Pet-Friendly Rental Housing: Racial and Spatial Inequalities

Abstract

Renters with pets seeking quality and affordable accommodations face numerous challenges. This research aims to identify whether the racial/ethnic predominance of the neighborhood population relates to the willingness of landlords to accept pets. To address this question, we gathered 266 rental listings from Craigslist and Zillow over a two-week period in Forsyth County, North Carolina. While the vast majority of landlords allowed dogs and cats at rental units in predominantly white neighborhoods, less than half permitted pets at properties in African-American neighborhoods. Chi-square tests demonstrated the statistical significance of these differences. Additional policies including breed restrictions, weight/size limits, non-refundable fees, and additional rent for pets further limited the ability of renters to keep pets. We discuss implications for tenant autonomy, the welfare of companion animals, and the perpetuation of racial segregation.

Keywords

Housing racial segregation companion animals residential alienation spatial inequality

Introduction

Animal companionship is a major component of American culture, cutting across race, class, and gender lines. A recent Harris poll estimates that 95% of people with pets consider them to be members of the family (Harris, 2015). Although whites keep pets at the highest rates of any ethnic group in the United States (Saunders et al., 2017), African Americans report higher levels of attachment to pets (Clancy & Rowan, 2003). Affective relationships with pets have a long history of providing ontological security to humans in a variety of contexts.

In urban spaces, these relationships often take place in domestic settings. However, many urban dwellers, particularly renters, experience a lack of control over their domestic spaces. Marcuse and Madden (2016) describe the ontological insecurity produced by an unstable housing environment as “residential alienation.” To not feel at home in one’s own home is a common feeling among renters, with landlords largely dictating conditions, policies, and even tenant behaviors within their properties. Landlord unwillingness to allow companion animals can further alienate tenants from their living spaces. This results in an unstable relationship to housing, marginalizing those with pets who seek quality and affordable accommodations.

Housing is a particularly important setting for understanding structural racism in the United States. Profound ties exist between racial residential segregation and health inequities (Williams & Collins, 2001), educational segregation (Frankenberg, 2013), and the growing wealth gap (Shapiro et al., 2013). However, little is known about the relationship between neighborhood racial segregation and access to animal companionship.

In this research article, we investigate whether access to dog- and cat-friendly rental housing is stratified along racial and geographic lines. We distinguish companion animals from service animals, as the Americans with Disabilities Act requires landlords to allow the latter at their rental properties. For the purposes of this study, companion animals are those not specifically trained to assist with a disability. We use the term “companion” in lieu of pets that are “owned” in light of legal protections afforded against animal abuse. Animals are not property in the sense that one cannot do whatever they want to their animal companions (Sunstein, 2003). Motivations for animal companionship include (but are not limited to) comfort, security, and affection. We aim to find out whether the sociospatial factor of neighborhood racial residential segregation relates to the ability to keep them in rental housing.

Those who might trivialize access to keeping pets fail to understand its importance to those who wish to pursue or maintain it. Because pets play an important role in quality of life, empirical research should be conducted to better understand if access to their companionship is stratified along social lines. For example, middle- and upper-class individuals are more likely to own their own homes, and might take for granted the ability to keep pets without obtaining permission from a landlord. (They also avoid the common additional costs of non-refundable deposits and pet rent.) Although a number of researchers have reported the challenges renters with pets face, this research contributes an examination into whether spatial access to keeping pets is racialized.

Research Aims

This research explores the spatial relationship between race and the availability of pet-friendly rental housing in Forsyth County, North Carolina. Is there a relationship between the location of pet-friendly rentals and the racial/ethnic predominance of neighborhood populations? Like so many resources that are segregated along racial lines in the United States, does race matter when it comes to where renters can keep pets? By exploring these questions, we aim to create a better understanding of the role that race plays in the relationship between pets, tenants, landlords, and neighborhoods.

Literature Review

The Benefits of Animal Companionship

The benefits of animal companionship have been the subject of substantial research. Many have argued that pets provide health benefits, particularly for marginalized populations. In an integrative review of research on pets and the homeless, studies identified pets as providing improved emotional, mental, and physical health, as well as providing protection (Cleary et al., 2020). Among older adults, animal companionship can promote independence and better quality of life by providing social support, structuring daily routines, and encouraging social interaction with other humans (Gee et al.l, 2017). African-American women in focus groups identified pets as facilitators for physical activity (Nies et al., 1999). People diagnosed with long-term mental health conditions derive ontological security and connectivity from pets (Brooks et al., 2016). On the other hand, some studies have linked negative mental and physical health consequences to keeping pets, such as psychological vulnerability (Peacock et al., 2012), higher use of pain medication (Parslow et al., 2005), and increased cardiac morbidity and mortality (Parker et al., 2010). As Siegel (2011) suggests, the question should not be “whether pet ownership facilitates good health, but under what circumstances” (p. 168). While Wood et al. (2005) argue that pets can facilitate improved social capital, the research cited earlier suggests that those opportunities are not evenly distributed or equitably accessible along race and class lines.

Rental Housing and Animal Companionship

Housing plays a key role in the ability to keep pets. However, there is little information about the prevalence of pet-friendly rental properties. In one nationwide study, approximately half of landlords allowed some type of pet, but only 9% of housing allowed companion animals without any restrictions on size or type (Carlilse-Frank et al., 2005). Power (2017) found links between keeping pets and housing insecurity, with renters perceiving fewer pet-friendly properties, especially among higher-quality units. Some tenants kept pets without landlord knowledge, further increasing the instability of their occupancy. In a study of people who gave up their pets, renters most frequently cited landlords not allowing pets as the reason for re-homing their animals (Weiss et al., 2015). Among lower-income renters, Shore et al. (2003) found residential mobility as a primary challenge to retaining pets. While the pressure to find housing overrode attachment to pets, caregivers expressed emotional pain, discomfort, and sorrow about relinquishing their pets. Others might experience eviction and homelessness if forced to choose between their pets and their housing (Hunt & Stein, 2007). Victims of intimate partner violence have delayed leaving batterers due to the need to find places for their pets to stay (Flynn, 2000). Disasters such as floods can also heighten the distress and vulnerability of people and their companion animals in search of secure rental housing (Graham & Rock, 2019). In the wake of Hurricane Matthew, survey research revealed that people with sheltering resources for their animals were more likely to follow evacuation orders (Farmer and DeYoung, 2019). Older adults who wish to age in place with pets also face challenges finding pet-friendly housing (Toohey & Rock, 2018). At the other end of the age spectrum, younger adults reported feeling powerless and discriminated against by landlords in negotiations for housing with pets (Graham et al., 2018).

Race and Animal Companionship

Research into animal companionship has shown many relevant connections to race. Historically, police dogs have been used to catch runaway slaves and attack civil rights protesters (Mayorga-Gallo, 2018). Thomas and Vermilya (2019) found that popular representations of companion dogs in marginalized black and Latinx communities devalue dogs and humans, making both more vulnerable to police shootings. Dickey (2016) traced the perceived connection between pit bulls and African Americans to the racialized war on drugs, as the public’s fear of crack cocaine collided with its fear of the animal stereotyped as the companion of drug dealers. Government efforts to criminalize the African-American population in the 1980s coincided with hip-hop culture’s use of pit bulls as mascots. Subsequently, many municipalities across the United States began enacting pit bull bans around 1987 (Hogue, 2017). These policies ignore the positive relationships and symbolism of pit bulls, as many African Americans associate the breed with strength, self-efficacy, support, and companionship.

Public spaces and interactions also commonly manifest the perceived racialized aspects of animal companionship. Tissot (2011) found gentrifying upper-middle class whites appropriating public space by establishing “dog runs” (parks for exercising dogs), which lower-income and minority neighbors almost never used. Mayorga-Gallo (2018) studied a mixed-race neighborhood in Durham, North Carolina where the dog-based interactions between whites and African American or Latinx residents reproduced interracial social distance and white supremacy. White respondents looked to “rescue” companion animals from minorities, believing themselves to be better caretakers.

Breed restrictions have extended to private spaces, including housing. Linder (2018) argues that breed restrictive policies today function to promote racial segregation, with targeted breeds intended to keep African American and Latinx populations out of certain communities. These policies, Linder goes on to suggest, might be open to challenge as discriminatory under the Fair Housing Act. Combined with the long-established history of institutional discrimination aimed at restricting housing options for African Americans (e.g. Rose-Ackerman, 1977), research into the racialization of pets reveals one more dimension of racism in neighborhoods and housing markets.

Methods

Setting

The setting for this research is Forsyth County, North Carolina. In terms of population, Forsyth County is the fourth-largest county in North Carolina with 379,099 residents (U.S. Census Bureau, 2018). Its county seat, Winston-Salem, serves as the urban center of the region with a population of 244,605 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2018). Forsyth County’s African-American population (27.5%) is higher than the U.S. South overall (20.2%), but its levels of racial segregation are similar to other Southern cities (Massey & Tannen, 2015; U.S. Census Bureau, 2018). Additionally, its slightly lower owner-occupied housing unit rate (61.5%) compared to the rest of the U.S. South (65.4%) provides a large population of renters for the purposes of this study (U.S. Census Bureau, 2018).

The city has a long history of white supremacists using de jure and de facto racial segregation to divide the city along east-west lines. As African-American workers migrated to the city beginning in the late 19th-century for factory jobs with tobacco and other industries, they were confined to low-lying, substandard housing (Korstad, 2003). In 1912, Winston’s Board of Aldermen passed an ordinance mandating residentially segregated neighborhoods throughout the city. Shortly thereafter, an African-American tobacco worker named William Darnell challenged the law in court, and it was overturned. However, in subsequent decades, zoning laws, the real estate industry, the federal government, and violence committed by whites ensured the deeply racially segregated growth of the city (Herbin-Triant, 2019).

This history has a direct link to contemporary neighborhood inequalities. To be certain, housing continues to be a site of institutional racism in Winston-Salem. Beginning in 1959, the city’s Urban Redevelopment Commission used eminent domain to construct U.S. 52, a highway that runs north and south primarily through African-American neighborhoods such as historic Happy Hill (Cruise, 2011). While city leaders framed urban renewal as a way to remove blight and improve conditions in African-American communities, quality, affordable housing continues to be scarce, and the highway has become notorious as a racial dividing line in the city (Mosaic Community Planning, 2017). Today, Forsyth County has one of the lowest rates of upward intergenerational economic mobility in the United States (Chetty & Hendren, 2016). Winston-Salem’s per capita eviction rate currently ranks 2nd in North Carolina and 16th overall in the United States (Desmond et al., 2018). African-American women face the majority of these evictions (Desmond, 2016).

Those seeking housing in Forsyth County often search for accommodations that will permit the occupancy of their companion animals. Esri (2018) estimates 83,212 (54.9%) of households in Forsyth County have pets, including 34,924 (23.0%) with cats and 63,820 (42.1%) with dogs. These estimates are close to national averages.

Data Collection

We gathered listings daily over two weeks (February 12–February 25, 2019) from two of the most common online sources for renters, Zillow and Craigslist. The two websites listed 266 unique addresses during this period. For each listing, we gleaned information about the ability of renters to keep dogs and cats. Pet policies were often listed in the advertisements themselves, as Zillow and Craigslist request that information from landlords in their listings. However, when they did not indicate pet policies clearly, we called, emailed, or texted the contact person for each listing. Nine landlords provided ambiguous responses about the ability to keep dogs, and nine landlords provided ambiguous responses about the ability to keep cats. One lessor was only ambiguous about dogs. One lessor was only ambiguous about cats. Eight landlords were ambiguous about both dogs and cats. We also gathered data (where available) about the rent at each unit, pet fees (both refundable and nonrefundable), monthly pet rent, limits on the number of pets, limits on the weight/size of pets, breed restrictions, and any other terms or conditions regarding the keeping of animals. Finally, we gathered the addresses of dog parks, pet supply stores, and veterinary services in Forsyth County.

Mapping

Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS), we analyzed the spatial distribution of pet-friendly rental housing and the racial composition of neighborhoods in Forsyth County. We entered all rental listing addresses into ArcGIS, constructing two separate maps—one for dogs and one for cats. We coded the data for dogs as follows: dogs allowed, dogs not allowed, and a third category for landlords who provided unclear or ambiguous information, or who wished to make a discretionary judgment on the ability to house a dog. We coded the data for cats the same way. Then we added to the maps the neighborhood-level indicator of racial/ethnic predominance as a layer underneath the addresses for each map of these rental listings. This color-coded the terrain of Forsyth County to indicate whether the largest racial/ethnic population in each census tract was white, African American, or Hispanic. Skinner et al. (2012) created the layer from Census 2010 tract-level data. Shading of these tracts indicated the degree of racial/ethnic predominance, distinguishing full predominance (the biggest racial/ethnic population was at least 50 percentage points larger than the next largest group), sizeable predominance (the biggest racial/ethnic population was 10–50 percentage points larger than the next largest group), and slim predominance (the biggest racial/ethnic population was less than 10 percentage points larger than the next largest group). The census tract for Downtown Winston-Salem was recoded as predominantly white due to rapid gentrification that has taken place since 2010. The city’s 2018 Annual Report indicated that its downtown population had tripled to 2,250 since 2010 (City of Winston-Salem, 2018). This new population is much more likely to be wealthy, young, and white, living in newly remodeled lofts and other upscale apartment buildings.

Using the clustering tool in ArcGIS, we grouped addresses in close proximity to visualize where geographic areas contained clusters of allowing or not allowing dogs or cats, as well as where pet-friendliness was mixed. In addition to the racial/ethnic predominance census tract base maps, these maps were constructed to help provide answers to whether there were racial inequalities in the pet friendliness of rental properties according to neighborhood.

Statistical Tests

We then conducted two chi-square tests in SPSS to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference in whether landlords allowed dogs and cats in rental properties according to the racial/ethnic predominance of the neighborhood (n=253 for both tests). Racial/ethnic predominance was constructed as a binary, with either white (n=174) or African American (n=79) predominance of the neighborhood population coded. We excluded four addresses in predominantly Latinx neighborhoods from these tests. We also excluded nine addresses where the landlords would not conclusively say whether they would allow dogs or cats.

Results

Of the 266 properties listed during the two-week sample period, we obtained information on the ability to keep dogs at 257 of the properties and the ability to keep cats at another 257 properties. Out of 257 properties, 174 landlords (67.7 percent) allowed tenants to have some type of dog on the premises. Similarly, 166 out of 257 landlords (64.6%) allowed tenants to have a cat on the premises. Broken down by neighborhood racial/ethnic predominance, however, striking differences emerge. For neighborhoods with African Americans as the largest group, only 48.1 percent of rental listings in the sample allowed at least one dog, and only 46.8 of rental listings allowed at least one cat. Conversely, the majority of properties in predominantly white neighborhoods allowed dogs (76.4%) and cats (72.4%). One listing for a unit in a predominantly African-American neighborhood contained the following statement from the landlord:

All units are NO-PET. Any exception to this policy must be made in writing, and a non-refundable pet fee will apply. If a pet (or evidence thereof) is found inside the property or on the premises, even if it is “just visiting”, owned by a guest of the tenant, etc., FIRST OFFENSE may result in a $500 FINE and REQUIREMENT TO IMMEDIATELY REMOVE THE ANIMAL, or EVICTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT.

By law, a service animal is not considered to be a pet. Landlord makes every effort to stay current on, and follow completely, all laws regarding service animals. However, laws regarding service animals change often, and many people misuse and/or defraud the system for the purpose of keeping an otherwise-disallowed pet, conjuring a fair housing / discrimination case, or both. Therefore, as long as current law allows:

Tenant shall disclose upon initial application if he owns a service animal, if he qualifies to own a service animal, or if he plans to attempt to qualify for a service animal.

The statement goes on to specify numerous forms of documentation and insurance tenants must obtain to have a service animal on the property. This policy appears designed to discourage anyone with animals—companion, service, or otherwise—from moving in. The requirement of “disclosure upon initial application” if a tenant “owns” a service animal makes discriminatory denial of housing possible for those with a legal right to keep them.

Mapping

Two maps display where the sample of rental units contain clusters of units where landlords allowed dogs and cats along with the racial/ethnic predominance of neighborhoods. The maps cluster 264 data points for dog- and cat-friendliness of rental properties to show striking contrasts according to neighborhood racial/ethnic composition (see Figures 1 and 2). Green dots indicate a cluster of rental properties in close proximity where dogs or cats are allowed. Red dots indicate a geographic concentration of sampled rental listings where pets are not allowed. Yellow dots indicate mixed clusters where approximately half of the properties listed in close proximity allowed dogs or cats and approximately half did not allow them. The size of the dots represent how many rental units are included in each cluster.

Figure 1.

Dogs allowed with racial/ethnic predominance of neighborhood population.

Figure 2.

Cats allowed with racial/ethnic predominance of neighborhood population.

The county’s predominantly white western-half and gentrifying downtown appear more likely to contain green dots in both maps, indicating dog- and cat-friendliness. Clusters of properties not allowing pets are more concentrated in the city’s near east and north sides—predominantly African-American neighborhoods. One difference between the maps is found just north of downtown in the Historically African-American neighborhood of Boston-Thurmond, where a yellow dot in Figure 1 indicates a roughly even mix of properties allowing and not allowing dogs, whereas a red dot in Figure 2 indicates a majority of rental listings sampled indicated cats not allowed. As you move further east from the center of Winston-Salem, clusters of more pet-friendly units begin to emerge near the predominantly white suburb of Kernersville. With the exception of one small cluster that contained a mix of units that allowed and did not allow dogs and cats, all other outlying areas of Forsyth County allowed pets according to these maps. Beyond rental properties, Forsyth County’s dog parks, pet supply stores, and veterinary services were also primarily located in predominantly white neighborhoods.

Breed and Size Restrictions

With regard to dogs, the majority of landlords specified breed restrictions, weight/size limits, or some combination of these to limit or prohibit the types of animals (especially dogs) allowed on the sampled rental properties. For 101 of the 174 properties that allowed dogs (58.0%), we were able to obtain clear, unambiguous policies pertaining to whether there were breed, size, or any other restrictions. Of those 101 properties, only 20 (19.8%) did not have any breed or size/weight restrictions. In addition, 14 landlords provided ambiguous responses to questions about whether they had breed or size restrictions. Most of these landlords stated that the types of dogs allowed would be at their discretion, with no further information provided, while others wanted to conduct pet interviews before deciding on their willingness to accept them. We provide the locations of properties with and without breed restrictions, along with the racial/ethnic predominance of the neighborhoods where they are located, in Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Breed or size restrictions with racial/ethnic predominance of neighborhood population.

Statistical Tests

While the visual results were striking, statistical analysis revealed further support for the hypothesis that pet-friendliness is patterned along racial lines. Chi-square tests of where dogs and cats were allowed each showed statistically significant differences between the racial/ethnic predominance of neighborhoods and whether landlords allowed dogs and cats at the rental properties listed in those areas (see Tables 1 and 2). These differences were statistically significant at the level of p < .001, indicating large differences in pet friendliness based on racial/ethnic predominance of the neighborhoods. A third chi-square test of the relationship between properties with clearly stated dog breed or size restrictions and the racial/ethnic predominance of neighborhoods was not statistically significant (see Table 3). However, white neighborhoods had almost twice the rate (22.7%) of dog-friendly properties with no restrictions compared to African-American neighborhoods (11.5%). Additionally, all 14 properties with ambiguous breed or size restriction policies were located in predominately white neighborhoods. We further discuss the implications of these policies and more below.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of Dog Policies at Rental Properties.

	Racial/Ethnic Predominance of Neighborhood
	African American	White	Pearson’s Chi-Square
Dogs allowed	38 (48.1%)	133 (76.4%)	19.914 (p < .001)*
Dogs not allowed	41 (51.9%)	41 (23.6%)
Column totals	79	174

Source. Data collected by authors during the February 12 to 25, 2019 period.

p value from Chi-square test of independence for dog policies and neighborhood racial/ethnic predominance.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics of Cat Policies at Rental Properties.

	Racial/Ethnic Predominance of Neighborhood
	African American	White	Pearson’s Chi-Square
Cats allowed	37 (46.8%)	126 (72.4%)	15.510 (p < .001)*
Cats not allowed	42 (53.2%)	48 (27.6%)
Column totals	79	174

Source. Data collected by authors during the February 12 to 25, 2019 period.

p value from Chi-square test of independence for cat policies and neighborhood racial/ethnic predominance.

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics of Dog Breed/Size Restrictions at Rental Properties.

	Racial/Ethnic Predominance of Neighborhood
	African American	White	Pearson’s Chi-Square
No restrictions	3 (11.5%)	17 (22.7%)	1.506 (p = .220)*
Restrictions	23 (88.5%)	58 (77.3%)
Column totals	26	75

Source. Data collected by authors during the February 12 to 25, 2019 period.

p value from Chi-square test of independence for dog breed/size restrictions and neighborhood racial/ethnic predominance.

Discussion

These data demonstrate neighborhood-level racial inequalities in the availability of pet-friendly rental housing. Within predominantly white neighborhoods, the vast majority of rental properties in this sample allowed dogs and cats, whereas less than half of landlords in predominantly African-American neighborhoods allowed dogs and cats. Chi-square tests revealed the statistical significance of these differences. Overall, the ability for renters with companion animals to find housing in predominately white neighborhoods appears to be much easier. Even lower-income predominately white neighborhoods in our sample, traditionally located in the south-central part of Winston-Salem, featured clusters of pet-friendly rental properties. These findings resonate with previous research that finds widespread housing discrimination against African Americans. It broadens that knowledge to include the ability to keep pets in predominantly African-American neighborhoods.

Beyond the search for housing, racial disparities for residents with companion animals involves other resources at the neighborhood level. The proliferation of dog parks, pet supply stores, and veterinary services in white neighborhoods dovetails with a profound lack of these resources in African-American neighborhoods. This resonates with previous findings about other diminished resources in minority neighborhoods such as government services (Audirac, 2018), infrastructure (Bise et al., 2018), and grocery stores (Rose, 2011).

Gentrification, with its attendant influx of wealthy white residents, should be noted in relation to the cluster of pet-friendly rental spaces found in downtown Winston-Salem. Another gentrifying neighborhood just southwest of downtown, Washington Park, featured a cluster of pet-friendly rentals. Washington Park is also home to the only public dog park in the urban core of Winston-Salem. Groomers and boutiques featuring gourmet pet treats have recently opened in these neighborhoods. These changes correlate with Nast’s (2006) suggestion that the commodification of pets has largely emerged from elite white contexts.

Given previous research citing housing issues as a major cause of pet relinquishment, and our finding that residents with pets experience more difficulty finding rental homes in predominantly African-American neighborhoods, this research might provide a key link to the higher reported rates of stray dogs in African-American neighborhoods (Reese, 2015; Ross & Mirowsky, 1999). Tenants have cited landlord policies, including those that prohibit pets, limit their size and weight, and charge tenants fees for keeping them as the top reason for relinquishment (Shore et al., 2003). Some relinquishments take the form of pet abandonment, leading to strays, public health, and animal welfare issues (Amaku et al., 2010). Such public health issues linked to stray animals include zoonotic protozoal diseases and dog bites (Balan et al., 2011; Reese, 2015).

A closer look at pet policies in this sample reveals that landlords restricting the breeds and sizes of dogs further constrain many who wish to keep certain types of companion pets. Although the chi-square test did not demonstrate a statistically significant relationship between the presence of breed/size restrictions and the racial/ethnic predominance of the neighborhood, a closer examination of the data revealed that the 14 landlords with ambiguous breed or size policies were all located in predominately white neighborhoods. Their discretion over which companion animals to allow might serve as a proxy for determining which tenants to allow and opens up the possibility for further racial and ethnic discrimination in housing. An audit study of potential white and African-American renters with so-called aggressive breeds of dogs might reveal whether these restrictions function differently according to the race of the renter and/or the neighborhood of the home. Future research should seek to better understand the experiences of African Americans with pets to gain a nuanced understanding of the housing, health, built environment, and other resources essential to facilitating successful animal companionship. Interviews should be conducted to examine how renters with companion animals experience the search for housing as well as how landlords make decisions about allowing pets.

Limitations

These data provide a snapshot of pet-friendly rental availability. The winter sample period might differ from rentals advertised at other times of the year. Variation in the ways landlords advertise rental properties might also limit the accuracy and generalizability of this sample. For example, many properties are not advertised online, with landlords communicating availability through yard signs, word-of-mouth, or other existing networks. This research is also limited by the lack of detailed information on the relative likelihood of apartments, houses, townhomes, and other types of housing to allow pets. In addition, some apartment complexes listed as a single street address might have many units within them. Efforts to account for the size of these developments would further clarify the scope of these patterns, and whether or not certain types of housing (detached, multi-unit, or apartments) are more likely to allow pets.

Policy Implications

Tenants’ rights regarding animal companionship should be augmented through policy and enforcement. As housing laws currently prohibit landlords from discriminating against parents with children, those same protections could be extended to the keepers of pets. O’Reilly-Jones (2018) has called for legislators to constrain landlord control over socially-maligned dog breeds, as they reduce access to housing, especially for low-income families. Outlawing dog breed and size restrictions in housing could also reduce the racial discrimination against minorities perceived as more likely to keep those pets. Beyond breed and size restrictions, banning nonrefundable fees and monthly rent for pets could further reduce economic difficulties faced by their caretakers. As Hart and Kidd (1994) suggest, housing policies geared toward permitting pets could drastically reduce the amount of euthanized animals. At the neighborhood-level, better infrastructure and services such as sidewalks, dog parks, and the availability of veterinary care could improve conditions for both humans and companion animals in marginalized communities. These measures combined could facilitate the better circumstances that Siegel (2011) suggests for more beneficial human and animal interaction.

Conclusions

Home takes an infinite variety of forms for individuals, but is an essential and universally sought possession. For many, the ability to keep pets is an essential extension and expression of the meaning of home. Renters are no exception. Yet, as a commodified product in a capitalist society, the search for housing can present an alienating experience for renters, especially those who wish to have companion animals. Further examination into landlord policies deterrent to animal companionship show that breed restrictions and weight/size limits are present in the vast majority of properties where landlords allow dogs. Racialized patterns of pet-friendly housing in this study demonstrate the discriminatory impact on minority renters seeking accommodations for themselves and their companion animals. Overall, the right to enjoy pet companionship is unequally distributed along racialized geographic lines, and robust housing policies should be implemented to address the disparity.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Daniel Rose

Author Biographies

Daniel Rose is an assistant professor of sociology at Winston-Salem State University. His research interests include housing, urban neighborhoods, research methods, pedagogy, and the social determinants of health. His teaching focuses on helping students connect their personal and community experiences to broader global issues in sociology. He previously taught at Chattanooga State Community College, where he was the department head of Social and Behavioral Sciences.

Courtney McMillian is a recent graduate of Winston-Salem State University, majoring in sociology and minoring in public health. Ms. McMillian has conducted research on food equity, gender oppression, HIV/AIDS, and housing discrimination. Her current research focuses on LGBT marginalization in North Carolina. She obtained her Associate of Arts degree from Forsyth Technical Community College where she studied psychology and sociology.

Onneya Carter is a recent graduate of Winston-Salem State University, majoring in sociology and minoring in public health. Ms. Carter has conducted research on food equity, health disparities, and housing discrimination. She recently launched a women’s empowerment group focusing on providing a safe place for women to foster healthy, stable, and nurturing relationships.

References

Amaku

Dias

R. A.

Ferreira

(2010). Dynamics and control of stray dog populations. Mathematical Population Studies, 17(2), 69–78.

Audirac

. (2018). Shrinking cities: An unfit term for American urban policy?. Cities, 75, 1219.

Balan

L. U.

Yerbes

I. M.

Pina

M. A. N.

Balmes

Pascual

Hernández

. . . Monteón

(2011). Higher seroprevalence of Trypanosoma cruzi infection in dogs than in humans in an urban area of Campeche, Mexico. Vector-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases, 11(7), 843–844.

Bise

R. D.

Rodgers

J. C.

III Maguigan

M. A.

Beaulieu

Keith

Maguigan

C. L.

Meng

(2018). Sidewalks as measures of infrastructure inequities. Southeastern Geographer, 58(1), 39–57.

Brooks

Rushton

Walker

Lovell

Rogers

(2016). Ontological security and connectivity provided by pets: a study in the self-management of the everyday lives of people diagnosed with a long-term mental health condition. BMC Psychiatry, 16(1), 409.

Carlisle-Frank

Frank

J. M.

Nielsen

(2005). Companion animal renters and pet-friendly housing in the US. Anthrozoös, 18(1), 59–77.

Chetty

Hendren

(2016). The impacts of neighborhoods on intergenerational mobility II: County-level estimates (No. w23002). National Bureau of Economic Research.

City of Winston-Salem. (2018). Comprehensive annual financial report for the fiscal tear ended June 30, 2018. http://www.cityofws.org/Portals/0/pdf/finance/2018%20City%20of%20Winston-Salem%20Comprehensive%20Annual%20Financial%20Report.pdf?ver=2018-11-16-093711-880.

Clancy

E. A.

Rowan

A. N.

(2003). Companion animal demographics in the United States: A historical perspective. In Salem

D. J.

Rowan

A. N.

(Eds.), The state of the animals II: 2003 (pp. 9–26). Humane Society Press.

10.

Cleary

Visentin

Thapa

D. K.

West

Raeburn

Kornhaber

(2020). The homeless and their animal companions: an integrative review. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 47(1), 47–59.

11.

Cruise

(2011). Reynoldstown: Race, blight, disease, highway construction and the transformation of Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Master’s Thesis, North Carolina State University, 2011, https://catalog.lib.ncsu.edu/record/NCSU2466112.

12.

Desmond

(2016). Evicted: Poverty and profit in the American city. Broadway Books.

13.

Desmond

Gromis

Edmonds

Hendrickson

Krywokulski

Leung

Porton

(2018). Eviction lab national database: Version 1.0. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.

14.

Dickey

(2017). Pit bull: The battle over an American icon. Alfred A. Knopf.

15.

Esri. (2018). ArcGIS Online. Environmental Systems Research Institute.

16.

Farmer

A. K.

DeYoung

S. E.

(2019). The pets of Hurricane Matthew: Evacuation and sheltering with companion animals. Anthrozoös, 32(3), 419–433.

17.

Flynn

(2000). Battered women and their animal companions: Symbolic interaction between human and nonhuman animals. Society & Animals, 8(2), 99–127.

18.

Frankenberg

(2013). The role of residential segregation in contemporary school segregation. Education and Urban Society, 45(5), 548–570.

19.

Gee

N. R.

Mueller

M. K.

Curl

A. L.

(2017). Human–animal interaction and older adults: An overview. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1416.

20.

Graham

T. M.

Milaney

K. J.

Adams

C. L.

Rock

M. J.

(2018). “Pets negotiable”: How do the perspectives of landlords and property managers compare with those of younger tenants with dogs? Animals, 8(3), 32.

21.

Graham

T. M.

Rock

M. J.

(2019). The spillover effect of a flood on pets and their people: Implications for rental housing. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 22(3), 229–239.

22.

Harris. (2015). “More Than Ever, Pets are Members of the Family.” Harris poll. https://theharrispoll.com/whether-furry-feathered-or-flippers-a-flapping-americans-continue-to-display-close-relationships-with-their-pets-2015-is-expected-to-continue-the-pet-industrys-more-than-two-decades-strong/

23.

Hart

L. A.

Kidd

A. H.

(1994). Potential pet ownership in US rental housing. Canine Practice, 19, 24–24.

24.

Herbin-Triant

E. A.

(2019). Threatening property: Race, class, and campaigns to legislate Jim Crow neighborhoods. Columbia University Press.

25.

Hogue

(2017). Pink is the new bull: The feminization of pit bulls in visual and literary discourses as a rescue tactic.

26.

Hunt

M. G.

Stein

C. H.

(2007). Who let the dogs in? A pets policy for a supported housing organization. American Journal of Psychiatric Rehabilitation, 10(3), 163–183.

27.

Korstad

R. R.

(2003). Civil rights unionism: Tobacco workers and the struggle for democracy in the mid-twentieth-century South. UNC Press Books.

28.

Linder

(2018). The black man’s dog: The social context of breed-specific legislation. Animal Law, 25, 51–74.

29.

Marcuse

Madden

(2016). In defense of housing: The politics of crisis. Verso Books.

30.

Massey

D. S.

Tannen

(2015). A research note on trends in black hypersegregation. Demography, 52(3), 1025–1034.

31.

Mayorga-Gallo

(2018). Whose best friend? Dogs and racial boundary maintenance in a multiracial neighborhood. Sociological Forum, 33(2), 505–528.

32.

Mosaic Community Planning. (2017). City of Winston-Salem, Forsyth County, and Housing Authority of Winston-Salem Assessment of Fair Housing. Available at: http://www.cityofws.org/Portals/0/pdf/1CBD/Planning/2018/Mar%202018/Final%20AFH%20for%20Winston-Salem%20Forsyth%20HAWS.pdf?ver=2018-03-21-162613-980. Accessed: June 17, 2019.

33.

Nast

H. J.

(2006). Critical pet studies?. Antipode, 38(5), 894–906.

34.

Nies

M. A.

Vollman

Cook

(1999). African American women’s experiences with physical activity in their daily lives. Public health nursing, 16(1), 23–36.

35.

O’Reilly-Jones

(2018). When Fido is amily: How landlord-imposed pet bans restrict access to housing. Columbia Journal of Law & Social Problems, 52, 427–472.

36.

Parker

G. B.

, et al. Survival following an acute coronary syndrome: a pet theory put to the test. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 121.1 (2010): 65–70.

37.

Parslow

R. A.

Jorm

A. F.

Christensen

Rodgers

Jacomb

(2005). Pet ownership and health in older adults: Findings from a survey of 2,551 community-based Australians aged 60–64. Gerontology, 51(1), 40–47.

38.

Peacock

Chur-Hansen

Winefield

(2012). Mental health implications of human attachment to companion animals. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 68(3), 292–303.

39.

Power

E. R.

(2017). Renting with pets: a pathway to housing insecurity?. Housing Studies, 32(3), 336–360.

40.

Reese

L. A.

(2015). The dog days of Detroit: Urban stray and feral animals. City & Community, 14(2), 167–182.

41.

Rose

D. J.

(2011). Captive audience? Strategies for acquiring food in two Detroit neighborhoods. Qualitative Health Research, 21(5), 642–651.

42.

Rose-Ackerman

(1977). The political economy of a racist housing market. Journal of Urban Economics, 4(2), 150–169.

43.

Ross

C. E.

Mirowsky

(1999). Disorder and decay: The concept and measurement of perceived neighborhood disorder. Urban Affairs Review, 34(3), 412–432.

44.

Saunders

Parast

Babey

S. H.

Miles

J. V.

(2017). Exploring the differences between pet and non-pet owners: Implications for human-animal interaction research and policy. PloS One, 12(6), e0179494.

45.

Siegel

J. M.

(2011). Pet ownership and health. In The psychology of the human-animal bond (pp. 167–177). Springer.

46.

Shapiro

Meschede

Osoro

(2013). The roots of the widening racial wealth gap: Explaining the black-white economic divide. Institute on Assets and Social Policy Research and Policy Brief. Brandeis University: Waltham, MA.

47.

Shore

E. R.

Petersen

C. L.

Douglas

D. K.

(2003). Moving as a reason for pet relinquishment: A closer look. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 6(1), 39–52.

48.

Skinner

Jones

Herries

(2012). Predominant populations in the USA. http://atlasmaps.esri.com/arcgis/rest/services/Esri/Predominant_Population_LegendOnly/MapServer.

49.

Sunstein

C. R.

(2003). The rights of animals. The University of Chicago Law Review, 70(1), 387–401.

50.

Thomas

D. T.

Vermilya

J. R.

(2019). Framing “friend”: Media framing of “man’s best friend” and the pattern of police shootings of dogs. Social Sciences, 8(4), 1–24.

51.

Tissot

(2011). Of dogs and men: The making of spatial boundaries in a gentrifying neighborhood. City & Community, 10(3), 265–284.

52.

Toohey

A. M.

Rock

M. J.

(2018). Disruptive solidarity or solidarity disrupted? A dialogical narrative analysis of economically vulnerable older adults’ efforts to age in place with Pets. Public Health Ethics, 12(1), 15–29.

53.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2018). Annual estimates of the resident population: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2018. https://factfinder.census.gov/.

54.

Weiss

Gramann

Spain

C. V.

Slater

(2015). Goodbye to a good friend: an exploration of the re-homing of cats and dogs in the US. Open Journal of Animal Sciences, 5(04), 435.

55.

Williams

D. R.

Collins

(2001). Racial residential segregation: A fundamental cause of racial disparities in health. Public Health Reports, 116, 404–416.

56.

Wood

Giles-Corti

Bulsara

(2005). The pet connection: Pets as a conduit for social capital? Social Science & Medicine, 61(6), 1159–1173.