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.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.