Pet rent depends on the circumstances of the property
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
@ 1, is your handle taken from the Low album with that title?
The idiotic thing is that it decreases the incentive for a tenant to stay long-term. Every kind of "pet rent" I've ever seen vastly exceeded a traditional non-refundable pet deposit after just a few months.
Check out Craigslist ads for apartments to rent. It is absolutely a thing.
You are aware that landlords can charge a tenant for damages? I know several people who were bilked by slumlords in this city for the cost of normal wear and tear, money they had to pay out of pocket after costs were deducted from their deposit.
If they're going to charge pet rent while not increasing the size/function of the apartment in any appreciable way, they better be using it to acknowledge the accelerated wear and tear that comes with pets and not try to ding it from my standard deposit.
Nope. Landlords can try to get damage costs. But most landlords just make sure the tenant who damaged the place gets their credit dinged, does the repair and gets the place occupied again. No sense spending good money trying to collect from deadbeats with any real effort.
And by slumlord you mean " anyone who managed to do better than me and has a rental unit" I'd guess.
Having said that, pet deposit or just, as I do, say no pets. The pet rent thing is just chiseling people.
Even if the city doesn't ban pet rent, it seems like the bare minimum it should do is require landlords to tally up "pet rent" when assessing damages to the unit. Since "pet rent" is operating in a grey area (not officially sanctioned by the government but not expressly illegal), it seems like you'd have a reasonable case in court if your landlord tries to charge you for damages without taking it into account.
Also "a few scratches here and there" is called normal wear and tear, and, if your landlord tries to charge you for that shit, take them to court.
I would never rent from any place that charges pet rent.
Yeah, I'm looking at you stinky krusty punk who mutters "service dog" when he gets on the bus. We all know the score.
Cat owners, however, should get a tax break, because they are better people.
And yeah, Washington and Seattle both have laws about non-refundable deposits. If your lease has anything non-refundable labeled as a deposit, there's probably a law about getting it back, and knowing this states landlord-tenant laws, if you have to use a court to get a deposit back, it is usually in triplicate.
I'm also unaware that farmers markets don't allow dogs. They are outside, on the sidewalk or a park, you know, where people have dogs on the regular?
I've been over this on SLOG before, my dog goes everywhere. Including grocery shopping. She fits in a carry purse, you don't know she is there, so go whine somewhere else. Last week I watched a snot-nosed kid unleash a torrential sneeze fest over an open air egg display, but you want to complain about a dog in a zipped up purse? DIAF, hater.
The only reason landlords do it is to put more dollars in their pockets.
If it weren't illegal to charge extra for children, landlords would do that too.
In Colorado (at least around the area I live in) every apartment charges pet extortion fees. You have no choices to find a place that doesn't, they don't exist.
Fuck capitalist, selfish, greedy landlords.
Your dog is exuding a cloud of allergens, and you're like one of those weird throwbacks who says can't understand why anyone would complain about a little smoking. DIAF, indeed.
Perhaps the funniest thing about your counter-analogy is that most of us had to ponder the odds that you and your purse bound companion caused the attack.
I'm not even a cat person, but your post is comically ridiculous. It's the equivalent of a cat person saying, "I've had a landlord strap me into an electric chair and force me to sign a lease agreeing to pay extortionate pet rent against my will!"
I've seen apartments that needed to be completely gutted to the studs because of animals and your $10-50 extra a month isn't covering those charges.
It goes both ways. I have been in apartments that made you gag the moment you walked in (disturbing when you can smell the animal but can't find them) and others that are in great condition and oh there's a cat. It's up to the renter to be responsible.
I do not know who is forcing you guys to use these inane images, but it makes the place look cheap and generic, and they add nothing.
How about the unseen damage from months/years of urination on sub-floors and trim? Sometimes not even known by the pet owner or landlord, but discovered later as a part of other repairs. We're talking rotting wood that has to be replaced. Unless you find this kind of damage right after someone moves out, you never know who caused it. And do you think it is worthwhile to try to sue someone who was evicted for the damages caused by their pets? The landlord will rarely see that money unless they get the fees upfront.
And dogs, especially big ones, make big messes outside. Doesn't matter if the law says you must clean up poo, not everyone does it. Somebody has to clean it up, and nobody does that for free! How about the doggies who have accidents in (or spray or mark) doorways, common spaces, etc. I've watched dogs pee in elevators, on random people's stuff on the floor, even on passersby! The property owner/manager has to keep that stuff cleaned up. If there are pets around and you never see any evidence, you can be sure someone is doing a good job of cleaning, not that the pets are all perfect and make no messes.
Think of the pet deposit as a move-out cleaning fee. Pet rent depends on the circumstances of the property (carpet or not, yard of poo to be regularly cleaned, etc.)
And I'm not a landlord. But I have friends who are. And I've both had to pay for pet damage and received part of a deposit back after no damage was found. Pets are hard on property, (as are some human occupants). Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't had clean-up dooty.
In that case, a very large *refundable* pet deposit would make sense. It puts the onus on the tenant not to let a pet fuck up the unit while protecting the landlord if there is pet-caused damage.
In the absence of specific facilities for pets within an apartment building, "pet rent" is nothing but a bullshit fee, I'll bet largely imposed so landlords can jack it up whenever they want without running afoul of the 30-60 day notice of rent increases they're required to give. And $50/month "pet rent" is never going to cover legitimate repairs, which is why, if the city does the absolute minimum, it should impose a requirement that "pet rent" be weighed against damage that has been inflicted on a given rental.
And who determines that? I've seen "pet rent" imposed on nice, new, dog-friendly buildings (in which case it makes sense since those buildings often have pet-specific amenities) and on rat-hole affordable units. What are the regulations on how much can be charged for "pet rent", how quickly the fee can be raised, whether the fee can be raised even in the midst of a six/twelve-month lease, what the qualifications are for it, and how that money can be used when the tenant moves out? Oh right, there aren't any, because landlords pulled it out of their asses.
I've had pets since I left home for college, and I've lived in 3 states and many, many zip codes. I always selected my residence based on what I thought were reasonable requirements. If an apartment required an enormous non-refundable pet fee plus monthly pet rent, that unit fell off my list of considerations. If the property had what I thought were unreasonable fees, I assumed the management would not be very reasonable in other regards.
Several of my zip codes were in the Denver area and the pet fees there were the highest I have seen. Part of it is because EVERYBODY in Colorado has a dog, and many dog-owners are not very responsible. Landlords advertise high pet fees in the hopes of weeding out the less responsible owners and maybe deterring pet owners from applying altogether... only someone who really wants to have their dog will pay the fees. And the person willing to pay a high deposit probably has confidence they will not be causing damage and losing the deposit.
@ 47 - Fees are typically negotiated in the lease terms and not subject to random increases at the landlord's whim. Get it in writing.
@ 48 - Pet fees are assessed on something that is causing additional wear and tear on the property. Someone with night-shift hours is only living on a different schedule, not adding more wear and tear than others. I have seen additional fees assessed when the number of occupants exceeds a certain number. More people means more wear and tear, especially when some utilities or services are included in the base rent.
>but you want to complain about a dog in a zipped up purse
>dog in a zipped up purse
>in a zipped up purse
Looks like your dog is the one that's going to "die in a fire".
Even dogs with excellent house training sometimes get sick on the carpet. They chew, they crash into things, shit happens. Pet rent allows landlords to be more open to accepting pets without it costing them. If you ban it, you might get more landlords banning pets altogether, or bigger non refundable deposits for rent (image one to cover the whole life of the pet), or the landlord decides to just add the pet rent to everyone, even tenants without pets. Personally, I encourage anyone who's considering getting a pet to wait if they are living paycheck to paycheck. There are many hidden costs associated with a pet and you might be better off to get your puppy/kitty time volunteering for a shelter or pet sitting / fostering.