nuisance, aggression.

I’d support both situations though. I’d rather lease to the “crazy cat lady” with 5 cats than a young bloke with 10 pisshead friends all keen to have a Carney on the fittings and common areas.

As VYconformadore says above, as long as they pay on time and look after the place, it’s all good. This is where pet bonds and references are gold.

I would like to know if people with disabilities who are physically relient on animals such as guide dogs are being discriminated against as well.

If so, that is outrageous.

And if it is accepted that animals can be adequately trained to respect property in that circumstance, why should other owners not receive the same consideration in being allowed to demonstrate similar competencies in their own animals?

This is particularly the case for the Eleanor Rigbys … the chronically lonely and unloved who would have nothing to live for without the companionship of their pets. Not all disabilities are physical, and this is certainly a health issue.

Landlords and other owners and tenants should definitely not have to put up with unreasonable nuisance or damage, as is the case in many issues surrounding tenancy; but neither should people be discriminated against without just cause.

As a Canberra landlord, I allow my tenants to have pets. One guy had two dogs, the one before that had two cats. The current one doesn’t have any.

As a pet owner myself, i didn’t mind, however it was MY CHOICE. The idea that the government could force me to allow tenant owned pets into my property (even small ones) doesn’t sit well with me.

I would be very surprised if this idea became law and it did anything but reduce the supply of rentals on the market.

To the arguments that allowing pets would mean noise and dirtiness… these things are just as possible (and in fact more possible) with purely human tenants. Loud music, loud cars, smoking, parties, not cleaning the place, not taking out the rubbish for days on end…. Equating pet animals with these things is to throw an erroneous blanket over the whole lot, while ignoring the sad fact that many people are inconsiderate, noisy and dirty.

You’re a Kiwi right?

Never been there, but intend to visit someday : – )

Sheep as a companion?

You’re a Kiwi right?

Also ponies are not companion animals.

They’re used as guide ponies for the blind now http://www.guidehorse.org/photo_page.htm that seems like a companion animal use.

My sheep were companion animals, I miss them more than my dog, but then I bought a house because I wanted free reign in my choice of pets, my reasonable choice of pet would be unreasonable to someone else.

Stick with your cause johnboy, I mean it, truly, and this being Canberra it’s just wacky enough to get across the line. I’ve enjoyed sparring with you this evening – now i’m off to Civic to get all Carney-ed Up with my bro’s 🙂

Love Duke XX

Duke – that’s what reference checks are for. Done properly, they are usually very effective.

Yes because pet owners are all unemployed junkies.

That’s quite the mind you have there.

Not saying you can’t choose your tenants just saying no pets shouldn’t be a legal lease condition.

Sweet, so maybe I should just open up my rental property to all the junkies and unemployed bums looking for a place to crash – wouldn’t want people to think I was being discriminatory. All i’d need is a safety deposit and a promise they wouldn’t destroy the place.

To me it’s discrimination. I never said you weren’t entitled to your opinion.

It’s a populist cause johnboy, and the recent behaviour of Labor suggests you may even get some mileage out of it.

Nobody is saying you can’t own a companion animal, as your headline argues, but you want to impose your pets on landlords. That is wrong.

Your pet may be special to you but it means nothing to me, so don’t ask people who have borrowed and scrimped their way to an investment property to bend to your self indulgence.

I don’t really care about the gender, sexual orientation, culture, or pet status of any of my tenants provided they meet 2 criteria:
1) They pay the rent on time.
2) They look after the property.

And I always reserve the right to check references to ensure both points above occur.

Pandy said :

You wanna pet? Buy a house.

Just saying I don’t think it has to be like that Pandy.

You wanna pet? Buy a house.

Duke said :

That you would compare gays and aborigines to cats and dogs is despicable.

Actually comparing them to pet owners.

Who remain people I believe? Yes despicapable me.

And there you are using exactly the same language as those bigots.

No-one’s suggesting land lords not be re-imbursed for making good damages to their properties you know.

Frankly I’m astonished by the poll numbers. I was hoping for something close to 20% i.e. enough for MLA’s to get elected on. Early days certainly but it’s nice to know I’m not alone.

I never said it couldn’t be done johnboy, I said it shouldn’t be done. It would set a terrible precedent where landlords are unable to decide who resides in their property.

As for gays and aboriginals I would have no problem considering them along with all the other potential and most worthy tenants.

That you would compare gays and aborigines to cats and dogs is despicable.

anything to do noise pollution or damage to property.

Already covered under the animal nuisance provisions of the Domestic Animals Act 2000. Nobody’s saying that tenant’s companion animals should be treated any differently to any other domestic animal. If they disturb the peaceful enjoyment of others, they can be seized or even destroyed and the owners fined. Damage to the premises would be recovered from the bond like any other damage.

If you have already signed up to a lease or body corporate agreement, I can’t see any hope for some politician finding a legal loophole to override them. Good luck with that one.

Pets are more than ‘pets’, they are legitimate companions – and they are proven to be beneficial for your health. It seems unreasonable to me to have a blanket ban on pets.

I don’t know what I would do if I couldn’t have my moggy with me. (I guess I’ll never be living in a cat-free Canberra suburb!)

johnboy said :

circusmind said :

Ahh…legislation, the solution to all problems.

Which is not to say it has never been the solution to any problem….

Of course not. Still, seems pretty drastic to mandate that landlords allow pets. Some things are better left unregulated. We’re drifting ever closer towards an age where ‘that which is not compulsory is forbidden’.

Re: the ‘reasonable’ thing, anyone with an iota of legal know-how will be well aware of its usefulness. Hell, it’s in everything from tort to control orders.

I also agree that it is reasonable that landlords have a right to accept animals or not. I also believe it’s reasonable for body corporates to make decisions on these matters as well.

I well understand why people want to have pets, and I accept also that many people look after and care for their pets in a responsible manner. I have several elderly relatives whose pets really are their companions and friends, and I can’t imagine what their lives would be like without them. But they happen to be fortunate enough to live in their own homes. On the flip side, I’ve lived in apartments where the noise, smell or damage to the property was completely unreasonable and unfair on neighbouring tenants. Unhappily, in all but one of these instances, the neighbours with the pets seemed completely indifferent to the situation.

I would not support legislation to require landlords or body corporates to accept pets. It should be their choice.

Also johnboy, I think you’re drawing a long bow comparing the issue of whether pets should be allowed in apartments with aboriginal and gay rights. I hadn’t noticed that someone’s ethnicity or sexual orientation ever had anything to do noise pollution or damage to property.

For all of you with bottom lips a-tremble at the use of the word ‘reasonable’ in legislation, it already occurs no fewer than 50 times in the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 alone. There’s reasonable peace, reasonable time, reasonable condition, reasonable grounds, reasonable purposes, reasonable state of repair, reasonable excuses, reasonable regard, reasonable access, reasonable action, reasonable costs and so on. Here’s hoping you never have to enter into a tenancy agreement – all that ambiguity and uncertainty will make you wet your pants.

This is a good cause johnboy – keep it up.

circusmind said :

Ahh…legislation, the solution to all problems.

Which is not to say it has never been the solution to any problem….

Ahh…legislation, the solution to all problems.

As you can probably tell from my name, I am a cat lover. People can be pretty emotional when it comes to pets and rentals/body corporates. They can also have differing views of what is reasonable. Some dog owners may feel that their dog is part of their family and that it is reasonable for the dog to be confined to a tiny backyard in a townhouse complex. Or that their small dog can be inside a small apartment all day while their owner is at work. Without stimulation, these animals will often bark when their owner is out, thus disturbing the neighbours. The neighbours may not see this as reasonable.

I would consider it reasonable (and responsible) for cat owners to keep their pets inside so that they do not kill native wildlife. If living in apartments the owners of any pet should make sure that the smell is not disturbing the neighbours. I think that is the key word. If the pet is not ‘disturbing’ anyone, then it would be reasonable to have that pet in the complex. It is when the pets disturb other residents that it is a problem. Unfortunately, not all pet owners are responsible.

There have been topics about people having problems with noisy neighbours ie pets, music etc on this site often enough. What I have seen is that people have very power to do anything about problem pets. I think the rules for body corporates could include the option for pets as long as they don’t disturb the neighbours. If there are complaints, the resident would have the chance to improve the situation. If neighbours are still being disturbed then the pet should go. If you just allow people to have pets in apartments, rentals and townhouses, then it would be too hard to get rid of the problem pets. One of the advantages of body corporates is not having noisy pets in yards that are too small to be fair to the pets. Dogs need space to run and play. Cats don’t care too much where they are, as long as they can sleep in a patch of sunlight!

I think it’s reasonable for landlords to have a right to choose to accept animals or not.

However, the issue of bodies corporate being allowed to preclude animal ownership (or not) is a bit more complicated – I actually own my own unit, but I still couldn’t necessarily get a companion animal due to body corporate conditions imposed on my block (I’d need approval from the board – admittedly, from my examinations of how the board worked the last time I went to an AGM, I could probably get ON the board remarkably easily, but … not the point!)

When I rented I made a decision not to have a pet as I did not want to risk any damage to the owner’s house and not being financially well off at the time did not want the worry of paying for any damage. Rather not have to worry about it as much as I like animals. Now in my own house we have two cats.

Personally I think a landlord has the right to choose to accept animals or not. It is their property and if they don’t want to take the risk of an animal destroying carpets, curtains, whatever then that is their right. This should be clearly stated upfront though so prospective tenants can make the decision to rent knowing all the details.

I’d strongly support this. There is a robust tradition of using ‘reasonable’ in this sort of legislation, and a well-established mechanism for determining what this means in practice through appeals against decisions, etc. Once I know who my local candidates are, I’ll put this to them.

I have said it before and I’ll say it again… I own two indoor cats. As much as I love them dearly, and frequently have to forgive their unfortunate but often trespasses, they do and are actually causing long term damage to my property. But as I own my own place, and I take full responsibility for their actions.

If I were letting my place as a landlord, I would ensure that there is a clause in my lease documents that ensures that the tenant can not keep pets of any kind. Not negotiable, End of story. If any potential tenant doesn’t like it then they can go an find somewhere else to rent. The real world is indeed a harsh place.

The issue with Bodies Corporate (plural?) is a difficult one. What constitutes “reasonable” in terms of companion pet ownership? Until someone is prepared to clearly explain the definition of reasonable in unambiguous (plain English) terms, I would strongly oppose the the notion of the government (or any potential candidate) interfering with the current legislative arrangements.

Great.

Now we come to the truth, you don’t want it to happen, not that it can’t be done.

Fair enough, that’s what democracy is supposed to be about.

In the not very distant past landlords could knock back tenants for being gay or aboriginal too.

My point is that no Government should have the right to tell the owner of a house/flat they MUST allow an occupant to have a pet. A landlord decides who are the best occupants for his/her premises, end of story.

With you 100% on this one jb.

And suggesting that apartment blocks are going to suddenly be ‘full of dogs of all sizes and breeds’ is just as silly as the other straw-man arguments above.

Also I’d say that reasonable would include provision for additional pet-bonds and even pet-surcharges.

It wasn’t a threat of moderation, it was promise to consider your opinions in low regard.

By saying reasonable it means I acknowledge there is a need to have limits (in fact existing companion animal legislation already has a great many of these).

It is not beyond the wit of humankind to address these when drafting the legislation.

Now you want to use some doubt as to reasonableness to push for a continuation of a blanket ban.

This suggests to me that your argument might not be completely honest.

To say that because you are unsure as to how many cats your neighbour might choose to have is justification to stop her having any cats at all is to simply suggest you are against her having cats.

Still waiting on your idea of reasonable johnboy. Define your argument before you threaten me with moderation – you want this to be legislation remember – a German Shepherd in an apartment for example?

Perhaps a maximum weight for apartment dogs would be a good start.

Clearly ignorant of the long and noble use of “reasonable”.

I’ll be sure to bear that in mind in future when assessing anything else you have to say.

I think we can all agree that ponies in apartments are un-reasonable.

Which is why I put that word in there.

Also ponies are not companion animals. Another carefully chosen phrase you seem to have missed.

……..glad you brought it up, coz I wish to stable a pony in the spare bedroom of the house i’m leasing, which sounds perfectly reasonable to me……..

Gee because no other policy proposal has ever relied on the catch-all of reasonable?

Oh wait, actually a great many have.

Anyway, you’re agin it, fair enough.

Nope, it’s a completely crazy suggestion Johnboy, particularly as you have not stated what you believe reasonable companion animal ownership to be.

Cat ownership in apartments is probably workable, but can you imagine apartment blocks full of dogs of all sizes and breeds? The smell, mess and damage would have to be dealt with and paid for by all apartment dwellers regardless of their animal ownership status.

Perhaps instead of pets, people could try their hand at, I dunno, human companionship?!