BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1229
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 19, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
SB 1229 (Pavley) - As Amended: May 10, 2012
SENATE VOTE : 37-0
SUBJECT : RENTAL PROPERTY: RENTALS: ANIMALS
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD A LANDLORD BE PROHIBITED FROM IMPOSING
CONDITIONS ON OCCUPANCY THAT MIGHT CAUSE ANY ANIMAL ALLOWED ON
THE PREMISES TO BE DEVOCALIZED OR DECLAWED?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
This bill seeks to prohibit landlords and other persons who own
or manage real property from imposing conditions on occupancy of
the property that might cause an animal that is allowed on the
premises to be devocalized or declawed. Under this bill,
landlords and property owners are broadly prohibited from taking
certain actions that might put people in the untenable position
of having to choose between their housing accommodations or
having their pet cat or dog undergo a declawing or
devocalization procedure. The bill also seeks to prohibit
advertising of property available for occupancy in a manner
designed to discourage application for occupancy of that real
property because the applicant's animal has not been devocalized
or dec1awed. These provisions only apply when an animal in
question is already allowed on the premises; thus this bill does
not apply if the landlord has a no-pets policy, nor does it
compel landlords to accept pets in any case. Violators of these
prohibitions are subject to a civil penalty of not more than
$1,000 per animal. The bill is supported by a number of animal
advocacy organizations, veterinarians, California cities, and
tenant advocates, among others. It is opposed by the nonprofit
Animal Council, who believe the bill is intended to
de-legitimize elective veterinary procedures that are otherwise
lawful in California, and who also contend this bill would cause
more landlords to adopt no-pet policies, thus reducing housing
available to pet owners.
SB 1229
Page 2
SUMMARY : Prohibits landlords from imposing conditions on
occupancy of real property that might cause an animal that is
allowed on the premises to be devocalized or declawed.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Defines "devocalizing" to mean performing, procuring, or
arranging for any surgical procedure, such as a vocal
cordectomy, to remove an animal's vocal chords or to prevent
the normal function of an animal's vocal chords.
2)Defines "declawing" to mean performing, procuring, or
arranging for any procedure, such as an onychectomy,
tendonectomy, or phalangectomy, to remove or to prevent the
normal function of an animal's claw or claws.
3)Prohibits a person or corporation that occupies, owns,
manages, or provides services in connection with any real
property, and that allows an animal on the premises, from
doing any of the following:
a) 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 devocalized or dec1awed.
b) Refuse to allow the occupancy of any real property,
refuse to negotiate the occupancy of any real property, or
otherwise make unavailable or deny to any other person the
occupancy of any real property because of that person's
refusal to devocalize or declaw any animal.
c) Require any tenant or occupant of real property to
devocalize or declaw any animal allowed on the premises.
4)Permits 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, to be
paid to the person or entity that is entitled to bring an
action under this act.
5)Makes legislative findings and declarations.
EXISTING LAW :
SB 1229
Page 3
1)Prohibits any person from performing, or otherwise procuring
or arranging for the performance of, surgical claw 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. (Penal Code Section 597.6(a).)
2)Provides that any person who violates the above prohibition is
guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county
jail for a period not to exceed one year, by a fine of ten
thousand dollars ($10,000), or both. (Penal Code Section
597.6(b).)
3)Prohibits, generally, 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 Section
12955.)
COMMENTS : This bill seeks to prohibit landlords and other
persons who own or manage real property from imposing conditions
on occupancy of the property that might cause an animal that is
allowed on the premises to be devocalized or declawed. Under
this bill, landlords and property owners are broadly prohibited
from taking certain actions that might put people in the
untenable position of having to choose between their housing
accommodations or having their pet cat or dog undergo a
declawing or devocalization procedure. Among other things, the
bill seeks to prohibit advertising of property available for
occupancy in a manner designed to discourage application for
occupancy of that real property because the applicant's animal
has not been devocalized or dec1awed.
Background on declawing and devocalization. Onychectomy
("declawing") is an operation to remove an animal's claws by
amputating the end bones of the animal's toes. The 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, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, and the United
Kingdom.
SB 1229
Page 4
In California, eight cities - West Hollywood, San Francisco,
Santa Monica, Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, Berkeley, Burbank, and
Culver City, passed ordinances banning the practice of
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 (also
known as "debarking") most commonly applies to dogs and is an
operation to remove tissue from the animal's vocal cords so as
to permanently reduce the volume of its vocalizations. The
practice is illegal in New Jersey and Massachusetts.
Stated Need for the Bill. The author has submitted to the
Committee a number of examples of published rental listings
which indicate some landlords apparently are engaged in the
practice of conditioning occupancy of rental housing on the
declawing of cats and/or the devocalizing of dogs. According to
the author:
Many rental listings in California show a number of
properties, with landlords and managers requiring that
potential tenants will be considered only with declawed
cats. It has also been reported that devocalizing dogs
has also been a condition of rental tenancy. Declawed
cats and devocalized dogs can often have unintended
consequences for property managers, physical
complications for animals and emotional and financial
consequences for pet owners. These are permanent
procedures and such procedures run counter to the
temporary nature of rental occupancy.
In addition, the Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association
(HSVMA), a co-sponsor of this bill, contends that this bill is
needed to prevent the possibility of unnecessary medical
procedures for some animals. HSVMA states:
SB 1229 will protect tenants from being forced to choose
between securing housing for their families and
subjecting their pets to unnecessary, costly and
SB 1229
Page 5
life-altering medical procedures. . . . This 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.
The bill does not apply unless an animal is allowed on the
premises. This bill only applies when the landlord or owner
already allows an animal to be on the premises, thereafter
restricting specified conduct in those cases that could
condition occupancy on whether an animal is declawed or
devocalized. In other words, this bill does not apply to any
situation where the party making the property available for
occupancy specifically forbids an animal on the premises. This
bill does not infringe upon any landlord's ability to implement
a "no-pets" policy or forbid a tenant or occupant from having an
animal on the premises.
Two prohibitions are modeled after provisions from fair housing
law. First, the bill specifically prohibits "advertising the
availability of real property for occupancy in a manner designed
to discourage application for occupancy because the applicant's
animal has not been devocalized or declawed." The objective of
this prohibition is to address the problem of landlords running
ads for their rental properties that state a discriminatory
preference for an occupant whose animal is declawed or
devocalized. The author has supplied the Committee with a
number of examples of classified ads for rental housing that
state a preference for tenants having a declawed cat (e.g."Will
consider declawed cat only.") According to the author, this
provision is modeled on, but not identical to, language from the
CA Fair Housing Act that makes it unlawful for any person "to
publish. . . an advertisement, with respect to the sale or
rental of a housing accommodation that indicates any preference,
limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion,
sex, etc? or an intention to make that preference, limitation,
or discrimination." (Gov. Code Section 12955(c).)
In addition, this bill specifically prohibits a person from
"refusing to allow the occupancy of any real property, refusing
to negotiate the occupancy of any real property, or otherwise
make unavailable or deny to any other person the occupancy of
any real property because of that person's refusal to devocalize
or declaw any animal." According to the author, this provision
SB 1229
Page 6
is modeled on Section 804(a) of the federal Fair Housing Act
which makes it unlawful in federal housing "to refuse to sell or
rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to
negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make
unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race,
color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin." (42
U.S.C. 3604.) This bill would prohibit those similar
discriminatory practices on the basis of whether a prospective
occupant would devocalize or declaw an animal. This type of
prohibition is intended to prohibit discrimination against a
person seeking housing, before any occupancy agreement or
tenancy is established in the real property, lest landlords or
property owners be able to evade the spirit of the law by simply
refusing to rent to persons on the same basis by which they
would be prohibited from discrimination if there was a lease.
The bill proscribes conduct by "a person or corporation that
occupies, owns, manages, or provides services in connection with
any real property." While this typically may be within an
ordinary landlord-tenant relationship, the bill is also intended
to apply not just to landlords and tenants, but to occupants,
tenants and subtenants, and between roommates or co-occupants of
real property. In other words, any situation where one person
essentially leverages the right of occupancy or potential
occupancy against another person to have that person devocalize
or declaw an animal that is allowed on the premises.
Enforcement and civil penalties: Under this bill, 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. By authorizing law enforcement to
bring an action when a tenant or other individual harmed by a
violation may be unable to because of cost or other reasons, the
author seeks to preserve a strong deterrent effect to potential
violators. Finally, the bill subjects violators to a civil
penalty of not more than $1,000 per animal, to be paid to the
person or entity that is authorized to bring an action.
Prior Related Legislation. This bill is substantially similar
to the enrolled version of AB 2743 (Nava, 2010). In vetoing AB
2743, then-Governor Schwarzenegger stated:
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
SB 1229
Page 7
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.
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.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The bill is supported by a number of
animal advocacy organizations, veterinarians, California cities,
and tenant advocates, among others.
The California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) writes in
support of the bill, stating that decisions about declawing and
devocalization procedures "should be made by the animal-owning
client, in consultation with a California licensed veterinarian
. . . CVMA does not believe it is appropriate, nor medically
sound, for a landlord who is a non-medical professional to
condition occupancy on the requirement that an animal undergo
either one of these procedures."
The California Apartment Association (CAA), the largest
statewide rental housing trade association in the country, also
supports this bill because it enacts what is already the
Association's current practice. CAA explains that its
leadership "concluded years ago that it would not include in its
industry form and leases any requirements that would require
cats to be declawed or dogs debarked. Instead CAA recommends
that property owners rely upon pet deposits to cover any damage
to the unit."
The Western Center on Law and Poverty (WCLP) writes in support
of the bill, stating:
On behalf of our low-income clients, we are pleased to
support AB 2743, which would prohibit landlords from
requiring that tenants' pets be declawed or debarked. We
are concerned that such requirements, though not common
now, may increase in the future. Low-income families
lack the funds to pay for these operations, which can run
SB 1229
Page 8
into the hundreds of dollars. We are also concerned that
a debarking policy might infringe upon the meaningful
exercise of the rights of disabled tenants to keep a
service animal, as required by fair housing laws. A dog,
able to bark, likely would be a reasonable accommodation
under current laws, but disabled tenants would have to
assert these rights against a landlord who may be
ignorant of the law. For many, it isn't worth the time
and effort.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Animal Council opposes this bill,
contending that this bill is intended to "surreptitiously
delegitimize veterinary procedures unrelated to tenancies that
are otherwise lawful veterinary practice in California as
determined through the veterinarian-client relationship." In
addition, the Animal Council believes that the bill will have
the effect of eliminating the stock of rental housing available
to pet owners. They state:
Landlords have some legal liabilities in nuisances on
their owned premises, so the prospect of legal
enforcement arising from de-barking creates a
disincentive to offer or negotiate pet tenancies,
particularly if tenants will not mitigate barking or
dispose of the animal. We respectfully oppose this
disingenuous bill as harmful to both pets and tenants as
an initial step to eliminate these options for pet owners
to keep their pets anywhere.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
The Paw Project (co-sponsor)
Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association (HSVMA)
(co-sponsor)
Actor and Others for Animals
Alley Cat Allies
Animal Advocates
Best Friends Animal Society
Born Free USA
California Apartment Association
California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA)
City of Berkeley
City of Los Angeles
SB 1229
Page 9
City of Santa Monica
City of West Hollywood
Contra Costa Humane Society
Last Chance for Animals
League of Humane Voters, CA Chapter
Nolan-Taft Management
Ohlone Humane Society
Paw PAC
Pet Care Foundation
Red Rover
Social Compassion in Legislation
Western Center on Law and Poverty
Opposition
The Animal Council
Analysis Prepared by : Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916) 319-2334