Kids do less damage and there's a stronger argument for subsidizing them than dogs.
Pet rent isn't about directly covering damage; it's more like buying an insurance policy that occasionally covers large pet-necessitated repairs.
If you buy like carpet you could reasonably expect to replace it in 10-15 years, and if you allow pets you are more likely to need to. However getting 15-20 years out of it instead without pets is probably more like double-dipping than a subsidy as replacing it on the correct schedule should already be factored into the rent.
If only. A bad tenant with a dog can do an obscene amount of damage to a property. The people who leave a place with torn up walls and urine+feces throughout the carpet tend not to be the kind of people who will gladly pay extra fees for the damage they caused.
The landlord can sue them, but that's a slow expensive process and there's a good chance they will never recover enough to pay for the damage.
matchbok3 · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
gonzalohm · · focus · HN ↗
It should just be common sense. You have a kid or you have a pet. They damaged the property, you pay it.
loeg · · focus · HN ↗
Pet rent isn't about directly covering damage; it's more like buying an insurance policy that occasionally covers large pet-necessitated repairs.
edgyquant · · focus · HN ↗
benoau · · focus · HN ↗
rurp · · focus · HN ↗
The landlord can sue them, but that's a slow expensive process and there's a good chance they will never recover enough to pay for the damage.
loeg · · focus · HN ↗