Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
A complicating factor: I would say ~50% of the houses are rented and only the homeowners have a say in HOA matters. So, assuming any owners without dogs (including the whole board) and any landlord would logically vote to ban all use of the grass, while all dog-owning homeowners would vote to allow dogs near the grass.
Obviously that's generalizing what the votes would be - even though the majority of the houses have dogs, I would say the minority are homeowners with dogs.
The reason I bring this up is a petition-style response may be dismissed as "well those dog owners have no say as they are not homeowners"
I actually don't know if a landlord has to do anything to keep a renter happy these days? Or if there is enough demand that they would not care? Not sure, perhaps I am approaching that question pessimistically.
Most landlords would be more than happy if their renters dog died... You tried to get a lease with a dog lately? Unless you have something like a teacup poodle a vast majority of landlords don't want to lease to you.
i don't even understand why this is the case, why would they care if i have a dog? like why would they bother?
Because dogs tend to cause damage to rental properties. I was looking recently, and at least 80% of the rentals in my area had chew marks, claw marks, etc on doors and walls.
They can damage property. People let their dogs chew on stuff, pee on the floor etc. Dogs are also an insurance issue. When I bought my house several insurance companies didn't want to insure me because I had a German Shepard.
In a vacuum, yes. But what if some of them have been there for a few years and are paying below-market rent? Or are generally dicks but not egregious enough to go to the trouble of evicting?