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. 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

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.