Category: the Rant Board
Ok, so I recently got together with a girl who happens to have a service dog or at least a companion dog with all the proper documentation to prove it. She visited my apartment with her dog and her daughter for several days this week. She's also in the process of applying to get into fixed income housing. Well anyway when she went to turn in the application the folks at te Housing Authority told her that her dog being in my apartment is apparently a lease violation for me even though it's not a pet and she has the documentation to prove it. In fact they're going so far as to tell her her documentation is no good and that even if it was I'd still be in violation of the lease for allowing the dog into my apartment. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that they're the ones in violation not me, and in violation of the ADA. Granted I don't know if there's legally a difference between a service dog as we would know it and a companion dog with documentation from a therapist or doctor, so I'll grant that I could be mistaken. But when I ranted about this on Facebook a lot of the responses seemed to be along the lines of I could legally sue the housing authority because they are indeed overstepping their authority. Their reasoning is that I have a cat already, yet they told me before I got him that I could still have a service animal of my own. That's why I finally adopted Max. But now they're telling me that sure I can have visitors but said visitor can't bring their service dog. So if I were to have a blind visitor who happened to use a guide dog instead of a cane I would get into trouble for letting them bring that dog. I'd move out but I'm not really in a position financially to do so. And as for suing them that's not a notion that appeals to me since there's a real possibility I could lose my apartment, particularly if the case was for whatever reason decided in their favor. Besides, Americans in particular are so sue happy these days that I'm not particularly thrilled about adding to those numbers, even if my reasons would be more legitimate than others. I've been trying to research this though since regardless of whether I eventually did sue over this I'd like to do something to insure that if this is indeed illegal they can't continue to get away with it indefinitely.
it is illegal, i believe the ADA means any service dog and if she does have papers that are vallid the apartment people have no say in the matter what so ever. How would they say they're not propper papers anyways, i bet there's ways to verify papers like that.
I don't know what planet these ladies beamed down from LOL. But they seemed awfully sure of themselves. I can sort of understand having at least certain rules for having visitors but unless I'm much mistaken they shouldn't legally be able to go THAT far. They said something about the papers not having a start date or an end date or something, but if I'm not mistaken service animal or companion animal documentation doesn't technically expire until the current animal either dies or is retired in favor of a new one. And again they say it's because I have my cat, although due to his rather unpredictable aggressiveness towards others (I think my x wife is to blame for that), and the fact that my partner's daughter is rather allergic both to his fur and to his tongue, I may have to try rehoming him.
Well I was able to determine that unless I just received inaccurate information from my cousin who's helping me research this, "companion" animals aren't covered under the ADA, even if the owners are able to present letters or other documentation from a doctor or therapist certifying that they do, in fact, need that animal with them in order to help manage a disability. So apparently the housing authority is within their rights as far as that goes. But according to Sandra they told her that even an actual "service" animal is a lease violation if I already have a pet or am registered as not having one, or if the animal doesn't belong to me or to someone else who's legally living with me. And I have little trouble believing her when she told me what they told her. They've told me the same thing on several occasions that I call remember, five years ago when I was in the process of applying to move in with my x fiance. Then a few months later when the engagement ended and I was getting a place of my own, they hinted that if I was coming into the apartment with a pet and I wanted to get a guide dog at a later time I would first have to get rid of the pet. Yet months later when I was thinking of getting a pet and asked for confirmation of what they'd already told me, they told me I was mistaken and that I could indeed get a cat and still get a guide dog. So either they're ignorant of the law or think I am. My only regret is that back then I never thought to record some of these contradictory conversations. Because if tis latest fiasco did ultimately force me to sue to get this issue addressed it would be helpful to have evidence of some of the contradictory things they've said.
What the housing athority is doing *should* be illegal. However, I really don't know if it is. I have been under the impression that service animals are allowed to go anywhere you do, but I've never actually been told this by any law enforcement professional. this is one of the many reasons i think I'll just stick to being a cane user. Having said that, there are many reasons some people prefer to have a dog guide, and I will say that just about every place I've been to does not consider a dog guide to be a pet, so whether this is covered by law or not, these people are seriously stretching the boundries of their authority, and certainly their morality. the sad truth, though, is that you'll probably end up going through more stress trying to fight it than you would just leaving it alone, and these people probably know that. I guess the only thing I can really recommend is not to recommend this place to any other people who have service animals. Sorry I can't say anything more helpful.
Well this is a fairly small agency since it's a small city we're talking about. Whether this is in fact a case of them being ignorant of the law or deliberately or unknowingly breaking it, or whether this is just a case of a poorly worded policy I don't think they would want this tarnishing their reputation. I've had a few people tell me I should just let it be but I just don't feel right about that. It's the principle of the thing. Regardless of wether they're breaking the law, whether knowingly or not, or whether this is just a case of poor wording that's supposed to mean one thing but seems to say something else, I can't just let it be. Again I'm not going to just sue them (and certainly not as a first step), but I do feel this issue needs to be addressed since regardless of whether or not a therapist certified companion animal can legally be denied access, a guide dog or other service dog cannot under any circumstances except when it's clear that the handler doesn't have the dog well under control. So a tenant in housing shouldn't be charged with violation of their lease by allowing a friend to bring their service dog into the residence. But like I said, the housing ladies don't seem to make the legal distinction between a "compaion" dog and a "service dog. So if Sandra had been blind and had a guide dog or weelchair bound with a helper dog, teir implication is that she would have to leave her dog simply because I already had a pet.
One reason I have some problems with what they call therapy animals, or some other type of companion.
Let's face it: and dog guide people I'm not putting you on a pedastal for saying this but it's just the truth. Dog guides, rescue dogs, canine officers, other such wolves that are specially trained are a cut above. So are the handlers, and I have witnessed all threee kinds in action, and they all pretty much look the same to me, just a guy running around who typically respects wolvenkind more at a distance.
The problem is not you guys, or your rescue / police officer compatriots. The problem is these numbnuts running around with these other dogs they have a long-ass medical or shrink word for, but the animals are filthy animals attempting to root around our stores, shops and other places. I ran stores once, and saw all of that. Those people can't look after themselves. In contrast, you professional handlers look after yourselves plus your charge, the wolf in question. You, the cops with canine officers, the rescue professionals with their wolves, are all getting a bad rap.
I wouldn't know what were legitimate papers either, if a blind person wanted to show me some. What is there, some sort of online registration someplace? I never asked, it's just plain obvious to the observant who the real handlers are. I wish legally they would cast professional handlers like you guys and rescue / canine officers in one light, and these unkemp unruly animals they say are therapy or ssome other word, in another. You and they are not even close to playing from the same playbook. People may call that discrimination, but everybody discriminates some: it's been obvious to me by my own observations the blind that use wolves, as well as other professional handlers, are class A professional with managing them, while you get these wild animals they call the therapy and other things, that just run the fuck around and try and knock shit off the store shelves and the like are quite a bit different.
I just wish the rules would separate the two, because it's patently not right to cast you professional wolf handlers with those people who don't have a professional one, but get to call it some sort of long raggedy-ass shrink word and let their wolves run wild everywhere. There is a HUGE! difference between you and them.
The thing is though that I've observed Sandra with this particular dog and the two others she has, though only this particular one has papers. And she generally does keep them well in hand. So she's definitely an exception to what you describe. The real issue, as I said above, is that the ladies in housing, regardless of whether or not they do have the right to deny access to a "therapy" dog, seem to be implying that they also have or think they also have the right to deny access to a guide dog if it doesn't belong to me or to someone who's legally living with me.
Companion dogs are not covered by the ADA
Bryan, she isn't an exception to what I said: You said she handlees the dog professionally. Not to stereotype, but, the blind with dogs who I have seen on buses act with their wolves the way the cops do with theirs, or the rescue people do, etc. class A professional in my opinion. I'm sure there's probably some somewhere with wild wolves running around but I bet they're the radical exception because of what the animal is supposed to do.
So hers being a guide is sort of on par with canine officers and those, in my book. Just from what I have personally seen of people running those trained wolves around.
Generally, the ADA states that a service animal is deemed so by organizations approved by the government - as in, if your doctor says having a cat will lower your stress, you can't go to a breeder and get a cat with bloodline papers and say that allows you to carry it into a restaurant.
It also states that all service animals should be allowed in any public area, such as libraries, schools, parks - and most commercial areas.
It sounds like your building may be privately owned, and beyond the minimum building code requirements it's unlikely they're forced to allow service animals or indeed anyone else on their property if you sign an agreement stating otherwise.
Leo I didn't say hers was a guide.
Ah. I'd forgotten about the exception for some privately owned businesses. I still don't think it's right since it violates more than just guide dog handlers' rights. The way I see it is as long as the handler actually keeps the dog under control than no one else besides the individual tenant should have any say as to wheter te dog does or does not enter someone's apartment. Besides, the housing authority has told me so many contradictory things with regard to this issue. So I still wonder sometimes.
You could even have a visitor with a plain regular dog in your place. They are visitors not staying.
You need to contact renters mediation. You are bing mislead because they know they have you over a varrel.
Excuse my ignorance, but what's a companion dog for? I never heard of that until now.
Fire, it's an American sense-of-entitlement thing. Some people have anxiety that can be calmed by the presence of cute furry things, and some doctors have begin recommending they drag their pets into public regardless of whether or not their pet is capable of dealing safely with the public. While some are trained by "un-official" schools, some are not, and those are the ones that give everybody else's a bad name.
Oh, I see. Hmmm. I can definitely see how that could go wrong if the pet isn't well-trained. And it makes life hard for guide dog users and other service dogs too, I imagine if people have ever experienced a dog tearing through their store or restaurant, even though we all know that service dogs don't do stuff like that.
But let me just say, as a former store owner, there is a world of difference, and no excuse for people to heap abuse on a service dog handler.
I am completely blind, and I could tell the difference: I only knew someone's guide or other service animal was there because they would issue it a command or it would move when they told it to. The other companion pet wild animals were rampaging around, I even captured one by its scruff when it attempted to climb some shelves. I didn't be mean to it, but was only trying to get the wild animal under control.
Your guides and other service animals don't look a bit like that, and, well, you'd have to be more than just blind to not notice the profound difference. So don't let a store proprietor use that as an excuse. And I was pretty anal-retentive when it came to store cleanliness, I always could tell the difference. There are animals that get wheelchair people their things, or help other people with things, I'm not sure which. But you could always tell: they stayed with the master and obeyed commands and didn't get all jumpy and wild like the dogs for the mentally ill and other people with companion animals.
Some won't think this is fair, but there is a difference: a huge difference! As far as I know, maybe some of the people with trained well-behaved animals might have had them as companion animals and I simply didn't know. Or care, to be honest. How you or they obtained their service animal and for what reason is that person's business: so long as it's under control and not being wild and destructive.
But while I saw plenty of those with the therapy animals running their wild animals around, and trying to tell us we just HAD to accept them, I never saw such behaviors with professional handlers like cops or blind people with guides.
True, some "companion" animals aren't well trained and their owners don't bother to control them. And in those situations I can understand a business owner being reluctant. The problem is the blanket ban the housing authority has on all visiting pets or service animals. And I think they know they might not be entirely within their rights but are relctant to admit the fact. The reason I say this is their reaction when a simple question was put to them straight out. Te question was a theoretical one, that if my current GF was blind and had a guide dog, was she or was she not allowed to bring her guide dog to my place. Their words were that it might be a service animal but it wasn't a service animal to me, so that meant they could tag me with a lease violation. Yet they didn't give us a straight answer when we asked if that applied to guide dogs and indeed they got rather defensive and did a lot of hemming and hawing. They also claim that because the papers that Sandra has for her dowere issued two years ago they're no good and tat she has to get updated papers each year in order to keep the dog.