“’He’s a very dangerous dog,’” Lara, 37, a nurse at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, remembers the owners saying. “We cannot accept this breed. »
The truth is, she says, that he was actually a “big baby” adored by his three children.
In the absence of affordable, pet-friendly housing, Lara reluctantly signed Mr. Soxx over to MSCPA-Angell in the spring when she found an apartment in Hyde Park that banned her dog’s breed.
“(It was) either give it back or don’t and become homeless,” she said.
Lara’s experience is not unique. Nationally, renters have reported a shortage of reasonably priced properties that allow certain pets.
A national survey by two pet rights groups in 2021, 72% of renters said pet-friendly housing was difficult to find, and 59% said it was too expensive. Some respondents reported giving up a pet due to housing issues.
In Boston, where residents are already struggling with rising rents and scarcity of vacant housingthe problem becomes particularly pressing for tenants with pets.
For them, September 1, the day of the city annual frenetic day massive lease turnovers and moves – usher in distinct concerns, since many units ban animal companions.
Boston stampsa real estate site, shows that 80 percent of luxury buildings currently listed allow pets, while only about 23 percent of non-luxury buildings do so, according to Demetrios Salpoglou, the company’s chief executive. Both numbers increased as September approached and landlords dropped the pet ban to avoid vacancies, he said.
Expensive luxury apartments were virtually out of the question for Jashvina Shah, a sports journalist who moved to Boston with S’mores, her 3-year-old cavapoo — a Cavalier King Charles spaniel-poodle mix.
Shah, 32, said she struggled to find affordable housing that could accommodate them — a reality that surprised her, given S’mores’ small size. In some cases, buildings advertised open to pets, but Shah later learned that only meant cats.
“It was just very discouraging and I was wondering whether or not I was going to get a place,” she said.
While Shah finally landed a lease in September for a pet-inclusive apartment in Boston, it wasn’t before scouring other far-flung places that were just as pet-averse.
“I wasn’t just looking around the city, but literally anywhere there was a T line,” Shah said. “It was hard.”
Unlike service animals and emotional support animals, which are not considered pets under the law, owners have “total discretion” over which animals are allowed on their property, Douglas Quattrochi said. , executive director of MassLandlords, a landlord advocacy group.
Some building owners may prohibit pets for fear of possible property damage or excessive noise. And to minimize their potential liability for a tenant’s pet, they routinely impose blanket bans. on certain animals, often larger dog breeds, which they believe are prone to aggression.
“The owners don’t want to be involved in a lawsuit,” Quattrochi said. “From time to time, these big dogs bite or attack people. I know most of them are adorable and that’s why they are pets, but the fear is real.
Even Boston public housing has restrictions on dog breeds, excluding Doberman Pinschers, Pit Bulls, Rottweilers and “any mixed breed dog with identifiable characteristics specific to any of these breeds” from their premises, according to THE housing authority pet policies.
However, some argue that refusing dogs based on their breed is discriminatory and wrong.
“There is no definitive research that indicates one breed is more aggressive than the other,” said state Rep. Samantha Montaño, a Boston Democrat and lifelong pet owner who had difficulty two years ago finding an apartment in Jamaica Plain willing to house her dog at the time, a “docile” older pit bull.
Montaño said his personal experience motivated his co-sponsorship of a bill to prevent some housing providers from banning dogs because of their breed, weight, size or appearance. The bill would also block homeowners and renters insurance companies. to deny or increase the cost of coverage based on breed – a practice that leads owners to refuse accommodation to dogs owners, according to Montaño.
“We’re not trying to force anyone to take pets they don’t want to take into their home,” Montaño said. “We’re just trying to create opportunities for people to stay housed and for that barrier of racial restriction to no longer be an issue.”
Lara, a South End resident, believes a lack of education has fostered the popular idea that certain dog breeds are inherently more dangerous, thereby reinforcing rules such as those aimed at Mr. Soxx.
“Just give us a chance,” she said. “All we need is just a chance to prove that the animal we have (is) not as bad as they think.”
A few weeks ago, the MSPCA called Lara to tell her some good news: Mr. Soxx had been adopted by an “amazing family.” Her “big baby” was doing well.
“Hearing that he went to a loving home was incredible for me,” she said.
Yet Mr. Soxx’s adoption could not undo his permanent absence from Lara’s home.
“My children grew up with him,” she said. “Even though it’s been a few months now, they still ask, ‘Where’s Soxx?’ and ‘When can we get it back?’
Before the surrender, Lara was never without an animal in her care. Today, however, the idea of becoming attached to a new pet again is tempered by the specter of what a future move might look like.
“I can’t go through that again,” she said.
Alex Koller can be contacted at alex.koller@globe.com. follow him @alexkoller_.