can landlord limit number of emotional support animals?

[Kirsten]

So they can't charge a pet deposit. That is not the same as saying they aren't pets. It certainly doesn't say they are medical equipment.

In my state, they can't charge for a dog license for a service dog. Does that mean they aren't dogs? Does it mean they aren't licensed, because the fee is waived? (note: my service dog is licensed, I just didn't get charged for it)

The only place, that I have ever seen, where it specifically says "service dog's are not pets" is the business brief.

Here's one example where they lump pets for the disabled and elderly intogether with service dogs:  http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/FINALRULE/Pet_Ownership_Final_Rule.pdf (note this does not apply to all housing, just a certain subsection, but this rule was issued to make that subsection compliant with the FHAA.

[responsiblek9]

  In the federal food stamp regs service dog costs are considered a medical expense. Like equipment.
One way people have come to the view the service dog is not seen as a pet. 

[Lin]

I think you're trying to discuss something completely different than I am.

[Roxie]

That is true Nora!

SD's maintenance expenses (including costs of travel to/from getting the food & vet care, grooming care, training equipment (including treats) and gear are all authorized to be used to calculate HUD and subsidized housing costs in addition to the rate of food stamp allowance.

[Kirsten]

Let's try again.

Does it actually SAY they are durable medical equipment or are you concluding that because you can deduct them LIKE (not as, but like) equipment?  You can deduct dependants too. (note: tax laws are different from housing laws, just like the ADA is different from the FHAA which is different from the ACAA, so even if you could prove the were machines for tax purposes, that means nothing when it comes to pets in housing--they are not parallel laws).

You guys are reaching. Most likely it is a knee-jerk reaction to the statement there is some overlap between a service dog and a pet dog. They are dogs. Hands up, everyone who treats their dog like durable medical equipment any part of the time. Now hands up those who treat them like beloved pets when off duty. Now fess up. Anyone else whisper "I love you" to your service dog when he gives you a sly muppet grin while on duty?

So tossing the whole service dogs are not pets argument out the window...

What do we REALLY have?

Landlord says you can have one pet dog. Possible scenarios:

1.  You get a service dog, or already have a service dog
2.  You have a pet dog, then ask for an accommodation to add a SD
3.  You have a service dog, then want to add an additional dog as a pet

Scenarios 1and 2 aren't the trouble spots.

So why is it really an issue whether that service dog counts in the pets slot?
Possibilities:
1. It demeans the service dog by putting it in the same category with pets
2. It means you get treated less favorably than everyone who is not disabled
3. It's a perk or loophole you deserve for being disabled

It does not demean the service dog. There is nothing wrong with pet dogs. Remember that the actual rights belong to the disabled human and that the FHAA treats pets for the mentally disabled the same as service dogs for the disabled. Parading a pet in places where pets are not permitted by buying a vest and ID off the Internet, regardless of how horribly the beast behaves, or how it affects the way people view legit teams--that demeans service dogs.

It does not mean you get treated less favorably than others. They get their pets and you get your service dog. Your service dog does all that a pet does and more. That puts you ahead of the game.

This isn't a "plus one" situation where you automatically get one more than everyone else because you are disabled. This is not a situation that nullifies the reasonableness test. Are there some instances when it is reasonable to have a pet in addition to a service dog?  Sure, I listed some. Is it inherently reasonable to have a pet in addition to a service dog? No. Reasonableness means considering the needs of all involved, not just granting one special group privileges because they are special.

What if the pet limit is based on the ecological impact of the animals?  Two dogs means twice as much urine output, and feces. It means twice as much wear and tear on carpeting and landscaping. It may affect the landlord's insurance. It almost certainly will cause difficulties for him if you get two dogs and everyone else gets just one. There are instances when having both a pet and a SD might be unreasonable. Which is precisely why having a service dog is not an automatic, guaranteed, absolute right, no matter what, but a REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION.

Can you ask for a pet in addition to a SD? Sure. Are the housing police going to swoop down and defend your right to add a pet to the equation? No, of course not. Whether you have a pet is up to the landlord. He can allow them or not. He can allow them for some tenants and not others. Denying an ordinary pet is not discrimination; denying a service dog (or ESA) is.

Just understand that you are making a request ("request for reasonable accommodation"), which you can support with persuasive arguments (such as "Rufus shouldn't count because he's a service dog"). But those arguments aren't the same as laws. The landlord must obey laws or risk the consequences. He doesn't have to concede persuasive arguments. You get more flies with honey. If you really want to succeed you ask nicely and persuasively, not demanding or assuming. Assume and you may find yourself evicted. Bully the landlord into something and you've made a bad enemy because he can make your life a living hell.

I have some real issues about entitlement. Discrimination laws are meant to level the playing field, not skew it in favor of one group. There's a reason why affirmative action was such a disaster. Democracy likes equality. It abhors elitism.

[Roxie]

If you are referring to my last post.... what I stated is applicable as a cost of maintenance. NE has a standard allowance of $50. per month per SD and/or ESA to be used in food stamp calculation of benefits.

The decuctible expenses for medical costs for people with disabilities allowable under public housing, HUD housing, Section 8 housing, and USDA housing rules for calculating rent is what I said. Same as using prescription costs - OTC's - medical transport costs etc... for the human.

That is not reaching. That is what's allowable for SD's and ESA's.

I am real easily confused lately. I may have lost focus and direction of the topic!      Sorry!!!!

[Lin]

I don't think anyone is claiming a service dog isn't a dog as well or treated as a friend and family member. I haven't seen anyone say anything along that line. What I said, is that a service dog is not treated the same as a pet legally. And thats true. It doesn't matter if its a pet as well as a service dog, its not JUST a pet and therefor is treated differently under the law. The discussion of a service dog treated as medical equipment legally is the easiest way to explain laws to those outside the service dog community, and is also easy when discussing laws and rights within the community. We all know that when it comes to these laws and rights, they're for US and not the dog anyway. If it comes down to arguing semantics of language, the service dog has absolutely no rights. Its the person with a disability that has them, and therefor the premise to ask for reasonable accomidation.

I also didn't see anyone recommending someone try to use entitlement or attempt to pull one over on a landlord. I'm pretty sure it was obvious that I was speaking tongue in cheek when I said to go ahead and do such a thing. When it comes down to housing, regardless of the specific situation it needs to be discussed with the landlord AHEAD of time. Whether this is about a service dog, a pet dog, or a service dog and pet dog. Its all a moot point imo if its not agreed upon with the landlord prior to signing a lease. It would be equally wrong for someone to get a service dog and not tell their landlord just because by law they cannot deny you housing for a service dog. 

[Kirsten]

A service dog is not treated the same as a pet legally SOMETIMES, in some specific instances. Not across the board. they are treated exactly like pets other times, ie leash laws, scooping laws, licensing and vaccination laws, etc.

Let's end this. Where in the law does it say a service dog isn't a pet?  Where, in the law does it say a service dog can't be counted as a pet in housing animal quotas? You guys have got to get it through your heads the difference between arguing a position and an actual legal fact. You've also got to understand you can't take a statement in one context and expect it to apply automatically in another.

[Kirsten]

Actually, they sometimes CAN deny housing for a service dog. That's my point. The right is not absolute. There are always exceptions (some housing is exempt) and all of it revolves on the meaning of the term "reasonable accommodation." Housing cases in court are lost about as often as they are won.

Examples:

Landlord rents out half of a duplex and lives in the other half. His daughter is deathly allergic to dogs.

Tenant is a hoarder claiming a dozen chihuahuas as service dogs

Landlord's liability insurance premiums go up if dog's reside on the premises (usually this revolves around specific breeds rather than just the presence of any dog).

Service dog's CAN be denied. The landlord just needs a good reason. There's that word again.

No disability law is absolute. No disability law is guaranteed. No disability law universally nullifies the rights of others. All are based on weighing the needs of all affected parties through the application of the reasonableness test. A need outranks a desire. But when two needs conflict, compromise may be necessary, or an accommodation may not be possible.

Back to the example at hand. It is not a given that a service dog doesn't count in a pet quota. That may be one person's position on one side of the issue. The other side may contend that they do. Reasonableness decides.

Entitlement means assuming your rights have greater merit than others, that the rights of others don't matter. This tendency in our community to foster a sense of entitlement disturbs me greatly. The "me generation" supposedly finished 30 years ago. In the real world, successful people master reasonableness, which is the opposite of entitlement.

I really don't understand the resistance to making an honest assessment of whether counting a service dog in a pet quota is reasonable on a case-by-case basis is so difficult to accept. Reasonableness is what we would want if the roles were reversed. Sometimes it is reasonable to count them as pets, sometimes it is not.

[Lin]

again, you're arguing something completely different than I, something I never disagreed with.

[Kirsten]

Okay, so we all agree then that legally a service dog is sometimes the same as a pet and sometimes different from a pet.

We further agree that rights are not absolute and there are instances when service dogs can be denied as accommodations in housing (or anywhere).

We agree that service dogs are not automatically exempt from pet regulations, including quotas. So that if a tenant is permitted a pet and they have a service dog already, that does not mean automatically that they can also have a pet.

We agree that reasonableness is the key in assessing how rights are applied, and that this is MORE important than the PWD getting what they want.

Right?  Everyone?

[cowlypso]

Nope.  I firmly believe that I am entitled to have my 12 service kangaroos in my apartment, along with my 3 emotional support llamas, regardless of the pet regulations and/or local exotic animal zoning ordinances.   

[louie]

I want both my SD and to try vegemite. Otherwise, agreed.

[Kirsten]

With 12 kangaroos, cowltpso will have plenty of earwax to share with you, louie. Now where is my service camel?

[Roxie]

I have your service camel, Kirsten.