Against the blanket ban on dogs in New Zealand city rentals

LEE SUCKLING
Last updated 14:09, August 9 2016
 
Every time I've rented a property in the last five years, I've had to lie about my dog. 
While they are somewhat more accepting in provincial New Zealand, landlords in cities (and city-fringe suburbs) in this country are extremely hard-line about pets.

They're convinced that a blanket policy against animals for renters is the safest way to ensure their properties stay in good condition. 

You're not allowed to refuse a potential tenant a rental property if they have young children who bust around the house on trikes, nor can you ask them if they're clumsy and drink red wine. 
But you can refuse to offer somebody a lease because they have a quiet and well-behaved animal. Despite the fact a rowdy toddler or spill-prone drinker could do far greater damage to a property. 

My dog has never chewed a wall or scratched wooden floors. Never peed inside. Never barked when left alone. Sure, he sheds a little fur, but I vacuum daily to compensate. 
See, we dog owners, we're usually very conscientious people. We are reliable and committed. We know how to take care of what we own (or rent, as it were). We pick up dog poo with our own hands daily to prove our commitment. 

I've had to lie about my dog – or rather, omit him from rental applications, because I know the problem is landlord's views on animals, not animals themselves. 

I'm a good tenant. A dependable tenant. The kind of tenant who gets a bottle of wine left on the bench after property inspections, because I keep the place in such good nick. 

If I'd been upfront about my dog, though, I wouldn't have been able to rent any of my previous properties. Advertisements for them all strictly stated "no dogs", and trying your luck with full disclosure is simply too risky in the race against other prospective tenants. 

This isn't a new revelation, so why is this pet issue so timely, you might ask? Well, because my generation of Millennials is really struggling to buy houses in cities right now. 
When we were teenagers dreaming of owning a house one day, half a million dollars seemed exorbitant. A decade or so later, it's what New Zealand calls "affordable housing", despite the fact that salaries for our mid-level jobs haven't budged. 

So while we've been locked out of the housing market, we've also been locked out of pet ownership. 

This is problematic because in this nation, my generation is preparing itself to continue renting into our 30s and even 40s, because our jobs are all in major cities. And as it currently stands, we're going to have to live without the love of animals unless we lie about them. 

This notion that dogs and metropolitan life are not conducive to each other, however, is completely false. When I was in New York last year, for example, every morning I'd notice countless dogs emerging from brownstone steps, all ready for a run around Central Park. 

I've seen the same in London – where dogs are even allowed on the Tube, in San Francisco, Amsterdam, Paris, Istanbul, even uber-dense Tokyo. 

If you're a conscientious dog owner, who would never dream of putting an Irish Wolfhound in a 30 square metre apartment, you'll have your dog's comfort and safety at the forefront of your mind and will bear it in mind when choosing somewhere to live. 

So, why this blanket ban on dogs in New Zealand city rentals? Given that we're not able to enjoy the virtues of urban home ownership, why should we also be disallowed the emotional and physical benefits of pet ownership too? 

I have no answer to this. It just doesn't make sense to me. 

What I do have, however, is a solution. It relies with every individual landlord (or acting agent) changing their blanket policies on pets. 

Consider this: Every TradeMe rental ad, or other real estate advertisement web page, should say "pets negotiable". Crossing off a potential tenant because they have an animal should be as unjust as denying somebody a lease because they have small kids.

Instead, if you do have a pet – especially if it's a dog which seemingly warrants the most concern, despite the fact cats can behave far worse – it's up to you to prove, upon lease offer, that your animal is suitable for your chosen accommodation. 

This means being asked for a track record from former neighbours and landlords about your dog's behaviour, and even a meeting with the animal so a landlord can make a case-by-case call. 
Landlords could even introduce a special "pet bond", to be lodged with Tenancy Services, as an extra precaution in case of damage (although I'm actually on the fence about this idea, because a landlord could never request a special "toddler bond", could they?). 

But if that's what it takes to give a landlord peace of mind that a property will be taken care of, I think most pet owners would happily pay an increased bond to live where we want to live. 
That is, of course, because most of us know our pets are well-behaved and we'll get our entire bonds back. 

Failing this, we're just going to have to keep lying about our pets. 

We'll clean fastidiously, remove any trace of chew toys, food bowls, and bedding upon inspections, and continue playing up to this farce that 21st Century renting in metropolitan New Zealand means succumbing to an antiquated can't-have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too view of urban life. 

(Source fromhttp://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/home-property/smart-living/82949855/against-the-blanket-ban-on-dogs-in-new-zealand-city-rentals)