BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Noreen Evans, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
SB 1229 (Pavley)
As Amended March 29, 2012
Hearing Date: May 1, 2012
Fiscal: No
Urgency: No
TW
SUBJECT
Real Property: Rentals: Animals
DESCRIPTION
This bill would prohibit a landlord who allows tenants or
occupants to have animals on the premises from doing any of the
following:
advertising the property in a way that discourages individuals
from applying because their animal is not declawed or
devocalized;
refusing to allow, negotiate, or make the property available
for occupancy because of a person's refusal to declaw or
devocalize an animal; or
requiring a tenant or occupant to declaw or devocalize an
animal that is allowed on the premises.
This bill would permit a city or district attorney, other law
enforcement prosecutorial entity, or any person harmed by a
violation of these provisions to enforce these provisions and
sue for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, or imposition of
a civil penalty of $1,000 per animal for every violation.
BACKGROUND
This bill deals with the practice of "declawing" and
"devocalizing" animals, and the issue of whether a landlord
should be able to condition occupancy on the declawing or
devocalizing of an animal.
Onychectomy ("declawing") is an operation to remove an animal's
claws by amputating the end bones of the animal's toes. The
(more)
SB 1229 (Pavley)
Page 2 of ?
operation is most commonly done to household cats, but on
occasion is done to other animals. Except where medically
necessary, the practice of declawing has been prohibited in
other countries, including Australia, Brazil, Finland, Estonia,
the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, and the United
Kingdom. In California, eight cities - West Hollywood, San
Francisco, Santa Monica, Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, Berkeley,
Burbank, and Culver City, passed ordinances banning declawing.
The ability for additional cities to pass ordinances was limited
by SB 762 (Aanestad, Ch. 16, Stats. 2009), which made it
unlawful for a city to prohibit a healing arts licensee
(veterinarian) from engaging in any act or performing any
procedure that falls within the professionally recognized scope
of that licensee (declawing). That bill grandfathered in
ordinances which were in effect prior to January 1, 2010.
While declawing generally applies to cats, devocalizing most
commonly applies to dogs (although cats can be devocalized as
well). Also known as debarking, bark softening,
ventriculocordectomy, or vocal cordectomy, devocalizing is an
operation to remove tissue from the animal's vocal cords so as
to permanently reduce the volume of their vocalizations. The
operation is prohibited in the United Kingdom.
This bill is substantially similar to AB 2743 (Nava, 2010),
which passed this committee on a vote of 3-2, but was vetoed by
Governor Schwarzenegger, who argued that the legislative
findings and declarations in that bill were unsupported by
science and certain language in the bill was overbroad and
included a prohibition on legitimate medical needs of a pet
owner. This bill, on the other hand, contains revised
legislative findings and narrows the scope of the prohibition.
As a result of concerns about the practice of landlords only
permitting pets in a rental property if they are declawed or
devocalized, this bill, sponsored by the Humane Society
Veterinary Medical Association and The Paw Project, would enact
various prohibitions that seek to ensure that if pets are
allowed, the pet's owner is not required to declaw or devocalize
the animal in order to rent the property.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law prohibits any person from performing, or otherwise
procuring or arranging for the performance of, surgical claw
SB 1229 (Pavley)
Page 3 of ?
removal, declawing, onychectomy, or tendonectomy on any cat that
is a member of an exotic or native wild cat species, and from
otherwise altering such a cat's toes, claws, or paws to prevent
the normal function of the cat's toes, claws, or paws, unless
the procedure is performed solely for a therapeutic purpose.
(Pen. Code Sec. 597.6.)
Existing law generally prohibits discrimination and related
conduct with respect to the rental or sale of housing
accommodations on the basis of a person's race, color, religion,
sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin,
ancestry, familial status, and other factors. (Gov. Code Sec.
12955.)
Existing law generally regulates the terms and conditions of
residential tenancies and governs the obligations of tenants and
landlord under a lease or tenancy. (Civ. Code Sec. 1940 et
seq.)
This bill would prohibit any person or corporation that
occupies, owns, manages, or provides services in connection with
any real property, including the individual's or corporation's
agents or successors-in-interest, from doing any of the
following if they allow an animal on the premises:
advertise, through any means, the availability of real
property for occupancy in a manner designed to discourage
application for occupancy of that real property because the
applicant's animal has not been declawed or devocalized;
refuse to allow the occupancy of any real property, refuse to
negotiate the occupancy of any real property, or to otherwise
make unavailable or deny to any other person the occupancy of
any real property because of that person's refusal to declaw
or devocalize any animal; or
require any tenant or occupant of real property to declaw or
devocalize any animal allowed on the premises.
This bill would confer standing to enforce the bill's provisions
on a city or district attorney, other law enforcement
prosecutorial entity, or any person harmed by a violation. This
bill also would provide that a person may sue for declaratory
relief, injunctive relief, or for monetary relief as provided
below.
This bill would provide that, in addition to any other penalty,
a violation of the bill that results in the declawing or
devocalizing of an animal shall result in a civil penalty of not
SB 1229 (Pavley)
Page 4 of ?
more than $1,000, per animal, to be paid to the person whose
animal was declawed or devocalized in violation, or to an entity
that is authorized to bring an action.
This bill would define animal, application for occupancy, claw,
declawing, devocalizing, and owner.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
The author writes:
There is an ongoing practice of some landlords conditioning
occupancy of rental housing on the declawing of cats and/or
the devocalizing of dogs. Many rental listings in
California show a number of properties with landlords and
managers that require potential tenants to declaw or
devocalize their pets as a condition of tenancy. Declawing
and devocalizing are permanent procedures and such
procedures run counter to the temporary nature of rental
occupancy.
The Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association, a
co-sponsor of this bill, writes:
SB 1229 will protect tenants from being forced to choose
between securing housing for their families and subjecting
their pets to unnecessary, costly and life-altering medical
procedures. . . . SB 1229 is a common-sense measure that
will ensure that important medical decisions about companion
animals are not made in the context of rental agreements but
rather in consultation with veterinary medical professionals
and focused on the animals' health and well-being.
2. Proposed restrictions
The Paw Project, a co-sponsor of this bill, asserts that the
proposed restrictions seek to protect animals "from unnecessary
and harmful surgeries, while tenants will be protected from
having to make a harmful choice when trying to find housing, and
finally, landlords will have even more protection for their
properties." To effectuate that goal, this bill would enact
three related prohibitions on advertising, refusing occupancy,
and requiring tenants to actually declaw or devocalize.
SB 1229 (Pavley)
Page 5 of ?
a. Advertising
This bill would prohibit a person or corporation from
advertising the availability of real property in a manner that
is designed to discourage a person from applying because their
animal has not been declawed or devocalized. That proposed
advertising prohibition is loosely modeled on a similar
prohibition contained within the California Fair Employment
and Housing Act (FEHA). (Gov. Code Sec. 12955(c).) The
proposed prohibition would be a standalone section in the
Civil Code and not be part of FEHA.
The prohibition seeks to address issues faced by tenants when
looking for an apartment or house to rent - landlords of
certain properties include in their advertisement that only a
declawed cat or debarked dog is permitted. Depending on the
availability of housing stock, prospective tenants with
unaltered animals may face pressure to declaw or devocalize
their animal in order to qualify for tenancy. The author
further contends that those procedures can have unintended
consequences for both the landlord and tenant.
The California Apartment Association (CAA), in support, notes
that "CAA's leadership concluded years ago that it would not
include in its industry forms and leases any such requirements
that would require cats to be declawed or dogs debarked.
Instead, the Association recommends that property owners rely
upon pet deposits to cover any damage to the unit."
b. Refusal to allow occupancy; requiring that an animal be
declawed or devocalized
Consistent with the above advertising prohibition, this bill
would also prohibit a person or corporation from refusing to
allow occupancy, negotiate occupancy, or otherwise make
unavailable or deny occupancy because of a person's refusal to
declaw or devocalize an animal. This prohibition is modeled
on a similar prohibition in the federal Fair Housing Act which
makes discriminatory practices against prospective tenants
unlawful if the refusal to sell, rent, or negotiate is based
on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national
origin. (42 U.S.C. 3604(a).) For existing tenants and
occupants, this bill would further prohibit a person or
corporation from requiring an occupant to declaw or devocalize
any animal allowed on the premises.
SB 1229 (Pavley)
Page 6 of ?
From a policy standpoint, these two provisions seek to protect
an individual's choice as to whether or not to declaw or
devocalize their animal. For individuals who face limited
housing options - or who are already tenants and cannot afford
to move - these two prohibitions would arguably act to ensure
that they are not pressured to surgically alter their animal.
Landlords who are concerned about damage caused by certain
animals have a choice - they can rent the property but ask for
a pet security deposit, or they can make the decision to not
allow animals on the property.
Nolan Taft Management, a supporter of this bill that owns and
operates 30 buildings with about 400 apartment units, writes
that they do not require tenants to devocalize or declaw their
pets. Instead, Nolan Taft Management argues that "Ýw]e do
require that pet owners inform us of their pets and that they
adhere to our pet-keeping policies, which are designed to
benefit the pets, their owners, and the neighbors, as well as
us, the property owners. We require a reasonable supplemental
security deposit to cover any damage caused by pets. This
additional deposit serves as an incentive for our tenants to
keep pets responsibly. We realize that many landlords do not
allow pets. However, we feel that our pet policies attract a
greater number of potential tenants and ones who are
responsible and motivated to be good tenants. We also find
that pet owners, on average, have longer periods of tenancy,
which is good for our business."
3. Scope
This bill's prohibitions would apply to any "person or
corporation that occupies, owns, manages, or provides services
in connection with any real property . . . and that allows an
animal on the premises." Although the specific prohibitions all
include a reference to occupancy, those prohibitions are not
limited to individuals for whom there is a landlord-tenant
relationship. Those prohibitions would apply not only to
tenants, but also any other person who happens to be an occupant
or prospective occupant - including children, family members,
and other individuals living on the property.
That broad inclusion appears consistent with the policy goal of
this bill. If the bill were limited to only those with a
landlord-tenant relationship, the additional parties in the
residence could still be pressured to devocalize or declaw their
animal. That pressure would circumvent the sponsor's stated
SB 1229 (Pavley)
Page 7 of ?
intent to protect animals and tenants.
It should also be noted that the bill's provisions would apply
where the owner or manager "allows an animal on the premises."
Although the bill would broadly define "animal" as a mammal,
bird, reptile, or amphibian, the bill itself does not require a
landlord to accept any specific type of animal on the property.
Thus, each landlord has a choice about whether to accept a
certain type of animal - if they do elect to accept an animal,
such as a cat, the bill's prohibitions would prevent the
landlord from requiring that cat to be declawed or devocalized.
Nothing would require the landlord to accept a cat (or dog or
any other animal) in the first place.
4. Civil penalties
Under this bill, persons or corporations that violate the bill's
prohibitions would be subject to a civil penalty of not more
than $1,000, per animal. A city or district attorney, other law
enforcement prosecutorial entity, or any person harmed by a
violation of this bill would be given standing to enforce the
bill. Since the individuals who are subject to the violation
may have limited income, or be otherwise unable (or unwilling)
to bring an action to enforce the bill's provisions, this bill
would authorize additional authority of law enforcement
entities, which would provide a further deterrent to those who
may consider violating the bill's provisions.
5. Governor Schwarzenegger's veto of AB 2743
This bill is substantially similar to the enrolled version of AB
2743 (Nava, 2010). In vetoing AB 2743, Governor Schwarzenegger
stated:
This bill would prohibit a landlord from requiring a tenant,
as a condition of rental occupancy, to have an animal
"declawed" or "devoiced." I support the goal of this bill,
which would preclude landlords from making inappropriate
medical decisions as a condition of occupancy. However, I
cannot sign a measure that contains findings and declarations
by the Legislature that are unsupported by science. In
addition, this measure suggests that declawing should be
prohibited for any "non-therapeutic" reason, which would
include the legitimate medical needs of a pet owner.
Regrettably, this bill goes too far in attempting to deal with
inappropriate demands by landlords.
SB 1229 (Pavley)
Page 8 of ?
This bill does not contain the same legislative findings and
declarations as AB 2743. Further, this bill has a narrower
scope and does not include a prohibition for non-therapeutic
reasons as contained in AB 2743.
Support : Actors and Others for Animals; Alley Cat Allies;
Animal Advocates; Best Friends Animal Society; Born Free USA;
California Apartment Association; California Veterinary Medical
Association; City of Berkeley; City of Santa Monica; City of
West Hollywood; Last Chance for Animals; League of Humane
Voters, California Chapter; Nolan-Taft Management; Ohlone Humane
Society; Paw PAC; Pet Care Foundation; Red Rover; Social
Compassion in Legislation; one individual
Opposition : The Animal Council
HISTORY
Source : Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association; The Paw
Project
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation :
AB 2743 (Nava, 2010) See Background, Comment 5.
SB 762 (Aanestad, Ch. 16, Stats. 2009) See Background.
**************