Thread

1. loeg · 1790014425 · focus · HN ↗

   Banning junk fees / truth in advertising is good. But I absolutely hate that pet rent was bundled in to this. Pets occasionally cause very high amounts of real damage that should be covered by pet owners, not tenants without pets. And Seattle has banned every other possible avenue of passing this expense only to the parties responsible (higher deposits).

   1. sheikhnbake · 1790014842 · focus · HN ↗

      Can property owners not just go to small claims court?

      1. doublerebel · 1790014946 · focus · HN ↗

         Typically these claims are completely unrecoverable. The tenants don’t have the money, and the cost of pursuing further is too high. The only way to ensure payment is to get it upfront.

         1. nightpool · 1790015732 · focus · HN ↗

            That's what damage deposits are for, no?

            1. dghlsakjg · 1790016021 · focus · HN ↗

               Damage deposits are capped.

               It is not hard for an irresponsible renter to do way more damage than a deposit can cover.

               1. sheikhnbake · 1790016579 · focus · HN ↗

                  Maybe we'll see an exodus of landlords as this becomes a less economically viable lifestyle.

                  1. jollyllama · 1790017042 · focus · HN ↗

                     Which is exactly what another post was saying: that large corporations will step in instead.
                  2. loeg · 1790031533 · focus · HN ↗

                     Yes, we'll see an exodus of small landlords and see much higher monthly rents passed on to all tenants just to subsidize the ones that cause damage. This isn't better for most tenants.
            2. loeg · 1790031478 · focus · HN ↗

               Seattle severely caps deposits, too.

               1. nightpool · 1790100081 · focus · HN ↗

                  That seems pretty sub optimal

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.