Bir, Courtney, Mario Ortez, J. Olynk Widmar Nicole, Christopher A. Wolf, Charlotte Hansen, and Frederic B. Ouedraogo. 2020. “Familiarity and use of Veterinary Services by US Resident Dog and Cat Owners.” Animals (Basel) 10 (3): 483-.
In a 2020 study, scientists found significant trends among United States pet owners and their use of veterinary services, notably pertaining to income, age, and location.
This source will be instrumental in establishing the preconceived notions when it comes to veterinary care in general in America. Since my project pertains to Newark, the data regarding low-income, younger populations (which matches Newark’s make-up) will be of use to me. The study found that the likelihood of visiting a veterinarian decreased with income bracket and age. Additional studies have associated financial issues as a “barrier for pet owners when it came to preventative, sick, and emergency care” (17). Newark is the largest and poorest city in New Jersey, so this would understandably be an issue for pet owners to keep up with frequent, up-front costs. Furthermore, the majority of study respondents indicated that they went to a local vet clinic and location was a primary reason for selecting that clinic. However, cost was still a barrier, and only the inclusion of discounts seemed to incentivize people to seek veterinary care who would not have previously. Respondents, interestingly enough, did not indicate that payment plans would incentivize them. Considering Newark has only one vet clinic within the entire city, seeking medical care for pets becomes a significant burden for residents.
Welman, Malina. 2019. “The Starting Point: Structuring Newark’s Land Use Laws at the Outset of Redevelopment to Promote Integration Without Displacement.” Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems 53 (1): 43–87.
The 2017 zoning ordinance in the city of Newark historically dedicated at least twenty percent of new housing to be available for moderate- and low-income residents. Situated within the post-war trends of suburbanization and socioeconomic segregation, the ordinance will not significantly contribute towards its goal of urban revitalization without additional measures in place to preserve affordability.
This article will provide key background information for my project. Newark has a long history of socioeconomic segregation, and establishing that early on will be key for my later analysis of the disparate trends affecting pet owners in the city. Primarily, however, this will set the stage for my first argument regarding the exclusionary pet-policies enacted by landlords throughout the city. In Newark, there seems to be a lack of accountability for landlords to the city, thus allowing them to increase rent at will and possibly engage in illegal practices, such as prohibiting their tenants to have ESA/service animals perhaps? (Will need some evidence to support this). Furthermore, even if the city did enact stricter rent control laws like the article suggests on page 80, this likely would not prohibit landlords from charging additional fees and/or monthly payments to have a pet on the property. I definitely still have to comb through this article more, but as of right now it is a promising source of expository information.
Aliment, Ruby; Rankin, Sara; and Lurie, Kaya. 2016. “No Pets Allowed: Discrimination, Homelessness, and Pet Ownership.” Homeless Rights Advocacy Project (Seattle University School of Law) 3.
This article highlights the prejudice and burdens faced by homeless and impoverished pet owners.
I began reading this article in detail expecting it to be a wealth of information, however I found that it more often leads me to other sources that I would likely use in the same way the authors of this article did. For example, studies that prove pet ownership can “alleviate stress, lower heart rates, and lower blood pressure” (10) will be essential for me to demonstrate that pets should be available to everyone regardless of socioeconomic status or race. The author in this article makes the same point in relation to homelessness. However, the author of this article frequently makes generalizations based on anecdotal evidence, such as their claim that “pets provide a source of protection for their owners” which is only supported by their one interview conversation with a local homeless woman. This article also talks about exclusionary pet policies in both businesses and housing, which will be useful to my project. The authors specifically cite those policies that encourage impoverished people to give up their pets in exchange for services (13), which I can use in conjunction with statistics from the Newark animal shelter on how many people surrender their pets for landlord issues. Overall, I found the evidence in this article to be exceptionally similar to what I would need for my arguments, however the article as a whole did not provide any new insights.