Shouldn't there be a kid fee then? Kids are likely to cause damage and everyone is subsidizing it.It should just be common sense. You have a kid or you have a pet. They damaged the property, you pay it.
Kids do less damage and there's a stronger argument for subsidizing them than dogs.Pet rent isn't about directly covering damage; it's more like buying an insurance policy that occasionally covers large pet-necessitated repairs.
matchbok3 · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
gonzalohm · · focus · HN ↗
It should just be common sense. You have a kid or you have a pet. They damaged the property, you pay it.
loeg · · focus · HN ↗
Pet rent isn't about directly covering damage; it's more like buying an insurance policy that occasionally covers large pet-necessitated repairs.
edgyquant · · focus · HN ↗
loeg · · focus · HN ↗