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. jawns · 1790015126 · focus · HN ↗

      I would think that if a pet causes a high amount of real damage, the landlord should still be able to seek remuneration for that damage. They just can't charge for it in advance.

      1. dmitrygr · 1790015346 · focus · HN ↗

         Now we know you have never been a landlord... "Seek it after the fact" works out in ~0% of the time. Best case is you can sell the debt to a collections agency for ten cents on the dollar, and that is after a court case that you are unlikely to win in the first place. This is why security deposits exist. Cause "get it after" rarely works out.

         1. lokar · 1790015612 · focus · HN ↗

            Because it exceeds the security deposit?

            1. dmitrygr · 1790017545 · focus · HN ↗

               security deposits are set such that "exceeds" is rare precisely because collecting is impossible on average

               1. lokar · 1790089445 · focus · HN ↗

                  Right, so, won’t almost all pet damage be covered in that amount?

                  1. loeg · 1790099536 · focus · HN ↗

                     No. Seattle caps security deposits.
      2. throw8383939 · 1790015808 · focus · HN ↗

         Did you ever had to salvage house after cats or dogs? Normal deposit or insurance does not cover that!

         Usually it means replacing carpets, wooden floors and bottom part of walls!

         Urine contamination gets everywhere , there is no way to remove that smell!!

         1. verdverm · 1790016571 · focus · HN ↗

            the monthly fee is not going to cover that amount of damage either

            we already have courts and torts to cover those rare occasions

            1. throw8383939 · 1790017066 · focus · HN ↗

               "Rare occasions"? Really?

               Edit: right, dogs never ever urinate inside house. It is extraordinary event, that should involve courts!

               1. verdverm · 1790017439 · focus · HN ↗

                  As a new account, please review the comment Guidelines

                  <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;newsguidelines.html">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;newsguidelines.html

         2. [deleted] · 1790019913 · focus · HN ↗

            [deleted]

      3. Schiendelman · 1790015865 · focus · HN ↗

         The ordinance does not prohibit a pet deposit.

         1. loeg · 1790031624 · focus · HN ↗

            No, that was already separately prohibited (capped extremely low). Lol.
      4. missinglugnut · 1790017207 · focus · HN ↗

         It&#x27;s an insurance premium of sorts. They are statistically much more likely to have a problem, so they adjust they rent to make the deal a positive expected value again.

         Urine soaking into a subfloor can easily cost more to repair than the security deposit, and recovering damages in court is hard and expensive in its own right (if the person even has money to take).

         Not to mention, even when there&#x27;s no apparent damage, a pet apartment can require extra cleaning to get rid of odors and dander.

         It just makes sense for the landlord to price in a potential headache.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.