Similarly, other studies have engaged in the perceived connections of pit bulls as the companion of drug dealers and the subsequent stereotype that
Black men are more likely to be drug dealers (Bronwen Dickey, 2016), which contributes to the argument that
“breed restrictive policies [in rental housing] function to promote racial segregation” (Ann Linder, 2018).
A recent study of 266 properties in Forsyth County, North Carolina (population 379,099 with a 27.5% Black/African American population) found that in neighborhoods with Black residents as the largest racial demographic group, only 48.1% of rental properties allowed dogs and only 46.8% allowed cats compared to predominantly white neighborhoods where dogs were allowed in 76.4% of rental properties and cats were allowed in 72.4% of rental properties.
The study also found that race was the key factor in determining whether or not pets were allowed on rental properties, as opposed to socioeconomic class (which does often intersect with race), noting that lower-income neighborhoods still featured clusters of pet-friendly properties as long as that neighborhood was predominantly white,
which the authors propose could be related to gentrification of that area. Admittedly, one’s socioeconomic class does contribute in significant ways to housing, a
s middle- and upper-class individuals are more likely to own their own homes, which allows a freedom from breed and size restrictions or blanket no-pet policies not afforded to people in lower socioeconomic classes (and particularly people of color).
Another demographic statistic that affects housing potentialities is a tenant’s age. Younger tenants are more likely to be renting and more likely to rent for longer periods (earning the “
generation rent” moniker), so issues regarding pets and housing policies are exacerbated for this demographic.
A recent study interviewed tenants and prospective tenants ages twenty-one to thirty-one (many of whom fall within the millennial age demographic referenced earlier) about the process, ease, and cost of finding housing in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
In addition to feeling that landlords discriminated against younger tenants who owned certain breeds of dogs—particularly large breeds or those breeds deemed “aggressive,” such as pit bulls, Rottweilers, and Dobermans—these tenants also addressed the “substandard quality” of pet-friendly properties compared to all rental properties available, citing potential rentals as often being
“run down” or “in horrible shape,” which is consistent with
previous research in this area.Contributing to the lower quality of pet-friendly rentals is the location of the neighborhood. Some tenants reported feeling unsafe while walking their dogs in their neighborhood while others were forced to move substantially further away from their workplaces or the city center, requiring them to reschedule their days, sometimes leaving pets at home alone for longer than is healthy. It should be noted that the study did not expound on
why some tenants felt unsafe in their given neighborhoods, but it is a fair assumption that this discomfort is, to an extent, because of racial demographics. As discussed above, racial profiles of Black Americans
as drug dealers or otherwise violent people effects the degree to which they are discriminated against in the housing market, but these stereotypes also affect how white residents view their Black neighbors.
Many studies have been done that show how housing is discriminatory—against people of color, especially—but an often-under-looked intersection of demographic is how pet ownership affects one’s ability to secure housing, or, in some cases how one’s other demographic factors like race and age affect the ability to keep a pet. The following pages will elaborate on the social and emotional benefits of owning pets and illuminate why the discrimination discussed in this essay are particularly upsetting and actually work to perpetuate existing inequality.