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).
Is there data to show that pets actually cause more damage? I see this argument get thrown around quite frequently (often by landlords), but I don't buy that it's a major issue.
It isn't that every pet causes more damage as a rule, its that very frequently pets do damage that is quite expensive. Urine can require floor and subfloor replacement. I've seen dogs chew through walls, etc. Pets in common areas leaving tracks and fur, etc. I'm a dog lover, but it would be folly to pretend that owning a dog does not cause additional wear and tear on my house.
That said, damage from pets should be handled through the damage deposit. Pet rent is just another way to pad the bill.
I am thinking it might be less about the damages (which the tenants are obliged to pay for anyway) and more about the extra work the property must do to deal with noise complaints, escaped pets, possible legal actions, hassles the maintenance might need to show up for, possible extra hours staff might need to work, pooper scoopering, yellowing grass, etc.
loeg · · focus · HN ↗
skort · · focus · HN ↗
dghlsakjg · · focus · HN ↗
It isn't that every pet causes more damage as a rule, its that very frequently pets do damage that is quite expensive. Urine can require floor and subfloor replacement. I've seen dogs chew through walls, etc. Pets in common areas leaving tracks and fur, etc. I'm a dog lover, but it would be folly to pretend that owning a dog does not cause additional wear and tear on my house.
That said, damage from pets should be handled through the damage deposit. Pet rent is just another way to pad the bill.
jambalaya8 · · focus · HN ↗