Foreclosure Pets are Silent Victims of Down Markets
It's inconceivable how anybody could leave a helpless pet behind to fend on its own, but home owners in foreclosure have their reasons, albeit not ones that you nor I would choose. Foreclosure pets struggle to survive in horrific conditions. Sleeping in vomit, dehydrated and thirsty, these foreclosure pets are still able to wag a tail or purr when they spot a human, hoping somebody will save them from a feces-filled environment.
Banks aren't helping, either. Because many state laws prevent lending institutions from seizing personal property for a certain time period -- and pets are typically considered personal property -- the banks don't want anybody interfering or feeding the foreclosure pets. It's inhumane and unnecessary. I'd like to know what kind of lawyer would consider filing a lawsuit because a caring stranger fed a pet that its owner had recklessly abandoned and left for dead . . . read more about Foreclosure Pets.
More Articles by Elizabeth Weintraub, click below:
©Big Stock Photo
Technorati tag: foreclosure pets
Comments
Thank you for bringing awareness to this growing problem!
I notified my local newspaper columnist and also the president of the Sacramento SPCA. She wrote to the executive director. He emailed to say the SSPCA would add this information to its Web site and implement a program to help foreclosure pets. We can all try to help in our perspective neighborhoods, especially in areas where there are a lot of foreclosures. Even the voice of one person can make a difference.
Don’t assume that every person that has gone thru forclosure is some terrible, irresponsible person. You couldn’t possibly know everyone’s story. We were forclosed on because of alot of little reasons that kept adding up until finally my husbands pay went down 35% because of lost overtime. We tried EVERYTHING to stop the foreclosure but the mortgage co.(Countrywide) would not help at all. We wanted to pay our mortgage ,but we needed the interest to STOP going up.They would rather repo the house and let it sit empty than help.AND WE TOOK OUR PETS WITH US’ SO DON’T ASSUME THAT EVERYONE IS AS UNCARING.
Wow. I can’t say that I can recall a better example of misunderstanding a blog post.
Let’s put it simple:
If you were foreclosed on and did not have a pet, the blog post WASN’T ABOUT YOU.
If you were foreclosed on, had a pet, but did not abandon the pet, the blog post WASN’T ABOUT YOU.
What was the blog post about? People who were foreclosed upon and left their dog or cat inside the house locked up with no food or water.
So, unless you think its perfectly fine to leave a dog or cat in those conditions, you really don’t have any argument against Elizabeth. (And, if you think its fine to do that to a pet, who cares what you think about a human?)
Don’t get me wrong, I understand where these comments are coming from. You are upset at being foreclosed upon and you want to blame someone. It feels good to blame someone and vent frustration.
But you are doing it to the wrong person.
(BTW, you are more than welcome to vent some at me for being honest enough to tell you that.)
Good for you, Shannon. I’m pleased to hear that you are a responsible pet owner and sorry you lost your home to foreclosure. However, not every homeowner in foreclosure takes their pets with them, and this is what the article is about.
With the massive number of foreclosures going on, perhaps the laws need to at least be changed temporarily - during this crisis - to state that landlords cannot just flat-out ban pets from rentals without good reason (and there are some). These are not normal times, and it’s immoral and wrong for so many people to have to surrender their pets to overcrowded shelters who can’t care for all the pets being dumped on them, even more wrong for some folk to abandon their pets to suffer and die. I doubt that anyone WANTS to do these things, but when leaving foreclosed homes, people are either having to go stay with relatives, or rent a place. Their pets could be a comfort to them if allowed to keep them. This is especially true of families, elderly, “stay-at-homes”, to name a few. The trauma of having to give up your home is compounded by having to give up a beloved pet as well, and sometimes it’s too much for them to even think about surrendering their pets to a shelter - that’s when pets get left behind. The current situation is unlike any we’ve seen before - the sheer numbers of families losing their homes is staggering. Drastic times….need drastic changes.
Landlords say “no pets” as a standard way of doing business anymore, without giving it much thought (easier) - due in large part to the horror stories of SOME tenants with pets who have been irresponsible, did not take proper care of rental property, and those are the ones who have ruined it for everyone else, ever since, who have pets! There are plenty of GOOD pet owners who’d be great tenants, not allowing their pets to destroy the place - but they aren’t the ones that stories are told about, now are they? What you hear of, are the ones who let their pets use the home as a big bathroom, not bothering with proper clean up after an “accident” and letting it go on unabated, totally ruining carpets and more, and leaving a stench that’s hard to get rid of as well. Over time, those horror stories have been told & retold, until it became standard practice to state “no pets” and avoid the entire subject. Easier than checking-out tenants, pet references, getting bigger deposits, maybe checking on the property, etc. Vast majority of landlords choose to just not allow pets at all. [The new thing is not to allow smokers to rent either, even with lease of 1 yr. or more - what’s next?!]
My parents had rental homes, and I’d like to suggest that the people who thrash rental housing do it with, or without, pets! Is it the type of people you’re dealing with? Sometimes. They tend to be young & “wild” - often 1st time renters, and yet rentals are just as often left in bad condition by families w/children, not pets. Every group of people has both good and bad amongst them, can’t judge all based on a few. Everyone is not the same! That’s why there are things like interviews, references, and deposits - tools for landlords to minimize their risk. Making money from rental housing has some risk - that’s part of the business of renting, sad to say. Blaming all pet owners as a group is overly simplistic and very unfair!
Since rentals used to be just a step on the way to home ownership for most people, it wasn’t always a big deal that you usually couldn’t have pets. (Though ones in cages or aquariums didn’t seem to count.) That isn’t so much the case now - times change and the rules need to change too. Landlords won’t do it voluntarily most of the time.
Not too long ago, many places didn’t allow children just as arbitrarily - they are noisy & messy, can tear up the rental place, often unruly as they get older, and can wreak havoc with entire neighborhood, after all. Too many of them are unsupervised, have no respect for other people. [Don’t even get me started on the teens these days!] Many people without kids, older folk, the ill and those working nights, don’t want to deal with all of that and prefer peaceful living to coexisting with local kids running around. Then, Pres. Reagan passed a law making it VERY difficult to not allow children to live in certain areas just because they are kids, and so could not deny people w/kids right to live somewhere, basically, unless “seniors only” housing. It was wrong (they said) to have “blanket policy” to discriminate against everyone with children - judging all by the actions of some that have gone before. Families were having trouble finding places they could move into.(?) Now, one must be a senior to live in kid-free housing area. Plenty of people were opposed to the change in laws, but it was needed, lawmakers said. And people adapted.
The time has come - for the humanity, the sake of the innocent pets suffering & dying, the families uprooted, children crying for their beloved pets, for the elderly & the ill who need their pet’s companionship (like me) - it is time to change the laws in order to GIVE PETS A CHANCE! At least can make a law that “sunsets” in 5 yrs. - that allows time for this housing mess to be better, and for landlords to find out that many of us ARE responsible people who own pets…and we are wonderful tenants! Ask my landlord and he’ll tell you that himself! Landlords shouldn’t be allowed to say “no pets” unless for good & specific reasons. They could however, be allowed to ask for pet references and medical records - to show what kind of pet owners prospective renters are - and they could ask for a special “pet deposit”. Of course, they can also ask many “pet questions” of those wanting to rent with their pets. SPCA and others can help them with that, I’m sure.
Something MUST be done! Too many pets are dying needlessly in the current situation, just because it’s common to say “no pets” and avoid the issue altogether. Saying that hasn’t stopped rental housing from being left in bad condition - with or without pets!