6 ms·

I have a huge beef with "pet rent," as it's charging people a non-refundable fee for an animal each month, simply for existing. If landlords would prefer their

I have a huge beef with "pet rent," as it's charging people a non-refundable fee for an animal each month, simply for existing. If landlords would prefer their tenants not have pets, simply do not allow them.

slaymaker1907 6y ago
That's really not fair since pets do cause quite a bit of damage on average and as someone who likes pets, I feel like such a policy of not having pet rent would make it even more difficult to find a place that even allows pets.
- joegahona 6y ago
  Toddlers cause more damage than single adults. Should landlords be able to charge more for, say, a single mother with a mentally disabled child who is prone to throw things? In both cases -- pet or children -- damages should be extracted from a security deposit. j
jjeaff 6y ago
Makes sense to me. It's like charging a fee for smoking. Pets are going to create a certain extra amount of wear and tear, some not easily quantifiable. No matter how clean and well behaved you think your pet is.
hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
Have been on both sides of this as a renter and landlord, and it's basically an insurance payment. We have all sorts of things for which you need to pay for insurance in order for you to have that thing in your possession. When it comes to pets, basically all apartments will require more cleaning between tenants when a pet occupied the apartment, and for some non-negligible percentage of pets there will be large bills due to accelerated wear and damage.
0xffff2 6y ago
Is my landlord charging me rent "a non-refundable fee for a human each month, simply for existing"? Why shouldn't a landlord offer the option if that's what they're comfortable with? Why is strictly less choice better for a pet owner?
- joegahona 6y ago
  Presumably the rent is the same whether it's just you, or you and an autistic child.
  - fuzxi 6y ago
    Why are you comparing children with autism to animals? You could have simply said "children", as all children are likely to cause some damage to a home that an adult would not.
    - joegahona 6y ago
      Apologies, that was careless. I was recalling a specific situation of a woman and child who lived above me 5 years ago. I let the details of this lady's situation seep into my analogy and it came off really poorly.
throwaway201103 6y ago
It's not just for existing. Pets can and do cause a lot of damage. They can urinate on the floors or walls, leaving odor that is very difficult to remove. They can chew up or scratch up doors, walls, floors. A pet can easily do thousands of dollars in damage in a one-year lease term. Of course not every pet does this but you don't know in advance. On the other hand landlords compete for tenants. So they may want to allow pets but impose a surcharge for the potential damage.
- liuhenry 6y ago
  Logically, the "surcharge for potential damage" should be a security deposit, or fines and penalties against specific behavior. You'd have the same issues with tenants that were excessively noisy, or held parties and spilled alcohol in the hallways, or scratched doors/walls/floors from moving bikes, furniture, etc. So it seems inconsistent to apply the nonrefundable fee only to the case of pets.
  - joegahona 6y ago
    Yes exactly. Or toddlers, who cause much more damage than pets. Good luck charging people "toddler rent."
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      I have 2 decades of experience in the hotel business, and pets cause much, much more damage than toddlers. The total of pet fees collected never made up for all the damage caused. And tons of people would lie about their animal being a service animal(s). With no shame, they would declare all 3 dogs they have service animals.
    - 1123581321 6y ago
      Toddlers predominantly damage fragile personal items. Pets damage walls, doors, floors and furniture. Additionally, pets, especially dogs, are capable of many times more destruction in a short amount of time.
nkrisc 6y ago
Conversely, if you don't want to pay the fee, simply don't have a pet.
jacurtis 6y ago
I used to work in property management and we charged extra fees each month for pet rent. I initially was against it when I started working there, but by the end I completely understood why they did it. The reality is that animals are rougher on homes than humans are. Even things like the backyard will have more wear and tear on it with a pet than with humans and all of this has to be dealt with during turn over. A perfect example of this is paint. During a normal turnover we would do a "tier 3" paint job. Which is to hire someone to come in with a spray gun and spray the walls white. They don't target baseboards or ceilings, but the overspray will generally cover some of it (ever notice how apartments and rentals generally have white walls, white baseboards, and white ceilings?). It is a cheap and lazy paint job that we have negotiated flat rates for $300-$400 per home. This happens no matter what. But on a home with a pet occupant, it is nearly guaranteed that you would need to perform at least a tier 2 paint job which is generally coupled with a carpet replacement. The carpets are torn up (or peeled back if they are recoverable), the painters come in and spray the walls, baseboards, with overspray on the underlayment (under the carpet) and the ceiling edges. This usually runs us $800 - $900. So pet rent usually goes to that. After a tier 2 paint job, a carpet contractor usually comes and re-stretches the carpet and does a carpet shampoo. But on a home with a pet occupant this has to be replaced since hair and dirt that most people don't notice, can cause allergies for the next tenant. So with a pet occupant our turnover cost goes from a standard $200 for re-stretching, as much as $1,200 for fresh carpet. Pet fees go to that. A final turnover item is the backyard. Normally a lawn care company comes to do a standard touch up on the yard. This includes mowing, trimming, leaf blowing, etc, just to make the home presentable for walk-through. But with a pet, the grass is usually thinner after the pet use, and needs some re-seeding. Sometimes it is destroyed with holes or previous renter patches. Fences often need fixing (which gets really expensive, even if it is just a few boards) and so on. A standard lawn turnover usually costs $50. But with a pet it usually is $100+ and I have seen extreme cases where it is in the thousands. This all comes from someone who owns a big dog that I love. My dog is well behaved. He never has accidents in the house and for the most part doesn't cause noticeable damage. But there are minor things that you just don't notice that I have only seen now that I have experienced it through property management. Pets really do cause more wear and tear on homes than human-only occupied homes. That is why there are pet fees. They know that more is going to be done when you move out and those fees contribute to limiting that. Now many renters have learned that if they claim that a pet is an emotional support animal, that they can avoid pet rent. But the reality is that if you claim a pet as an emotional support animal, that you can basically kiss your deposit goodbye. The company that I worked for was pretty good about giving back deposits. There was a $400 non-refundable deposit that we collected upon move in that you never got back. THis covers standard turnover stuff like tier 3 painting and carpet re-stretching. So if you leave the house in good condition, then we can give you everything other than that $400 back, and usually did. If you have a pet, then the extra rent from pet rent is calculated to cover the upgrades to tier 2 paint jobs and carpet replacement jobs. So again, you get your deposit back unless something is beyond normal wear. But if you avoid pet rent with the emotional support animal, then that is fine. They won't charge you pet rent, but you will certaintly not get any of your deposit back. The owner or property manager still has to do the carpet replacement, yard fixes, and extra painting regardless of whether you pay pet rent or not. So emotional support animals generally lose their deposits to cover these costs, while people with pet rent usually get their deposits back.

slaymaker1907 6y ago

That's really not fair since pets do cause quite a bit of damage on average and as someone who likes pets, I feel like such a policy of not having pet rent would make it even more difficult to find a place that even allows pets.

joegahona 6y ago
Toddlers cause more damage than single adults. Should landlords be able to charge more for, say, a single mother with a mentally disabled child who is prone to throw things? In both cases -- pet or children -- damages should be extracted from a security deposit. j

jjeaff 6y ago

Makes sense to me. It's like charging a fee for smoking. Pets are going to create a certain extra amount of wear and tear, some not easily quantifiable. No matter how clean and well behaved you think your pet is.

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago

Have been on both sides of this as a renter and landlord, and it's basically an insurance payment. We have all sorts of things for which you need to pay for insurance in order for you to have that thing in your possession. When it comes to pets, basically all apartments will require more cleaning between tenants when a pet occupied the apartment, and for some non-negligible percentage of pets there will be large bills due to accelerated wear and damage.

0xffff2 6y ago

Is my landlord charging me rent "a non-refundable fee for a human each month, simply for existing"? Why shouldn't a landlord offer the option if that's what they're comfortable with? Why is strictly less choice better for a pet owner?

joegahona 6y ago
Presumably the rent is the same whether it's just you, or you and an autistic child.
- fuzxi 6y ago
  Why are you comparing children with autism to animals? You could have simply said "children", as all children are likely to cause some damage to a home that an adult would not.
  - joegahona 6y ago
    Apologies, that was careless. I was recalling a specific situation of a woman and child who lived above me 5 years ago. I let the details of this lady's situation seep into my analogy and it came off really poorly.

throwaway201103 6y ago

It's not just for existing. Pets can and do cause a lot of damage. They can urinate on the floors or walls, leaving odor that is very difficult to remove. They can chew up or scratch up doors, walls, floors. A pet can easily do thousands of dollars in damage in a one-year lease term. Of course not every pet does this but you don't know in advance. On the other hand landlords compete for tenants. So they may want to allow pets but impose a surcharge for the potential damage.

liuhenry 6y ago
Logically, the "surcharge for potential damage" should be a security deposit, or fines and penalties against specific behavior. You'd have the same issues with tenants that were excessively noisy, or held parties and spilled alcohol in the hallways, or scratched doors/walls/floors from moving bikes, furniture, etc. So it seems inconsistent to apply the nonrefundable fee only to the case of pets.
- joegahona 6y ago
  Yes exactly. Or toddlers, who cause much more damage than pets. Good luck charging people "toddler rent."
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    I have 2 decades of experience in the hotel business, and pets cause much, much more damage than toddlers. The total of pet fees collected never made up for all the damage caused. And tons of people would lie about their animal being a service animal(s). With no shame, they would declare all 3 dogs they have service animals.
  - 1123581321 6y ago
    Toddlers predominantly damage fragile personal items. Pets damage walls, doors, floors and furniture. Additionally, pets, especially dogs, are capable of many times more destruction in a short amount of time.

nkrisc 6y ago

Conversely, if you don't want to pay the fee, simply don't have a pet.

jacurtis 6y ago

I used to work in property management and we charged extra fees each month for pet rent. I initially was against it when I started working there, but by the end I completely understood why they did it. The reality is that animals are rougher on homes than humans are. Even things like the backyard will have more wear and tear on it with a pet than with humans and all of this has to be dealt with during turn over. A perfect example of this is paint. During a normal turnover we would do a "tier 3" paint job. Which is to hire someone to come in with a spray gun and spray the walls white. They don't target baseboards or ceilings, but the overspray will generally cover some of it (ever notice how apartments and rentals generally have white walls, white baseboards, and white ceilings?). It is a cheap and lazy paint job that we have negotiated flat rates for $300-$400 per home. This happens no matter what. But on a home with a pet occupant, it is nearly guaranteed that you would need to perform at least a tier 2 paint job which is generally coupled with a carpet replacement. The carpets are torn up (or peeled back if they are recoverable), the painters come in and spray the walls, baseboards, with overspray on the underlayment (under the carpet) and the ceiling edges. This usually runs us $800 - $900. So pet rent usually goes to that. After a tier 2 paint job, a carpet contractor usually comes and re-stretches the carpet and does a carpet shampoo. But on a home with a pet occupant this has to be replaced since hair and dirt that most people don't notice, can cause allergies for the next tenant. So with a pet occupant our turnover cost goes from a standard $200 for re-stretching, as much as $1,200 for fresh carpet. Pet fees go to that. A final turnover item is the backyard. Normally a lawn care company comes to do a standard touch up on the yard. This includes mowing, trimming, leaf blowing, etc, just to make the home presentable for walk-through. But with a pet, the grass is usually thinner after the pet use, and needs some re-seeding. Sometimes it is destroyed with holes or previous renter patches. Fences often need fixing (which gets really expensive, even if it is just a few boards) and so on. A standard lawn turnover usually costs $50. But with a pet it usually is $100+ and I have seen extreme cases where it is in the thousands. This all comes from someone who owns a big dog that I love. My dog is well behaved. He never has accidents in the house and for the most part doesn't cause noticeable damage. But there are minor things that you just don't notice that I have only seen now that I have experienced it through property management. Pets really do cause more wear and tear on homes than human-only occupied homes. That is why there are pet fees. They know that more is going to be done when you move out and those fees contribute to limiting that. Now many renters have learned that if they claim that a pet is an emotional support animal, that they can avoid pet rent. But the reality is that if you claim a pet as an emotional support animal, that you can basically kiss your deposit goodbye. The company that I worked for was pretty good about giving back deposits. There was a $400 non-refundable deposit that we collected upon move in that you never got back. THis covers standard turnover stuff like tier 3 painting and carpet re-stretching. So if you leave the house in good condition, then we can give you everything other than that $400 back, and usually did. If you have a pet, then the extra rent from pet rent is calculated to cover the upgrades to tier 2 paint jobs and carpet replacement jobs. So again, you get your deposit back unless something is beyond normal wear. But if you avoid pet rent with the emotional support animal, then that is fine. They won't charge you pet rent, but you will certaintly not get any of your deposit back. The owner or property manager still has to do the carpet replacement, yard fixes, and extra painting regardless of whether you pay pet rent or not. So emotional support animals generally lose their deposits to cover these costs, while people with pet rent usually get their deposits back.