FHA: Housing Providers Required to Accommodate Service Animals

Over the past few years, accommodations for service animals have become a much more prevalent issue in most industries, from housing to transportation. Where once service animals were only seen in very limited capacities, mainly as dogs serving people with visual or auditory disabilities, the definition of a service animal has expanded considerably. Now, there are a variety of animals filling those roles, including cats, parrots, ferrets, and even miniature horses, although none are quite as common as dogs. They serve people with all kinds of impairments, from deaf or blind people to people with PTSD or anxiety. These animals considerably improve the lives of the people they serve but are sometimes seen as problematic by store/restaurant owners and landlords. Fortunately, the Fair Housing Act has laid out a set of standards that can help property owners and property managers determine their legal responsibility in accommodating individuals with disabilities.

Most of the time, businesses and rental properties have broad, overarching policies like "No Pets," to ensure that the animals don't cause damage to the carpets or upholstery and to avoid driving away other customers due to issues of cleanliness or allergies. This can lead to an awkward situation for managers when an animal that appears to be a normal pet (or even an uncommon one) is actually a service animal. For example, there was a recent story in the news about a woman who was removed from her flight because she insisted on bringing her "emotional support squirrel." While the airline in that situation took issue specifically with the fact that it was a squirrel (not allowed on the plane because of its status as a "rodent"), the concept of "emotional support" animals, in general, has been contentiously debated. Emotional support animals don't have the same status under the law as service animals, which can lead to trouble.

Under the FHA, if a tenant has a clear disability, a property manager cannot legally ask for additional documentation. For example, if the applicant is clearly blind, they don't need to provide a letter from their doctor explaining why a guide dog is necessary. However, if the disability is not apparent, the housing provider can ask for documentation, which usually amounts to a letter from a physician, mental health professional, or social worker. Those rules apply to "service animals," which are specially trained from a young age and are bred to do a certain type of job. Because those animals are so well trained, property managers tend to feel more comfortable with being accommodating. Emotional support animals, on the other hand, are something else entirely. An ESA can be any animal (usually the person's pet) that helps to treat emotional issues (usually depression or anxiety). The difference is that the animal doesn't usually require special training, and is only differentiated from a normal pet by a note from a doctor.

Even under the FHA's guidelines, a request for accommodation may be denied for several reasons, including if the animal poses a risk of harm to others or would pose an undue financial risk to the housing provider. Examples include if the animal has attacked people in the past, or if it causes health risks (like allergic reactions) for other tenants. From the perspective of a real estate professional, it can be uncomfortable to be in the middle of everything, where you don't actually have a say as to whether the request will be approved or not. All you can really do is support your client and make it clear to them that the housing provider has the final say.

***************************************************************************************************
Find out more about us at www.sepulvedaescrow.net. Any Questions? Contact our Escrow Expert! Sepulveda Escrow Corporation (818) 838-1831. Follow our company on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Google+.

**************************************************************************************************

San Francisco's Anti-Airbnb Proposition Narrowly Fails

Short-term home or apartment rentals, usually through online platforms like Airbnb and VRBO, have been steeped with controversy in recent months. Some cities have even tried to ban such rentals while others have embraced them wholeheartedly. Most recently, San Francisco put forth a proposition to limit the ability of landlords to use such websites for renting their property. Tracey Lien, in her L.A. Times article, discusses how Airbnb affects both landlords and tenants, and how this new Proposition F may affect the city.

The controversy behind services like Airbnb is mainly one of a fight between a capitalist economic theory and one in which people deserve fair treatment. On the one side, tenants in San Francisco fear that the increasing prevalence of Airbnb will eventually lead the owners of their rented homes and apartments to evict them in favor of the larger sums paid by short-term renters. It is these tenants who would vote for the proposition since it limits landlords' use of Airbnb and their ability to turn normal rentals into short-term ones quickly. The proposition aims to prevent or at least slow down the conversion of apartment buildings into pseudo-hotels.

Some see it differently. While services like Airbnb could convince landlords to evict tenants in favor of the faster income, the free market could take care of any issues that arise from it. Eventually, if enough landlords raised prices enough to match the rising demand by tourists, ten the average worker would not be able to afford to live in the city. If workers are forced to move out, then business and regular city work will grind to a halt, When the economy halts in such a way, tourists will not want to visit, which will force landlords to lower their prices back to normal rates in order to get tenants. While this situation could probably work itself out, Proposition F aims to avoid it altogether.

Even for some landlords, Airbnb has uncomfortable implications. One Balboa Park resident, who had only ever rented his units out on a long-term basis voted against Proposition F. He worried that his tenants might use Airbnb to rent out his unit for short-term stays, a concept that he wasn't completely comfortable with. However,different from many tenants, he said that he would have voted yes on the proposition if he was in their shoes for that same reason: the ability to rent out the apartment in which one is living while out of town for short periods of time.

Unfortunately for those passionate about the topic, voter turnout for the proposition was extremely low. In-person votes were in the low hundreds, and mail-in votes reached about 9,000. In the end, Airbnb beat the bill, but even while celebrating, the San Francisco-based company expects further assaults in the near future. They believe that the proposition failed mainly due to its highly specific and extreme stance regarding the short-term rentals. Even so, the vote was close, with about 45% of voters supporting the proposition. Airbnb fears, rightfully, that behind the scenes, lawmakers in places like Los Angeles and San Diego may be getting ready to start the fight all over again.

***************************************************************************************************
Find out more about us at www.sepulvedaescrow.net. Any Questions? Contact our Escrow Expert! Sepulveda Escrow Corporation (818) 838-1831. Follow our company on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Google+.

***************************************************************************************************