I wanted to make everyone here aware of a bill scheduled to go before the New Hampshire House of Representatives this month. HB-1391 if passed and turned into law would make it illegal for landlords to deny pets. As the bill is written at the date of this post, that would mean if you have a rental, you MUST allow pets, no exceptions, regardless of species, breed, size, etc. and you would not be allowed to ask about pets on rental applications. Go ahead and take 2 minutes to read the full bill for yourself.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2020/HB1391.html

As a dog owner, pet lover, and a landlord who allows and welcomes pets, I am the last person to oppose something like this and yet I have serious concerns about this bill.

My first concern is that I feel this bill assumes everyone is OK with being around pets. I love pets, but I know plenty of people that don't, and that's fine. If you were a renter that didn't want to ever have to worry about a barking dog, had pet allergies, or had emotional trauma from bad experiences in the past with pets (especially dogs), wouldn't you be happiest in a no-pets unit, on a no-pets rental property? It seems that this bill just assumes everyone must enjoy being around pets and that seems unfair to me.

Here's another scenario for you, you sign an applicant to a lease and they move in with an aggressive, loud, and/or destructive pet(s). So now instead of being able to screen the pet(s) up front and identify this issue right away, you now have an aggressive animal on your property until A. Sufficient evidence can be gathered that the dog is indeed being aggressive, and B. That evidence is enough to grant an eviction? A big part of my responsibility as a landlord is to provide a safe place for my tenants to live, and I feel like this bill would severely limit my ability to do that.

Another concern is that there is no language here that would limit the number of pets that would be allowed - it seems to be written to suggest it is talking about a single companion but it doesn't explicitly say that so it seems unwise to assume. I know that in most cases this wouldn't be an issue, but there is a big difference between 1 Poodle and 5 "Insert Stereotypically Agressive Dog Breed Here", yet I don't see any language in the bill that would distinguish between those two scenarios.

The bill does have specific language that would supposedly free landlords of any civil liability regarding these pets, but I'm not sure if that would be enough in the eyes of an insurance company. I know for many landlord insurance policies there are certain breed restrictions for dogs, and this bill would make it illegal to discriminate based on breed.

We have a serious shortage of rental units in this state, especially affordable ones, and I can't help but feel like this bill would do a great job of pushing investors toward other states if this bill is passed. It seems like it is coming from a place of good intention, but is not particularly well thought out and opens the door for a lot of serious issues.

I fully understand the therapeutic and healing benefits of pets for certain people, but there are already protections in place for service animals as well as emotional support animals that protect this subset of pet owners so I don't really understand why this bill is necessary - seems like it will cause far more harm than good, and again, this is coming from someone that likes pets!

A lot of pets are great, which is why I welcome them onto my property - but I do this because I know I reserve the right to screen for those which I determine to be well behaved and safe. I disagree with the government telling me I can't do that.

What do you guys think? I for one will be contacting my representative to share my thoughts and I would encourage you to do the same, whether you agree with me or not. You can track the bills progress here:

https://www.citizenscount.org/bills/hb-1391-2020