Tuesday, March 27, 2007
SF is a Lousy Town for Dogs to Live in and Here's Why
I am so tired hearing about how San Francisco is a great dog town. People are always talking about the 120,000 dogs in this city and how the people here just love and embrace canines. The fact of the matter is that it’s all just one big pile of rancid poo. San Francisco doesn’t welcome dogs. The seagulls and sea lions down at Fisherman’s Wharf have more rights. To be honest, the citizens and politicians in this area do everything they can to discourage people from owning dogs in SF. This latest story is just another example that illustrates how anti-pooch this city really is. The Animal Control and Welfare Commission is currently urging the SF Board of Supervisors to adopt legislation that will allow landlords to raise a tenant’s rent 5 percent per pet as an incentive for property owners to be more open to welcoming animals into their apartments or homes. Local dog owner Rex Reginald, a recent Los Angeles transplant, is behind the effort. Currently, it is so difficult to rent a place if you own dogs that many people are forced to give up their pets in order to find somewhere to live. If you do get to keep your dog, it usually means that you have to move into an area that’s sub par – unsafe, unclean or unkempt – just because you want to own a dog. Reginald came up with a proposal a while back that would have given a property-tax break for owners of rental apartments if they rented to pet owners. It was soundly rejected. The city should have stepped up and approved that bill, but like I said, people don’t like dogs in this stuck-up snooty place. The bleeding liberals in this town full of hypocrites enjoy the reputation of being an animal-friendly place, but when it comes time to put up or shut up, they’re all bark and no bite. You can have a dog, as long as it doesn’t bark, crap, go outside….or breath. Now landlords are going to be able to charge pet owners even more money and gouge people even further. Responsible dog owners are better tenants than most, as a rule. They go out of their way to make sure they don’t destroy the place and will always be certain that their living quarters are kept clean. They steam clean the carpets more often; they have maids in many cases – not to mention the security a dog on the premises provides from break-ins and burglaries. Kids cause more trouble and are more likely to damage property than any dog is. When was the last time you heard about a dog drawing on the walls with crayons or taking a dump down a heating vent? (Both things we did when we were kids, by the way.) Irresponsible dog owners give all dog owners a bad name, and that’s a shame. And landlords should be able to determine who they want to rent to without the city dictating the terms. But, let’s get down to the bone of the matter. San Francisco is NOT a dog-friendly town. It’s a money-friendly, income-friendly, tax payer-friendly, high rent-friendly, yuppie-friendly town. Dogs are second-class citizens here, and the sooner the media spin stops the better. If SF wants to take our pets out of the doghouse, they need to do something to make us believe that they care about them, instead of consistently lifting their legs on pet owners with more restrictions and added costs. And allowing landlords to raise dog owners’ rents is surely not the solution.