The main reason that this is being brought up was that the tenants are being forced to "downsize" their rentals, and the new rentals don't take pets, thus, the shelters are overwhelmed, and lots of pets are "put to sleep". And apparently, this is anathema to some of the SF Animal Care and Control Commission members.
Frankly, this is backwards reasoning. In this economy, people can't afford both pets AND a nice place. The lack of "pet friendly" rental is just an excuse. The REAL TRUTH is people can no longer afford mortgages, and have to rent. If they own their own house, they can have pets with no restrictions. If they rent, they have restrictions. That's something they have to live with. If they want pet ownership right, they need to own their own house.
Do you put bumper stickers on rental cars? Of course not. When you "rent" or "lease", your rights toward that property is naturally more limited than if you owned it. Basically, you accept whatever the landlord says... unless you are discriminated against.
What exactly is a pet? Clearly, it means more than cat or dog... So where do you draw the line? Mouse? Hamsters and gerbils? Lizards like iguanas and dragons and such? Chameleons? Snakes? How long? How about horses, pigs, birds, and others? How big or small? Insects? If you include one, are you going down a slippery slope toward anything? How about a "human pet"?
Then since when is pet ownership a "right"? Pet is a LUXURY, like wine, jewelry, bling bling, and such. It's a PRIVILEGE! There is no such thing as "right to companionship" either. So this whole thing is a joke.
Artificially increasing the so-called "pet-friendly" rentals will cause a severe backlash against the city government.