Pet-Friendly for Whom? An Analysis of Pet Fees in Texas Rental Housing

Abstract

Previous studies have underscored the difficulty low-income pet owners often face when attempting to secure affordable rental housing. Further exacerbating this housing disparity are fees charged on top of normal monthly rent to pet owners in “pet-friendly” rental housing. In this study, we aggregated rental housing listings from the twenty most populous cities in Texas, USA from a popular online rental database. We paired the rental listings with census tract information from the American Community Survey in order to investigate economic and racial/ethnic patterns in the spatial distribution of the properties. We find that less expensive pet-friendly listings were more likely to have pet fees charged on top of rent than rental units that were more expensive. Additionally, when pet fee burden was defined as a function of average income by census tract, low-income communities and communities of color were more likely than higher income and predominantly White communities to pay disproportionately higher fees to keep pets in their homes. We also find patterns of spatial inequalities related to pet fee burden by a metric of income inequality by city. The burden of pet rental fees may contribute to both housing insecurity and companion animal relinquishment. We discuss these findings as they relate to inequalities in housing, with particular attention to marginalized and disadvantaged people with pets. We conclude with recommendations for policy and practice.

The Impact of Sustained Ownership of a Pet on Cognitive Health: A Population-Based Study

“…Indeed, other research has found pet ownership to cause or exacerbate stress under certain conditions (e.g., Applebaum et al, 2020b). For example, some studies have shown that pet-friendly housing can be difficult to find and maintain due to extra costs and less availability, particularly in low-income communities and communities of color, which could cause economic stress related to pet ownership (Applebaum et al, 2021; Rose et al, 2020). Furthermore, a study by Buller and Balantyne showed that managing a pet with behavioral issues can negatively impact owner wellbeing (Buller and Ballantyne, 2020).…”

Increasing Engagement in Kitten Fostering Programs: Lessons Learned From High Kitten Intake Zip Codes in Los Angeles County

“…Understanding whether interest in fostering is associated with respondents' living situations, and whether residential or housing policies permit pets, is critical to understand when assessing community members' capacity to foster. For example, a recent study found that communities of color and low-income communities in Texas were more likely than predominantly White and higher income communities to pay higher fees to keep companion animals in their homes ( 23 ). Understanding this potential barrier could help to identify whether those who are interested in fostering might be putting themselves at risk for fees or eviction due to a lack of compliance with housing restrictions, which has significant implications for the welfare of potential foster animals and their caregivers, as well as the sustainability of programs that aim to engage community members in high-intake areas.…”

Trends in Intake and Outcome Data From U.S. Animal Shelters From 2016 to 2020

“…Many organizations also embraced a “community-supported sheltering” model during the COVID-19 pandemic and created new programs or increased the availability of existing programs that proactively address the most common reasons for shelter intake (e.g., housing insecurity, access to veterinary care, and access to pet food and supplies). Examples of these programs include pet food and supply banks ( 20 ), advocating for pet-friendly rental policies ( 21 ), shifting animal control operations from a punishment to support model ( 22 ), offering co-sheltering options for individuals in crisis (e.g., individuals experiencing homelessness or domestic violence) ( 23 ), One Health vaccine clinics ( 24 ), and examining how social and economic inequities affect shelter intake ( 25 , 26 ). There are a number of other emerging program areas that may also be contributing to the measured decreases in total intake throughout the study period, including low- or no-cost spay–neuter services and other preventive veterinary care ( 27 , 28 ); door-to-door outreach in underserved communities to overcome barriers in access to veterinary care ( 29 ), trap-neuter-return ( 30 – 32 ), and return-to-field programs ( 33 , 34 ).…”