COMPANION ANIMAL WELFARE ADVOCATES ARE HOUSING ADVOCATES

“[Restrictive pet policies are] part of a larger, centuries-long project to basically control the lives of the powerless. Not being able to have an animal companion is one of many struggles that you will face as a renter trying to live your life.” Dan Rose, PhD, Winston-Salem State University, quoted from “The Latest Frontier in Housing Inequity? Pet Friendliness.”

Pet-inclusive housing is defined as rental housing that is free of breed, weight, and size restrictions and without nonrefundable upfront fees or monthly pet rents (Applebaum, et al., 2024).

• Only about 9% of all rental housing allows pets without breed, weight, and size. This research does not specify low-income/subsidized and does not include the use of nonrefundable fees, so likely fewer units meet this broad definition of “pet-inclusive housing” (Carlisle-Frank et al., 2005).
  • For example, in California, only 1% of surveyed low-income housing providers allowed pets without major breed, weight, or size restrictions and only 2 out of 153 properties allowed pets without additional nonrefundable fees (HSUS, 2022).
• The Fair Housing Act protects any tenants with assistance animals from discrimination in housing accommodations via a “reasonable accommodation” request. It also exempts these tenants from restrictive pet policies in rental housing, such as breed and size restrictions or additional deposits and fees.

Restrictive pet policies deepen housing inequities for low-income and BIPOC renters.

• Poverty and structural inequality create obstacles to affordable veterinary and pet wellness services similar to the challenges and barriers to accessing healthy food, education, jobs, health care and housing. With tens of millions of pets living with families in poverty—at least triple the number of dogs and cats entering shelters—the extreme lack of access to pet resources, including affordable pet-inclusive housing, is a national crisis (HSUS’ Pets for Life).

• A 2020 study found that “while the vast majority of landlords allowed dogs and cats at rental units in predominantly white neighborhoods, less than half permitted pets at properties in majority African-American neighborhoods” (Rose et al., 2020).
• Breed restrictions like a ban on pit bulls were “a new form of redlining to keep minorities out of majority-white neighborhoods” (Linder, 2018).
• In Texas, “[l]ow-income communities and communities of color were more likely than higher income and predominantly white communities to pay disproportionately higher fees to keep pets in their homes” (Applebaum, et al., 2021).
• “Junk fees add to the already heavy burden that exorbitant rents place on renters, with over 40% of renter households—19 million households—in the United States being “cost burdened,” i.e., paying over 30% of their income on housing costs. As an advocate from South Carolina explained, landlords will advertise rentals for $1100, but after pet fees, deposits, utility deposits, third-party company deposits, pest control fees, valet trash fees (which people rarely would opt to use and often does not actually exist in practice), the rent will be up to $1800 per month” (National Consumer Law Center, 2023).
• In one national survey, over half of respondents making less than $56,000 per year lived in housing with restrictive pet policies (Hills, 2024).
• On average, residents in pet-friendly housing stay 21% longer than those in non-pet-friendly housing. This translates to residents staying about 10 additional months (Pet Inclusive Housing Initiative, 2021).

Discriminatory housing policies harm both people and their pets.

• A study found that African American neighborhoods surveyed did not have the dog parks, pet supply stores, and veterinarians that white and gentrifying neighborhoods did (Dame article, 2024).
• Some tenants in affordable housing have expressed that because of “safety concerns at their housing unrelated to pets, they did not experience the social benefits of pet ownership often cited in other human-animal interaction studies. This indicates that placement of affordable housing in areas of high crime may be preventing pet-owning tenants from experiencing the myriad benefits related to increased social interaction and cohesion often found in pet-friendly communities (Mascitelli et al., 2024).
• Anthropologists underscore the significance of human-animal relationships during crises, emphasizing the pivotal role of animal companions in providing emotional stability, social support, and a sense of familiarity amidst the turmoil of displacement. These bonds are not merely sentimental but serve as vital coping mechanisms, contributing to individuals’ resilience and psychological well-being amid environmental emergencies and disasters (Kim & Castillo, 2024).

Limited pet-inclusive rental housing has consequences for people and their pets.

• Research shows that between 7-33% (average reported is 14%) of owner surrenders of pets to animal shelters are due to underlying housing insecurity (Loney, 2023).
  • Relinquishment due to “loss of home” is on the rise (Applebaum et al., 2024). Relinquishment due to housing issues is the most commonly cited “involuntary” reason for relinquishment (FIREPAW, 2003).
• Housing relinquishment can stem from pet-related restrictions, landlord issues or conflict, housing loss, unhoused or unsheltered owners, moving, etc. In one study, small dogs were almost as likely to be relinquished due to housing as large dogs. Cats made up more than one-third of all pets relinquished (Applebaum et al., 2024).
• People with lower income levels report greater barriers to adoption due to experiencing pet-related housing restrictions (Hills, 2024).

Tenants with pets in subsidized affordable housing face additional barriers due to restrictive pet policies.

• The Fair Housing Act requires that at least one pet is allowed in HUD-insured or subsidized projects that serve the elderly or people with disabilities (24 CFR Part 243, Subpart C).
• Tenants of public housing are also permitted to keep pets (42 U.S. Code § 1437z–3) subject to reasonable requirements (24 CFR Part 960 Subpart G). The restrictive pet policies typical of these units, including breed, weight, and size limitations constrain residents of general occupancy developments. They are also subject to fees such as pet deposits (see Public Housing Occupancy Guidebook). Additionally, certain programs allow exemptions to the law.
• Tenants in subsidized housing report great difficulty in securing housing, in general, but especially housing they can afford and that allows their pets. In Houston, TX, tenants living in subsidized housing reported unaffordable pet fees, breed and size restrictions, unclear pet policies, and housing that lacks basic infrastructure for pets such as dog waste stations, or access to sidewalks or greenspaces for exercising pets (Mascitelli et al., 2024).
• Confusion and misinformation about service and assistance animals create barriers for qualified tenants. In a survey of California low-income housing providers, numerous properties indicated they were pet-friendly citing a policy to allow emotional support animals (ESA) or service animals however they did not permit companion animals (HSUS, 2022). The inconsistencies among properties leave the tenants responsible for advocating for their rights – tenants who often lack access to legal representation and have few options for alternative housing and fear retaliation.
• Reducing restrictions on pet ownership in rental housing would create a more equitable and accessible housing market for pet owners. Lifting restrictions could provide pet inclusive rental housing for an estimate of 8.2 million additional animals, while improving the lives of their owners. Furthermore, easing restrictions could prevent the surrender of up to 10.5 million pets nationwide (Pet Inclusive Housing Initiative, 2021).

How can we better support pets in affordable housing?

Learning from the experiences of 24 tenants in Houston, TX about what it’s like looking for and living in affordable housing that accepts pets