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).
> And Seattle has banned every other possible avenue of passing this expense only to the parties responsible (higher deposits).
From the very legislation this article is about:
7.24.040 Fees permitted and prohibited
<...>
B. A landlord may charge the following fees in addition to rent:
<...>
4. Pet damage deposits pursuant to Section 7.24.038;
tl;dr: Pet damage deposits may not exceed 25% of the first full month's rent, no other fees are allowed. If I'm reading this correctly the current version of that ordinance was passed in 2016.
> A $500 deposit isn't covering 4-5 figures of damage.
Nor will any deposit I've ever made for an apartment in my life cover any truly significant damage that could easily happen as the result of a mistake or minor negligence.
Three of the five incidences of significant damage caused by tenants without malicious intent that I've been aware of in the time I lived in apartments were caused by unattended children and none by pets. Would anyone dare to suggest increasing rents for and/or requiring additional deposits for children?
Most of the time I lived in apartments I had a cat. In every single one of those cases I either paid a nonrefundable pet fee or a refundable pet deposit and monthly pet rent, either way the complex got extra money out of me simply for the cat being present. I'm not saying he didn't cause some wear and tear of his own, but it didn't take things outside of the normal levels of wear and tear that would be expected without pets. The only stuff we ever got charged for on moveout was stuff I or my roommate did, not the cat.
---
If landlords are worried about 4/5 figure damage they should require their tenants carry renters insurance that would cover 4/5 figure damage and then allow professional actuaries to determine how to price that risk, because neither a reasonable deposit nor any pet rent that's ever been charged is going to cover that.
loeg · · focus · HN ↗
wolrah · · focus · HN ↗
From the very legislation this article is about:
7.24.040 Fees permitted and prohibited <...> B. A landlord may charge the following fees in addition to rent: <...> 4. Pet damage deposits pursuant to Section 7.24.038;
<a href="https://library.municode.com/wa/seattle/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT7COPR_CH7.24REAGRE_7.24.038PEDADE&showChanges=true" rel="nofollow">https://library.municode.com/wa/seattle/codes/municipal_code...
tl;dr: Pet damage deposits may not exceed 25% of the first full month's rent, no other fees are allowed. If I'm reading this correctly the current version of that ordinance was passed in 2016.
loeg · · focus · HN ↗
wolrah · · focus · HN ↗
Nor will any deposit I've ever made for an apartment in my life cover any truly significant damage that could easily happen as the result of a mistake or minor negligence.
Three of the five incidences of significant damage caused by tenants without malicious intent that I've been aware of in the time I lived in apartments were caused by unattended children and none by pets. Would anyone dare to suggest increasing rents for and/or requiring additional deposits for children?
Most of the time I lived in apartments I had a cat. In every single one of those cases I either paid a nonrefundable pet fee or a refundable pet deposit and monthly pet rent, either way the complex got extra money out of me simply for the cat being present. I'm not saying he didn't cause some wear and tear of his own, but it didn't take things outside of the normal levels of wear and tear that would be expected without pets. The only stuff we ever got charged for on moveout was stuff I or my roommate did, not the cat.
---
If landlords are worried about 4/5 figure damage they should require their tenants carry renters insurance that would cover 4/5 figure damage and then allow professional actuaries to determine how to price that risk, because neither a reasonable deposit nor any pet rent that's ever been charged is going to cover that.