What tenant would you rather rent to?

[Flamenspiel]

"No pets" is not an issue in BC or Alberta. Even in BC where everything else is off limits. The link posted that was posted is from Ontario, I can tell you it was great to be a tenant there in my younger days! They even had rent control.

British Columbia
In B.C. landlords are able to restrict pets on the premises, but all other forms of discrimination are not permitted.
Alberta & Manitoba
In Alberta age is not a protected ground and can be used to identify ideal tenants. However, landlords are prohibited from discriminating against tenants based on: race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religious beliefs, gender (including pregnancy, sexual harassment, and gender identity), physical disability, mental disability, marital status, family status, source of income, sexual orientation.

[YYC in LAX]

Tenant B isn't necessarily the PERFECT model tenant, but she sounds pretty damn fine to me. Nurse with an undergrad degree. She has proven the ability to work with deadlines at school and I assume she is a caring and respectable person.

Having a boyfriend is probably a good thing, no? Less chance she has random guys coming over and gives her stability.

I'm not a cat owner or fan but they seem content to just lay around.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

The Alberta section

I read the Alberta section and in nowhere does it say pets are a human right.

More reading specifically for Alberta.
http://www.legalresourcecentre.ca/si...PetDec2012.pdf

Landlord is free to dictate if pets are allowed or not.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

The Alberta section

I have a question about this. Do those things change if you as the landlord personally live on the premisis?

I ask because I have a condo in which I live but also rent out two of the other rooms and I have definitely gone with some people over others for a few of the reasons listed. Age: Yes I would like to live with people within my own age group if possible. Religion: This is a tricky one as you're not sure how it will impact daily life until it does. But if their religion would prevent me from doing things I want to do, or if it would have them in my face all the time about their beliefs, damn straight I wouldn't want them their. If their fine to keep it to themselves its all good. Gender: Never an issue for me, but could understand if a woman only wanted to live with other women or vice versa. Family Status: I feel it would be up to me whether I wanted to fill my house with kids or a dysfunctional group of people.

[Sliver]

Don't rent to either. I wouldn't let people tie up their dog in my backyard, let alone have it running around free in my house. That's crazy. "No pets" should be the first thing people read on your ad. In this market, there's no need to subject your property to the extra and unnecessary wear and tear. I guess you could charge an extra $500 per month, but even that may not cover all your costs when you consider having to tear up your sod to repair the damage back there, messed up flooring, messed up walls, general stench, etc.

[codfather]

Edit - Beaten to the point about Alberta section.

As a renter with dogs I personally know how hard it is to find a place and so I lean towards A. Having said that, I'm apparently not like many renters in that I care about where I live and any damage my dogs do cause I will gladly pay to fix/replace. I would feel like a jerk if I damaged and/or ruined someone else's property.

[topfiverecords]

It's kind of a dick move to list and show a property saying you're allowing pets, and then back out and wait for option C because you got applicants with pets.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

"No pets" is not an issue in BC or Alberta. Even in BC where everything else is off limits. The link posted that was posted is from Ontario, I can tell you it was great to be a tenant there in my younger days! They even had rent control.

British Columbia
In B.C. landlords are able to restrict pets on the premises, but all other forms of discrimination are not permitted.
Alberta & Manitoba
In Alberta age is not a protected ground and can be used to identify ideal tenants. However, landlords are prohibited from discriminating against tenants based on: race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religious beliefs, gender (including pregnancy, sexual harassment, and gender identity), physical disability, mental disability, marital status, family status, source of income, sexual orientation.

When I was in BC, we were told that they could say no pets before you start renting, but if you are renting already and had a pet, they couldn't turn around and tell you no pets.

[darklord700]

Wait for C and stipulate no pets and no smoking, drinking, smoking pots if possible.

Better yet, stipulate the tenant is only allowed inside the premises from 6pm - 7 am on weekdays and all days on weekends to reduce wear and tear on the property.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Igster

Um, no.

So your position is that anyone who is renting a place should take people with pets at no extra charge?

Even though there is inevitably damage and extra wear and tear?

But owners should just donate that to pet owners to be nice people?

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I'd wait it out for Tenant C.

This.

I rented to a divorcee with a child once. The ex husband lived nearby as well and even came along for the viewing. Even her aunt lived in the neighbourhood and came by. Everything seemed amicable. Sometimes when I would go by to collect rent, the ex would be there playing with his daughter.

However about 3-4 months down the road, out of the blue, the aunt calls me because she stopped by the house, peeked through the window and noticed she and all her belongings were gone. Just skipped town. Not the worst situation to be in because she cleaned the place up okay and I had her DD, but nonetheless it was a pain.

Originally Posted by Igster

Um, no.

And actually yes. Under the Act you are allowed to charge a non-refundable pet deposit. And in fact it HAS to be non-refundable if you're charging a full month's rent for DD because you can't take more than one month's rent as a refundable DD.

[Igster]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

So your position is that anyone who is renting a place should take people with pets at no extra charge?

Even though there is inevitably damage and extra wear and tear?

But owners should just donate that to pet owners to be nice people?

No. But I think that people shouldn't automatically be discriminated against just because they have pets. Should we just kill all the animals because there is no where to live if you have them?

I'm fine with a pet damage deposit, but not a fan of people discriminating against me because I have a pet and they think all pet owners are idiots that don't train their animals.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Igster

No. But I think that people shouldn't automatically be discriminated against just because they have pets. Should we just kill all the animals because there is no where to live if you have them?

I'm fine with a pet damage deposit, but not a fan of people discriminating against me because I have a pet and they think all pet owners are idiots that don't train their animals.

That's kind of ridiculous. I won't rent to people with animals. I don't feel that's wrong. Let them rent elsewhere, I don't want the headache

[Igster]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

That's kind of ridiculous. I won't rent to people with animals. I don't feel that's wrong. Let them rent elsewhere, I don't want the headache

And that's up to you I suppose. Not sure how it's ridiculous though. I'll pay the pet deposit. I'll be accountable for anything that is an issue, but it sucks as a pet owner who has to rent that so many options are not an option because people like yourself discriminate because you lump all pet owners into the same group and you "don't want the headache".

[To Be Quite Honest]

Nobody takes pets in Calgary.

Charge $200 non refundable deposit and $50.00 a month extra per dog.

[Barbecue]

Originally Posted by Igster

No. But I think that people shouldn't automatically be discriminated against just because they have pets. Should we just kill all the animals because there is no where to live if you have them?

I'm fine with a pet damage deposit, but not a fan of people discriminating against me because I have a pet and they think all pet owners are idiots that don't train their animals.

Is it discrimination? No
Because the Pet(s) is an extra tenant when you're living there, the landlord has every right to take that into consideration. Just like a couple living in a condo vs. a single person.

Owning a pet isnt a right, it's a luxury.
So if you're at that stage in your life where you're renting instead of owning property, think about accepting the risks a pet would bring when applying to be a tenant

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Igster

No. But I think that people shouldn't automatically be discriminated against just because they have pets. Should we just kill all the animals because there is no where to live if you have them?

I'm fine with a pet damage deposit, but not a fan of people discriminating against me because I have a pet and they think all pet owners are idiots that don't train their animals.

There is always somewhere that will allow them. It might mean having to downgrade a little though. Lord knows I had to settle for crappy apartments before on account of the girlfriend/wife having a cat.

Or you could just kill all animals. Whatever makes more sense I guess.

[Igster]

Originally Posted by Barbecue

Is it discrimination? No
Because the Pet(s) is an extra tenant when you're living there, the landlord has every right to take that into consideration. Just like a couple living in a condo vs. a single person.

Owning a pet isnt a right, it's a luxury.
So if you're at that stage in your life where you're renting instead of owning property, think about accepting the risks a pet would bring when applying to be a tenant

Meh. Agree to disagree. I think many landlords are missing out on good tenants by lumping all pet owners into a single group.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Igster

Meh. Agree to disagree. I think many landlords are missing out on good tenants by lumping all pet owners into a single group.

They might be, but right now there are a ton of good tenants to pick from in the "perfect on paper" group, so why take that risk?

A few years from now the tables may be turned, but at this moment, it's a landlords dream out there.

[Barbecue]

Originally Posted by Igster

Meh. Agree to disagree. I think many landlords are missing out on good tenants by lumping all pet owners into a single group.

What's there to miss out on?

all Tenants pay the same, and "good" tenants dont benefit the landlord anymore than a quiet one. Cant fault the Landlords for trying to minimize headaches for themselves

in my experience as both a pet owning tenant and property manager, those headaches usually come from the pet