No it is NOT fair especially because they never enforced the "no pet policy for years" and now they expect all the tenants to just give up their pets at a drop of a hat. I'd move, find somewhere else to live before I'd give up my pet but before I moved I would seek legal help and maybe even start a petition or something to fight back. Animal shelters are full of abandoned pets, the tenants want their pets they are family. There is no reason why when they allowed this to go on for so long that the tenants should face eviction over it, they could like charge a monthly fee or something to those that have pets now, and not allow new tenants to have pets that's what they did where my Mom lives. The tenants shouldn't have to give up their pets just because someone all of a sudden decided it's time to get rid of them. It's ridiculous.

Touchy subject with me because I happen to live in an area where a landlord allowing a pet in his or her rental is very, very rare; which is one of the main reasons I now live in a fifth wheel RV. I don't believe landlords should be able to tell a tenant if they can or cannot have a pet. It comes down to the idea of "a man's home is his castle." Well, it's really NOT in today's society unless you own your own place, because landlords just love to shove their nose in your door to find out what you are doing. I understand they are trying to protect their investment, but let's look at this realistically here...

Rental sanitation laws state that a rental must be repainted and the carpet professionally steam-cleaned before it can be rented out again. Well, once you do that, all remnants of the pet is gone. But, a lot of landlords don't do this. I had one myself who I witnessed on several occasions had people move out of his duplexes and he never cleaned a darn thing nor repainted anything and would rent it back out as is. They call those slum lords!

The other point I would like to make is that it isn't the pet that makes the mess. It's the people. If someone is irresponsible and doesn't clean out their cat's litter box, yes, it is going to make a mess. Consequently, if someone is irresponsible and doesn't watch their toddler as they should, he will drop his blood-red kool-aid on the beige carpet and make a permanent stain. It's not whether the people have pets or not, it's the TYPE of people you are renting to in the first place.

All the landlords I've run across are highly inscrupulous and greedy. All they want is their rentals full with the least amount of risk involved and they don't care about anything else. They aren't all like that, just the ones I have run across, but real estate is like any other invsetment. There is always going to be risk involved. The only difference with the risk involved in real estate as opposed to risk in other investments is that you can try to minimize that risk by bullying and controlling the poor people who live there. I rented for two years and that was enough. I am very happy in my RV where I can have as many pets as I want, can paint the interior any color I want, and can tell all those nasty, greedy landlords to kiss my little white butt, I'm not taking it anymore! I only wish other people had as much passion and conviction about this subject. If that were the case this wouldn't even be an issue.

Whether you have a pet or not, if you ever run across a landlord who says "no pets," call him up and let him know you have no pet and would rent from him if it weren't for him not allowing pets. Even if you disagree with what I say above, still do it because it shows landlords they can't step on their tenants. Any landlord who is that anal about his or her rental would make a bad landlord anyway. It's a matter of principal. Stand up for your rights and the rights of others!

It's not fair for people who've had pets... especially if there was a rule that pets were not allowed but it was ignored, because when authorities choose to not enforce a law, especially if it's a pattern longer than five years, it sets a precedent that's basically impossible to overturn.

If there had been no rule against pets, and then they just added one now, they have a lot more clout for getting the pets out, but if there was rule before that was not being enforced, there's lots of lawyers who could get their decision to start enforcing now thrown out.

From their point of view, it would have been better off to have had no rule about pets and then add one forcing their removal, than to have had a rule about pets that they did not enforce.

It sounds like what they really want to do is crank up the rent, but they can't just kick out long-term residents who are paying rent that's less than the market rate because they're protected by rent-increase legislation, so the building up-graders are hitting below the belt, which is at the pets, because they know that most people can't stand to just give up a pet if it's a cat or especially a dog.

BUT... they were lax about enforcing it before, so that created a precedent, so get a lawyer who knows what he's doing with tenants rights as a function of precedents, and they'll have to modify the rule to say that existing tenants must be excluded, but no *new* tenants may have pets.

It seems like they are fully within their rights. Is it fair? No. The 30 days notice is especially unfair. I think the best thing to do might be to acknowledge that it's been an unenforced policy, and give something like a year for people to relocate. Also, I'd like to know when it occurred to them that they'd like to once again have a pet free building. Surely it wasn't thought of as the last coat of paint was going on. Why not announce this when the renovations were beginning?

Yes they are being fair. If the housing was in disrepair anyway they might as well not be strict; but, now that they have renovated there is no reason to allow pets and the damage pets invariably do. Those people that want pets should move. This is subsidized housing, and beggars can't be choosers. Or, they can try somewhere else. There is no basic right to a pet. It is a luxury that you can earn; but, if you don't earn the money to pay for a pet and its housing then too bad.

I am not a lawyer, but I believe them to be within their rights, and rights generally tend to trump fairness. I think property owners should have the right to set any legal rules they like, providing that they aren't discriminating against a protected status (race, gender, etc.). For example, if you knock on my door, I'm within my right to say you can't come into my home unless you strip naked, dance the hokie-pokey and bark like a dog for my amusement. It's my house, and if you don't want to do comply with my stupid, unfair and arbitrary rules you don't have to enter it.

I do sympathize with renters, as many people who rent do so because they can't afford to buy a home and thereby acquire the ability to make their own rules. This results in poor people becoming the unwilling subjects of other people's rules. For better or worse, though, this is how society has always worked. Money = Power, and those who lack one tend to lack both. I once was a renter and hated some of things I agreed to in my leases, but I endured it until I could save enough money to buy my own home.

While harsh and possibly unfair, the landlord has the right to make rules and enforce them. If the tenant agreed to these rules in their lease, they were in the wrong to sign the lease and then break the no pet policy. If their choice landed them in a tough position, it's their own fault. They didn't have to break the rules. I think it is the pets that people should pity, as they had no choice in being acquired by rule-breaking owners and now many of them likely will be given away, abandoned or otherwise traumatized.

Think of this situation in analogy. Lets say I am an abusive spouse and I beat my partner every day for a week. This is against the rules governing assault and battery, but for that first week my spouse never reports me to the police. On the 8th day the spouse decides they no longer want to put up with this abuse and they call the police and turn me in. Just because the spouse didn't complain the first 7 times doesn't mean that they are no longer protected by the rules governing assault and battery. The rule doesn't magically vanish simply because it wasn't diligently enforced. (There are some cases where failure to enforce a rule causes the rule to no longer apply, such as when people fail to enforce their copyright they often lose their copyright. I don't know if such things apply to landlords and tenants.)

Also, keep in mind that unless someone is desperately poor, chances are fair that they could afford other options. For example, they could do something extreme and move from expensive Massachusetts to a cheap part of Texas and buy a mobile home for less than their Arlington rent. It is inconvenient and unpleasant to contemplate a major life change in order to gain a bit of freedom, but freedom never has been and never will be without cost.

I do see both sides to this, if my company were to put that much into renovations I would be fussy too, but I know many people who have pets, which are like children. Perhaps they should not renovate one building and allow the pets there. It seems cruel to toss out those folks.

I don't know if this will help.
I'm a landlord in Virgina, which is also a commonwealth like MASS. If there is a land lord allows some thing that validates the rules of the lease, then the land lord can't enforce the rules any longer. Tenant can fight using this in court. Tenants use this to not pay rent and rent for free. The land lord can try to enforce this again when the lease is up. If the tenant has pets they will just not let them sign the new lease intill the pet is gone and they sign an addendum. Basically evicting them.

The Landlord owns the property and a tenant just rents space. The rule are there to protect the landlord and all the tenants.

Hope this was helpful

Why not grandfather in the people with pets. When the pet dies they cannot replace the pet with another one?

All NEW tenants would not be allowed to have pets.

A 30 day notice to get rid of pet or be evicted is obscene. This seems to advocate a destruction of animal life as this would most likely be the situation because most animal shelters that do not destroy animals have a waiting list.

The Housing Authority (I'm very sure) did not do these renovations overnight. When they started the renovations they should have let tenants know at THAT time going forward AFTER renovations the "overlooked ignored pet policy" was going to be enforced once all renovations were completed.

Instead some arrogant lazy politician in Arlington decided LONG after the renovations were completed the pets had to go? Another short-sighted inept policy maker slow-thinker short on big-picture at work.

Yes, and I agree with all points above. Also it should be considered that if the pet owners were responsible and no damage would be done to the rented property and their pets would not be nuisance to the neighbours, this policy would have not been enforced.

My advice is to write a petition and propose that some pets are allowed and some prohibited. For example, aquarium fish, hamsters, lizards and other species that do not do damage, make noise or pose danger will be allowed.

In that case it would be a win-win scenario - you get to keep a pet and the landlord's happy. Of course, it will be painful to give up existing pets, but still better than giving up pet ownership all together.