fef
TESTIMONY OPPOSING SB 2675 SD1
Senate Judiciary Committee * March 3, 2004 * 9:00 a.m. * Rm. 229 * State 
Capitol

To the Honorable Senator Colleen Hanabusa & 
Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee,

I am writing this to you as a private citizen to voice my opposition to SB 
2675 SD1, which would "prohibit landlord-tenant agreements from 
prohibiting pets in dwelling units." 

As an condominium unit owner & resident who chose to live in a complex 
that disallows pets, I feel my rights as a homeowner will be trampled on 
in favor of pet owners who choose to void our pet-free by-laws and 
lifestyle with this imposing legislation.

Our complex has been a pet-free zone for more than 20 years and I want to 
keep it that way. 

My reasons for opposing this bill are as follows:

	* Pets in rental units will decrease the value of those units as 
well as surrounding units due to issues relating to noise, smells, 
maintenance, liability and personal responsibility.

	* There is no guarantee that pet owners will be responsible for 
their pets whether it be inside their units or within the common areas of 
a dwelling. Who is liable if renter A’s pet bites homeowner B? Is the 
renter, landlord or community association liable for any kind of personal 
harm or damage caused by a renter’s pet? Who is going to pay for damages 
if I am bitten by someone’s pet? Animals will be animals and there is no 
guarantee that they will be well behaved at all times. Ask Sigfreid and 
Roy that.

	* Animals are known to emit foul odors. In my building odors from 
cooking and smoking sometimes permeate through the common hall areas as 
well as into my unit from time to time. This problem will be compounded if 
an irresponsible owner does not pick after his pet and let those kinds of 
pet odors to permeate the premises.

	* Noise from barking dogs, talking birds and other types of 
critters can be a problem if the pet is not disciplined. Barking dogs can 
be especially intimidating to the elderly and children who live in the 
building. Playful pets can also encourage children to be more noisy than 
they are when interacting with pets.
	
	* Maintenance: Who will pay for damaged common areas caused by 
renter’s pets? I am sure most community and condo associations will pass 
this cost on to residents, both resident homeowners as well as renters 
through higher maintenance fees. I assume that maintenance fees will be 
increased to cover liability insurance that associations will need to buy 
in order to cover themselves from pet liability issues. 

	* The obvious side of the maintenance issue is the fact that 
landlords will face increased costs due to pets who destroy rental units, 
translating into higher rental costs or deposit fees. Someone has to pay 
for pet wear and tear.

	* There are people who are allergic to animal dander and shedding 
fur who will be impacted in a negative way by this legislation. Will these 
people be forced to share common areas such as hallways and elevators at 
the same time as pet owners walking their dogs or cats?

	* Will all residents be forced to share common areas with pet 
owners known to have hostile pets? For example, pit bull terriers? Will 
resident children be put at risk due to a hostile pet? 

	* There is no guarantee that pet owners will properly clean-up 
after their pets within their units or common areas of dwellings. Who am I 
going to complain to if I step in doggie’s poop? Currently we have no 
problem like this because no animals are allowed on our property.

	* Our rights as a homeowner residents and current/future landlords 
must be upheld over those perceived rights of transient and rental pet 
owners in a place that we purchased and have chosen to be animal-free. 

I am sure that testifiers opposed to this legislation will bring forth 
other reasons why this is not a good bill. The bullet points that I have 
outlined above are reasons why I oppose this bill. This kind of 
legislation has to be killed in committee today and not be allowed to 
pass.
 
[s] Melvin Ah Ching

0