Opposition likely to kill landlords-pets bill
By Gordon Y.K. Pang
Advertiser Capitol Bureau
A bill making it illegal for condominium and apartment owners to place no-pet clauses in rental contracts appears to be dead for the year after the Senate Judiciary Committee received overwhelming testimony against the measure yesterday.
Senate Judiciary Chairwoman Colleen Hanabusa said after the hearing that she is inclined to make a deferral recommendation to committee members during decision-making on Senate Bill 2675 today, which would effectively leave the bill stuck in the committee.
More than 400 pieces of written testimony were submitted, by far the most to be received by the committee on any issue this year. More than 300 form letters had different names or signatures. Fewer than 10 letters in support were received.
About a dozen people testified in person yesterday, all but two opposed.
"This would be an unacceptable denial of owner property rights and should not be taken lightly," Jerry Bangerter, property manager for RE/MAX Honolulu and a rental property owner, told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "Damage done by pets can run into the thousands of dollars, far exceeding the limited security deposit of one month's rent that owners are now authorized to collect. Property owners should not have to bear the risk of such a loss."
Unfair to landlords
Jane Sugimura, president of the Hawai'i Council of Associations of Apartment Owners, said it would be unfair to put landlords stuck between a law prohibiting no-pet clauses and condo association bylaws rules that may bar pets. Sugimura said that landowners can choose to take out no-pets clauses from their associations' bylaws with a 65 percent majority of property owners.
"I think this is overkill," she said.
Sugimura noted that the federal Fair Housing Act allows a resident in a no-pets building to keep an animal so long as a doctor's letter detailing the need for a pet can be provided to the apartment manager or a condominium's board of directors. Failure by a landlord to comply with the act can be reported to the Civil Rights Commission, she said.
Mike Stott, of the Honolulu Association of Realtors, suggested that a compromise might be to allow property owners to charge a larger security deposit for tenants with pets. Such a change to the landlord-tenant code may provide incentive for landlords to rent to pet owners, he said.
Stott said that as a property manager, he has gone to court three times seeking payment for damage by former renters who allowed their pets to trash apartment units, but has met with only mixed success.
"To only allow one month's security doesn't give many owners — at $1,500 to $2,000 — a whole lot of assurance that damages that may be caused (by pets) would be rectified at checkout," he said.
Recourse for renters
Attorney General Mark Bennett, under questioning, said he does not believe any law bars a landlord from charging more rent to a tenant who has pets since animals are not considered a protected class in the constitution.
Cynthia Keolanui, community outreach manager for the Hawaiian Humane Society, offered support for the bill. She said the number one reason pet owners relinquish animals to the Humane Society is because they have moved to a place where pets are not allowed.
Frank De Giacomo, of the Animal CARE Foundation, also offered testimony in support of the bill and said no-pets policies result in huge societal costs. "If we ever hope to have a state that no longer kills companion animals, we must make it possible for people to change housing situations without being discriminated against so much that they cannot obtain housing with an animal."
Hanabusa, D-21st (Nanakuli, Makaha), said the information provided by Sugimura persuaded her that there is a recourse for those renters who are in most need of having pets in their lives. She noted also that military and housing receiving federal assistance must allow pets.
Reach Gordon Y.K. Pang at gpang@honoluluadvertiser.com or at 525-8070.
