BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 1229 Page 1 SENATE THIRD READING SB 1229 (Pavley) As Amended August 24, 2012 Majority vote SENATE VOTE :37-0 JUDICIARY 7-1 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Ayes:|Feuer, Atkins, Dickinson, | | | | |Huber, Monning, | | | | |Wieckowski, Chesbro | | | | | | | | |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------| |Nays:|Jones | | | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 declawed; b) Refuse to allow the occupancy of any real property, SB 1229 Page 2 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; and, 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 or other law enforcement prosecutorial entity to enforce these provisions and sue for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, or imposition of specified civil penalties, to be paid to the entity that is entitled to bring an action under this act. 5)Makes legislative findings and declarations. FISCAL EFFECT : None 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. 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. 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. According to the author, this practice should be prohibited because debarking and declawing "are permanent procedures and such procedures run counter to the temporary nature of rental SB 1229 Page 3 occupancy." In addition, the Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association (HSVMA), a co-sponsor of this bill, contends that this bill is needed to "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." 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. 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 Assembly Judiciary 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 California 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." (Government 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 is modeled on Section 804(a) of the federal Fair Housing Act which makes it unlawful in federal housing "to refuse to sell or SB 1229 Page 4 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. As recently amended, only a city or district attorney or other law enforcement prosecutorial entity has authority to enforce violations of this bill. Violations of the advertising prohibition are subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per advertisement, while violations of the other prohibitions are punishable by a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per animal. In both cases, the bill provides that the penalty is to be paid to the entity authorized to bring an action for enforcement. This bill is substantially similar to the enrolled version of AB 2743 (Nava) of 2010 which was vetoed by then-Governor Schwarzenegger because it contained legislative findings and declarations "that are unsupported by science." This bill does not contain the same legislative findings and declarations and does not include a prohibition for non-therapeutic reasons as contained in AB 2743. Analysis Prepared by : Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0005520