How Pit Bull Bans Exacerbate Housing Issues

Dan Reed argues that breed-specific housing restrictions that ban dogs such as pit bulls ultimately constitute a housing issue. Despite public perception that "pit bulls"–which "can refer to several different breeds, including American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier"–are "inherently dangerous," writes Reed, history shows "pit bull bans didn’t make communities safer." By now, "most jurisdictions in the [D.C.] region no longer have pit bull laws. Virginia bans breed-specific laws entirely." Yet Prince George's County continues to uphold its ban.

Reed reasserts that breed restrictions create unnecessary difficulties for renters like himself and his partner, who found themselves facing a list of 38 restricted breeds when renting an apartment in Montgomery County. Meanwhile, "'Pet-friendly' apartment complexes may still have restrictions and tend to be more expensive or charge extra in pet rent, putting them out of reach for many pet owners," and "insurance companies can deny or restrict your coverage if you have a pit bull." Reed advocates for the breeds, saying "misconceptions about pit bulls have real consequences for innocent dogs and their families."