6 ms·

I spent $200 two years ago to register my dogs to avoid non refundable pet admin fees and pet rent. It's saved me almost $5k in bullshit charges. When landlord

I spent $200 two years ago to register my dogs to avoid non refundable pet admin fees and pet rent. It's saved me almost $5k in bullshit charges. When landlords stop gouging, I'll stop finding loopholes.

techsupporter 9y ago
I mean, I get it, but this is a classic example of a tragedy of the commons. All these "fake" "registrations" (in quotes because registrations aren't required) do is make life even harder for the people who have a true need. And, yes, I'm a dog owner who's genuinely sorry and more than a little pissed off at how landlords operate in hot housing markets but economic need is not a true need. There are hundreds of rentals in Seattle that are off-limits to me because I own a dog and I flatly refuse to pay pet rent so it makes my life a little harder but a companion animal is a privilege, not a right.
- iaabtpbtpnn 9y ago
  Well, it's what the law says. And when you think about it, aren't all pet dogs (not working dogs) emotional support animals, in a way? They're man's best friend, why else do people keep them? The rationalization is not difficult.
- Spivak 9y ago
  > All these "fake" registrations do is make life even harder for the people who have a true need. How? It's not like legally required accommodation for service and support animals is a finite resource. Just because my hypothetical dog is an ESA doesn't make it harder for yours to be -- in fact it should make life easier for people with real need because more people will be familiar with the requirements and already have procedures/policies in place.
  - ceejayoz 9y ago
    It leads to folks with real service dogs being doubted and mistreated. Similar to how the rise of gluten free fad diets made life harder for some celiac sufferers.
  - overcyn 9y ago
    The article gives examples where untrained animals cause distractions for actual service dogs trying to do their job. And that the backlash against fake service dogs, give real ones a bad reputation.
cakedoggie 9y ago
In an article about pet owners being selfish, you come and remind us that there are other ways to be a pet owner and be selfish?
WillPostForFood 9y ago
You say "bullshit charges" like having a dog is of zero consequence. Maybe your dog is the one that never comes in with muddy feet, never has an accident, or never scratches or chews a thing, but even if it is, it isn't bullshit for a landlord to try and manage the cost.
- LnxPrgr3 9y ago
  Non-refundable deposits are. If you really do have a model pet that damages nothing, why does the landlord get to keep your deposit anyway? I can grant, say, compulsory carpet replacement—but even then, what if you live there 10 years and the carpet really ought to be replaced whether you had a pet or not? And do two pets double the cost of replacing the carpet? (Also I know for a fact scroogier landlords will leave the old carpet in when they really shouldn't—when it's 10 years old, the last tenant's cat peed all over it, and also the last tenant chainsmoked indoors. But they'll still collect a non-refundable pet deposit, and probably bill for cleaning in excess of deposits even when that cleaning did not happen.) Why is that reasonable risk management and not gouging?
  - sokoloff 9y ago
    If you drove for a whole year without a car accident, why does your insurance company get to keep your insurance payments anyway?
    - LnxPrgr3 9y ago
      Because I'm buying the service of them paying my liability, and also my own damages if I opt for it, if suddenly I crash. They sell the service of protecting you from financial risk. A car insurance policy that costs $400 once but only pays for $400 worth of damage ever, and isn't refundable, is a bad deal. No one would buy this unless forced to. False equivalence.
- kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago
  Babies and small kids do a lot of the same, and small kids will scribble on walls with crayons and potentially more permanent markers. Should people pay extra for that too? In American society, pets are considered close to family in a lot of ways, and that ought to reflect in everything.
mike_h 9y ago
Landlords have no way of knowing which dog is going to be the one that costs them thousands of dollars in damage and/or headaches, so they have to charge extra for all of them, same way insurance underwriting works. You opted in to that price class, and that luxury of having a pet. When you lie that your dogs are service animals, you make life harder for people whose survival depends on it.
- vforgione 9y ago
  Or they can charge a security deposit. If my pet causes damage it comes out of that; if the cost exceeds the deposit they can demand the additional amount. That's the way it used to be - the recent trend of admin fees (pet or otherwise) in lieu of security deposits is the bullshit part. I also opted into no such price class. This has become standard practice in my market. Rents in major metro areas are insane and the additional profiteering on the part of landlords and management companies gets worse every year. They do it because you have virtually no choice but to agree to them. As for making anyone's life harder: how so?
- LnxPrgr3 9y ago
  If I have a serious wreck in my car, I win the insurance bet—that is, it may well pay out more than I've paid in. Even crappy health insurance policies have cases where they do the same. Not so with pet deposits in any lease I've seen. They take your money, which is usually non-refundable, and will still charge you for any cleaning and repair not covered by the deposits you paid. Perhaps it's insurance from the landlord's perspective, but it's an added cost the tenant bears that offers them no financial protection at all.
  - kelnos 9y ago
    The extra money isn't meant to protect you (the tenant) from anything. It's there to protect the landlord's interest in being able to recoup losses caused by a destructive pet. If a landlord isn't returning your pet deposit when you move out, it's not a deposit, it's a fee. If they're misrepresenting it as a deposit that will be returned, you might have legal recourse, depending on where you live.
bdcravens 9y ago
Larger dogs can chew on moulding, etc. (My large one did) Cats can leave random stains (mine has). Dogs may be apt to urinate indoors, especially smaller breeds (like my dachshund has). Perhaps $5000 is excessive, but I think the $1500 I've paid for my pet deposits was quite fair.
bogomipz 9y ago
Why is it a "bullshit charge", simply because you are being asked to pay it? Do you really believe there is no risk or concern a landlord might have for their investment and property. You comment reeks of entitlement.
- vforgione 9y ago
  I absolutely think property owners should be able to limit their exposure to risk. I also think that security deposits are great. What I don't buy is being charged non refundable fees in place of what was once a simple deposit in the event that I, a pet, a guest or whatever else damaged their property.

techsupporter 9y ago

I mean, I get it, but this is a classic example of a tragedy of the commons. All these "fake" "registrations" (in quotes because registrations aren't required) do is make life even harder for the people who have a true need. And, yes, I'm a dog owner who's genuinely sorry and more than a little pissed off at how landlords operate in hot housing markets but economic need is not a true need. There are hundreds of rentals in Seattle that are off-limits to me because I own a dog and I flatly refuse to pay pet rent so it makes my life a little harder but a companion animal is a privilege, not a right.

iaabtpbtpnn 9y ago
Well, it's what the law says. And when you think about it, aren't all pet dogs (not working dogs) emotional support animals, in a way? They're man's best friend, why else do people keep them? The rationalization is not difficult.
Spivak 9y ago
> All these "fake" registrations do is make life even harder for the people who have a true need. How? It's not like legally required accommodation for service and support animals is a finite resource. Just because my hypothetical dog is an ESA doesn't make it harder for yours to be -- in fact it should make life easier for people with real need because more people will be familiar with the requirements and already have procedures/policies in place.
- ceejayoz 9y ago
  It leads to folks with real service dogs being doubted and mistreated. Similar to how the rise of gluten free fad diets made life harder for some celiac sufferers.
- overcyn 9y ago
  The article gives examples where untrained animals cause distractions for actual service dogs trying to do their job. And that the backlash against fake service dogs, give real ones a bad reputation.

cakedoggie 9y ago

In an article about pet owners being selfish, you come and remind us that there are other ways to be a pet owner and be selfish?

WillPostForFood 9y ago

You say "bullshit charges" like having a dog is of zero consequence. Maybe your dog is the one that never comes in with muddy feet, never has an accident, or never scratches or chews a thing, but even if it is, it isn't bullshit for a landlord to try and manage the cost.

LnxPrgr3 9y ago
Non-refundable deposits are. If you really do have a model pet that damages nothing, why does the landlord get to keep your deposit anyway? I can grant, say, compulsory carpet replacement—but even then, what if you live there 10 years and the carpet really ought to be replaced whether you had a pet or not? And do two pets double the cost of replacing the carpet? (Also I know for a fact scroogier landlords will leave the old carpet in when they really shouldn't—when it's 10 years old, the last tenant's cat peed all over it, and also the last tenant chainsmoked indoors. But they'll still collect a non-refundable pet deposit, and probably bill for cleaning in excess of deposits even when that cleaning did not happen.) Why is that reasonable risk management and not gouging?
- sokoloff 9y ago
  If you drove for a whole year without a car accident, why does your insurance company get to keep your insurance payments anyway?
  - LnxPrgr3 9y ago
    Because I'm buying the service of them paying my liability, and also my own damages if I opt for it, if suddenly I crash. They sell the service of protecting you from financial risk. A car insurance policy that costs $400 once but only pays for $400 worth of damage ever, and isn't refundable, is a bad deal. No one would buy this unless forced to. False equivalence.
kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago
Babies and small kids do a lot of the same, and small kids will scribble on walls with crayons and potentially more permanent markers. Should people pay extra for that too? In American society, pets are considered close to family in a lot of ways, and that ought to reflect in everything.

mike_h 9y ago

Landlords have no way of knowing which dog is going to be the one that costs them thousands of dollars in damage and/or headaches, so they have to charge extra for all of them, same way insurance underwriting works. You opted in to that price class, and that luxury of having a pet. When you lie that your dogs are service animals, you make life harder for people whose survival depends on it.

vforgione 9y ago
Or they can charge a security deposit. If my pet causes damage it comes out of that; if the cost exceeds the deposit they can demand the additional amount. That's the way it used to be - the recent trend of admin fees (pet or otherwise) in lieu of security deposits is the bullshit part. I also opted into no such price class. This has become standard practice in my market. Rents in major metro areas are insane and the additional profiteering on the part of landlords and management companies gets worse every year. They do it because you have virtually no choice but to agree to them. As for making anyone's life harder: how so?
LnxPrgr3 9y ago
If I have a serious wreck in my car, I win the insurance bet—that is, it may well pay out more than I've paid in. Even crappy health insurance policies have cases where they do the same. Not so with pet deposits in any lease I've seen. They take your money, which is usually non-refundable, and will still charge you for any cleaning and repair not covered by the deposits you paid. Perhaps it's insurance from the landlord's perspective, but it's an added cost the tenant bears that offers them no financial protection at all.
- kelnos 9y ago
  The extra money isn't meant to protect you (the tenant) from anything. It's there to protect the landlord's interest in being able to recoup losses caused by a destructive pet. If a landlord isn't returning your pet deposit when you move out, it's not a deposit, it's a fee. If they're misrepresenting it as a deposit that will be returned, you might have legal recourse, depending on where you live.

bdcravens 9y ago

Larger dogs can chew on moulding, etc. (My large one did) Cats can leave random stains (mine has). Dogs may be apt to urinate indoors, especially smaller breeds (like my dachshund has). Perhaps $5000 is excessive, but I think the $1500 I've paid for my pet deposits was quite fair.

bogomipz 9y ago

Why is it a "bullshit charge", simply because you are being asked to pay it? Do you really believe there is no risk or concern a landlord might have for their investment and property. You comment reeks of entitlement.

vforgione 9y ago
I absolutely think property owners should be able to limit their exposure to risk. I also think that security deposits are great. What I don't buy is being charged non refundable fees in place of what was once a simple deposit in the event that I, a pet, a guest or whatever else damaged their property.