4 ms·

If you want to know why big, progressive cities have the most unaffordable housing, look no further than this law. It bans "pet rent". Which, of course, means

If you want to know why big, progressive cities have the most unaffordable housing, look no further than this law. It bans "pet rent". Which, of course, means that non pet owners are now subsidizing pet owners and the damage and wear and tear that pets cause. All for what, exactly?

kazinator 12d ago
Also, renters of well-behaved, toilet-trained, quiet pets are subsidizing renters with ADHD children.
- djmips 12d ago
  You don't seem to know what ADHD is.
  - hedgehog 12d ago
    ADHD creates the founders that create the returns that pay for the operations of the site we are reading.
  - gosub100 12d ago
    Neither do you apparently: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/adhd/symptoms-causes/syc-20350889 https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/adhd/symptoms... "Hyperactive means being too active and having too much energy. It may include disruptive behavior." "Run around or climb in situations when it's not proper."
    - djmips 12d ago
      "may include" - do you really want to argue the side that ADHD children exist in a proportion that damage apartments that noticably increase the cost on tenants without children? Is that what your imagined ADHD child is doing, just ripping apart the walls?
gonzalohm 12d ago
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.
- benoau 12d ago
  Probably should be a fee for heavy-handed people banging doors and drawers and faucets around too.
  - anticorporate 12d ago
    This is the only junk rental fee I might actually support, for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with property damage.
- loeg 12d ago
  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.
  - woah 12d ago
    Depends on the kid
  - edgyquant 12d ago
    Nobody is subsidizing anything. If damage occurs the tenant pays for it
    - benoau 12d ago
      If you buy like carpet you could reasonably expect to replace it in 10-15 years, and if you allow pets you are more likely to need to. However getting 15-20 years out of it instead without pets is probably more like double-dipping than a subsidy as replacing it on the correct schedule should already be factored into the rent.
deleted 12d ago
[deleted]
badlucklottery 12d ago
> If you want to know why big, progressive cities have the most unaffordable housing, look no further than this law. Eh, I'd be willing to wager it's because those cites are where many high-paying jobs are. Anyway: > Which, of course, means that non pet owners are now subsidizing pet owners and the damage and wear and tear that pets cause. Or owners can just quantify and charge for the actual wear and tear? If someone's dog digs up the yard or their claws scrape the up wood floors, just charge them to fix it (or, more likely, take it out of the deposit). That's why these are often viewed as "junk fees", they charge you for some potential damage vs. any actual damage.
- NewJazz 12d ago
  The deposit is also limited. In California, deposit is max one month rent... Not sure how difficult/possible it would be to recover more than that from a renter. That said pets is likely not the driver of increased housing costa by any means.
- loeg 12d ago
  How successful do you think landlords are at recovering damage costs from former tenants that aren't covered by the deposit?
operatingthetan 12d ago
Pet rent seldom has anything to do with damage. If you pay pet rent, and then move out and the property manager finds damage, they make you pay for the damage out of your deposit anyway. The last place I rented had pet rent AND a deposit. The rent definitely a junk fee. It did not accumulate or get tracked.
- matchbok3 12d ago
  You choose to own a pet. Building owners choose to set the rent. What exactly is the problem, here? Other than a small group of people wanting special treatment?
  - operatingthetan 12d ago
    I don't think I can have a conversation about this if you don't understand the concept of "junk fees."
fishtoaster 12d ago
Does Seattle allow pet deposits? That seems like a straightforward way to handle that, and it's what I've seen when renting elsewhere.
- loeg 12d ago
  It does not. Total deposit is capped at a single month's rent.
  - deleted 12d ago
    [deleted]
  - amluto 12d ago
    Click the link to the ordinance. It explicitly permits pet damage deposits.
- ggreer 12d ago
  Pet deposits are allowed, but they are restricted to 25% of the first month's rent and landlords cannot require a deposit if the pet is an "assistance animal" for the tenant.[1] It's unclear what qualifies as an assistance animal. If an assistance animal does cause damage, the property owner must sue for damages. I doubt such lawsuits are common, as the cost to hire a lawyer and sue in civil court is easily thousands of dollars, and compensation is far from guaranteed. Even if you win the case, collecting can be difficult. Also I'm not sure what the new law changes. Since 2016, Seattle has banned charging extra rent for having a pet. Subsection E states: "Other than the pet damage deposit authorized by subsection 7.24.038.A, the landlord may not charge the tenant any fee for keeping a pet." 1. https://library.municode.com/wa/seattle/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT7COPR_CH7.24REAGRE_7.24.038PEDADE https://library.municode.com/wa/seattle/codes/municipal_code...
  - vkou 12d ago
    > Also I'm not sure what the new law changes It doesn't change anything about pets, the grandparent poster's complaint is a dogwhistle. What it does ban is shit like 'consigliere' trash disposal, where you are made to pay $50 a month for the privilege of not being allowed to use the building's dumpster. Instead, you have to pile your trash at your door, and then the landlord takes it to the dumpster. You can't opt out of this 'service'. Oh, and the city's bill for trash disposal is still passed on to you. Oh, and your building now smells like garbage. (Landlords are, of course, still free to offer this as an optional paid service, which ~everyone will opt out of.)
ajkjk 12d ago
Well that's if you believe > Which, of course, means that non pet owners are now subsidizing pet owners and the damage and wear and tear that pets cause But most people don't think that all. And I notice that you ignored all the other fees also... Anyway there are moral arguments against junk fees other than "cost". Nobody actually wants to live in a world where service providers are constantly sneaking fees into things. It's just unjust and shitty. You and I both know that the only reason landlords include pet fees is because they get away with it, not because it's the only way to recoup losses or something like that.
- ryandrake 12d ago
  Some people are obsessed with free-riders and never happy until they know they're only narrowly paying for the smallest granular subset of things they use, and nothing that they are not personally using. This is why we have all these little fees for everything everywhere--to satisfy those people. This is why airlines are terrible now: they granularly charge for every little thing. "Why should I pay for meal service if I personally don't want to eat?" people are getting their way.
vkou 12d ago
From the legislature: > There is no market incentive to advertise the all-in price of a rental unit. Research by the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research documents individual businesses losing significant market share when switching to all-in pricing. A landlord that advertises an all-in price appears more expensive than competitors with a lower base rent and unbundled fees. > Rental junk fees represent a market failure and collective action problem that will not self-correct. Regulation of these fees is necessary to level the playing field for landlords who are transparent about their costs and protect renters from unpredictable and predatory pricing models. This legislature requires transparency in pricing. If landlords could handle that bare minimum of responsibility on their own, without being compelled by law, it wouldn't have been required. Oh, and pet damage deposits are still legal.
- verdverm 12d ago
  one-time, refundable deposit is very different from a monthly non-refundable fee
  - vkou 12d ago
    There's a monthly non-refundable fee that I pay for use and regular wear and tear of the property. It's called R E N T, and the difference between that and a landlord's costs is called profit. If you don't want any wear and tear on your property, or any income from it, there's a simple remedy - don't let it out. Some people cause less than regular wear and tear. Some people cause more. If it gets too high, it becomes irregular, it gets pulled out of your damage deposit. If that's not enough, the landlord is free to sue. None of this is relevant to this thread, though, because pet fees have been banned for 10 years in Seattle. This legislature isn't about pet fees.
kentm 12d ago
> If you want to know why big, progressive cities have the most unaffordable housing, look no further than this law. This is an unsubstantiated assertion. I'd want to see evidence that things like this actually move the needle on rent vs things like available housing stock, zoning, etc which seem much more likely to actually impact affordability.
bryanrasmussen 12d ago
OK so this law, enacted now and not in effect yet, which bans rental fees, is the cause of why big progressive cities that in general do not have this law, have the most unaffordable housing. That's a theory, I guess.
graemep 12d ago
It makes costs more transparent, which means the market works better. We had legal changes in the UK limiting what fees could be charged to tenants and it had no noticeable effect. The main impact was to stop letting agents charging both landlords and tenants, which reduced what they charge overall. This is not a comment on more recent changes, or other changes, just those around fees.
stetrain 12d ago
Are these unaffordable housing units sitting empty? If not, then high prices generally comes back to supply and demand, which is driven a lot more by zoning and building restrictions than by small differences in rental law. Generally cities are expensive because people want to live there, and there is limited space for housing. The US especially has been very restrictive on density in urban and suburban areas compared to counterparts found elsewhere around the world. People wanting to live somewhere and a lack of dense housing for them increases prices. A lot of arguments against "big, progressive cities" seem to boil down to some form of "See, nobody wants to live in these cities because it's so crowded and expensive!" which doesn't make basic economic sense.
- wk_end 12d ago
  > If not, then high prices generally comes back to supply and demand, which is driven a lot more by zoning and building restrictions than by small differences in rental law. Not discounting the importance of supply/demand, or the damage that restrictive zoning regimes have done, but I'm not sure if this should be so strongly stated, depending on how you want to define "small differences in rental law". For example, per Wikipedia: > In 1971, the Swedish economist Assar Lindbeck, a housing expert, said that "rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city – except for bombing". In 1989, Nguyễn Cơ Thạch, then Foreign Minister of Vietnam, observed, "The Americans couldn't destroy Hanoi, but we have destroyed our city by very low rents. We realized it was stupid and that we must change policy." Obviously banning junk rental fees is not the same as rent control, but in either case we're talking about rental law that as an unintended second-order effect is going to (to some degree or another) discourage supplying rentals by making it harder to make money renting. So, in the interest of being charitable to the OP, I think they're including zoning laws, building regulations, and so on in what they're saying: these cities claim to view housing as a human right, yet simultaneously seemingly do everything in their power to make it incredibly hard, expensive, and risky to supply it. I don't agree that this attitude is exclusive to big progressive cities: the right theoretically claims to love free enterprise and deregulation, but in practice they're often just as happy with overbearing government control as long as it's their guy doing it. And if anything these days the right more than the left fetishizes certain images of American life that motivate stricter regulations on development; NIMBYism cuts across the political spectrum. But it's an attitude that maybe makes better bedfellows with the left and its intrinsic distrust of markets, and maybe afflicts those left-leaning coastal cities more because they're otherwise much better places to live and thus have higher demand.
uses 12d ago
Well, the main reason is that locals have a lot of tools to stop construction of housing, and they've been using those tools to prevent new housing from getting built for decades. But yes, this won't do anything to lower costs. It'll just get baked into the rent everyone pays.
amluto 12d ago
To be fair, it seems like landlords may still ban pets and they are explicitly permitted to have a pet damage deposit.
delecti 12d ago
I had a pet who caused damage to a rental. I had been paying pet rent, and was also charged for the damage. What exactly was the pet rent covering? Charge for damage if and when there is damage. Anything else is ridiculous.
- pishpash 12d ago
  It's a price discriminator, to dissuade the pet owning group from renting. Why? Because they also cause negative externality to other units. That's what I can think of. If they could do a child charge I'm sure they would.
hugeBirb 12d ago
What an insanely narrow and purposely ignorant opinion. Subsidizing pet owners? Good tenants are subsidizing bad tenants, people w/o kids subsidizing people w/kids. What is the conclusion of your argument? After i sign I do an insurance style risk assessment and they get to tack on a bunch of fees? I don't think a landlord is jacking up prices cause I have a pet and it is insane to think that I would need to pay more than someone else for that reason. I don't think it was about having or not having a pet, it was designed to squeeze as much as you can out of someone. What is the difference between human caused damage or animal caused damage? The person signing the agreement is still liable for whatever damages at the end of the day. Why can't we just leave it at that?
tgv 12d ago
Ridiculous take. It doesn't increase the average rent.
xboxnolifes 12d ago
It bans pet fees, but it does not ban pet damage deposits. Try reading before complaining.
verdverm 12d ago
Greystar's near monopoly on rentals is why
solid_fuel 12d ago
> If you want to know why big, progressive cities have the most unaffordable housing, look no further than this law. And how exactly does the causality for this work, in your head? Rent is already high in the big, highly desirable cities, before this law. Is this some new form of retro-causality? A law passed today drove rent up 5 years ago?
- matchbok3 12d ago
  It is an example of how cities regulate housing, which I believe pushes prices up, not down.
verdverm 12d ago
to support the fledgling private pet security industrial complex, who's going to stop the undesirables from dining on our furry friends? /s
- throw8383939 12d ago
  The only "undesirables" feeding on furry friends are dogs and cats. Their owners should be prosecuted for animal torture! Somehow squirrel hunting is still tolerated in 21dt century!

kazinator 12d ago

Also, renters of well-behaved, toilet-trained, quiet pets are subsidizing renters with ADHD children.

djmips 12d ago
You don't seem to know what ADHD is.
- hedgehog 12d ago
  ADHD creates the founders that create the returns that pay for the operations of the site we are reading.
- gosub100 12d ago
  Neither do you apparently: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/adhd/symptoms-causes/syc-20350889 https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/adhd/symptoms... "Hyperactive means being too active and having too much energy. It may include disruptive behavior." "Run around or climb in situations when it's not proper."
  - djmips 12d ago
    "may include" - do you really want to argue the side that ADHD children exist in a proportion that damage apartments that noticably increase the cost on tenants without children? Is that what your imagined ADHD child is doing, just ripping apart the walls?

gonzalohm 12d ago

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.

benoau 12d ago
Probably should be a fee for heavy-handed people banging doors and drawers and faucets around too.
- anticorporate 12d ago
  This is the only junk rental fee I might actually support, for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with property damage.
loeg 12d ago
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.
- woah 12d ago
  Depends on the kid
- edgyquant 12d ago
  Nobody is subsidizing anything. If damage occurs the tenant pays for it
  - benoau 12d ago
    If you buy like carpet you could reasonably expect to replace it in 10-15 years, and if you allow pets you are more likely to need to. However getting 15-20 years out of it instead without pets is probably more like double-dipping than a subsidy as replacing it on the correct schedule should already be factored into the rent.

deleted 12d ago

[deleted]

badlucklottery 12d ago

> If you want to know why big, progressive cities have the most unaffordable housing, look no further than this law. Eh, I'd be willing to wager it's because those cites are where many high-paying jobs are. Anyway: > Which, of course, means that non pet owners are now subsidizing pet owners and the damage and wear and tear that pets cause. Or owners can just quantify and charge for the actual wear and tear? If someone's dog digs up the yard or their claws scrape the up wood floors, just charge them to fix it (or, more likely, take it out of the deposit). That's why these are often viewed as "junk fees", they charge you for some potential damage vs. any actual damage.

NewJazz 12d ago
The deposit is also limited. In California, deposit is max one month rent... Not sure how difficult/possible it would be to recover more than that from a renter. That said pets is likely not the driver of increased housing costa by any means.
loeg 12d ago
How successful do you think landlords are at recovering damage costs from former tenants that aren't covered by the deposit?

operatingthetan 12d ago

Pet rent seldom has anything to do with damage. If you pay pet rent, and then move out and the property manager finds damage, they make you pay for the damage out of your deposit anyway. The last place I rented had pet rent AND a deposit. The rent definitely a junk fee. It did not accumulate or get tracked.

matchbok3 12d ago
You choose to own a pet. Building owners choose to set the rent. What exactly is the problem, here? Other than a small group of people wanting special treatment?
- operatingthetan 12d ago
  I don't think I can have a conversation about this if you don't understand the concept of "junk fees."

fishtoaster 12d ago

Does Seattle allow pet deposits? That seems like a straightforward way to handle that, and it's what I've seen when renting elsewhere.

loeg 12d ago
It does not. Total deposit is capped at a single month's rent.
- deleted 12d ago
  [deleted]
- amluto 12d ago
  Click the link to the ordinance. It explicitly permits pet damage deposits.
ggreer 12d ago
Pet deposits are allowed, but they are restricted to 25% of the first month's rent and landlords cannot require a deposit if the pet is an "assistance animal" for the tenant.[1] It's unclear what qualifies as an assistance animal. If an assistance animal does cause damage, the property owner must sue for damages. I doubt such lawsuits are common, as the cost to hire a lawyer and sue in civil court is easily thousands of dollars, and compensation is far from guaranteed. Even if you win the case, collecting can be difficult. Also I'm not sure what the new law changes. Since 2016, Seattle has banned charging extra rent for having a pet. Subsection E states: "Other than the pet damage deposit authorized by subsection 7.24.038.A, the landlord may not charge the tenant any fee for keeping a pet." 1. https://library.municode.com/wa/seattle/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT7COPR_CH7.24REAGRE_7.24.038PEDADE https://library.municode.com/wa/seattle/codes/municipal_code...
- vkou 12d ago
  > Also I'm not sure what the new law changes It doesn't change anything about pets, the grandparent poster's complaint is a dogwhistle. What it does ban is shit like 'consigliere' trash disposal, where you are made to pay $50 a month for the privilege of not being allowed to use the building's dumpster. Instead, you have to pile your trash at your door, and then the landlord takes it to the dumpster. You can't opt out of this 'service'. Oh, and the city's bill for trash disposal is still passed on to you. Oh, and your building now smells like garbage. (Landlords are, of course, still free to offer this as an optional paid service, which ~everyone will opt out of.)

ajkjk 12d ago

Well that's if you believe > Which, of course, means that non pet owners are now subsidizing pet owners and the damage and wear and tear that pets cause But most people don't think that all. And I notice that you ignored all the other fees also... Anyway there are moral arguments against junk fees other than "cost". Nobody actually wants to live in a world where service providers are constantly sneaking fees into things. It's just unjust and shitty. You and I both know that the only reason landlords include pet fees is because they get away with it, not because it's the only way to recoup losses or something like that.

ryandrake 12d ago
Some people are obsessed with free-riders and never happy until they know they're only narrowly paying for the smallest granular subset of things they use, and nothing that they are not personally using. This is why we have all these little fees for everything everywhere--to satisfy those people. This is why airlines are terrible now: they granularly charge for every little thing. "Why should I pay for meal service if I personally don't want to eat?" people are getting their way.

vkou 12d ago

From the legislature: > There is no market incentive to advertise the all-in price of a rental unit. Research by the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research documents individual businesses losing significant market share when switching to all-in pricing. A landlord that advertises an all-in price appears more expensive than competitors with a lower base rent and unbundled fees. > Rental junk fees represent a market failure and collective action problem that will not self-correct. Regulation of these fees is necessary to level the playing field for landlords who are transparent about their costs and protect renters from unpredictable and predatory pricing models. This legislature requires transparency in pricing. If landlords could handle that bare minimum of responsibility on their own, without being compelled by law, it wouldn't have been required. Oh, and pet damage deposits are still legal.

verdverm 12d ago
one-time, refundable deposit is very different from a monthly non-refundable fee
- vkou 12d ago
  There's a monthly non-refundable fee that I pay for use and regular wear and tear of the property. It's called R E N T, and the difference between that and a landlord's costs is called profit. If you don't want any wear and tear on your property, or any income from it, there's a simple remedy - don't let it out. Some people cause less than regular wear and tear. Some people cause more. If it gets too high, it becomes irregular, it gets pulled out of your damage deposit. If that's not enough, the landlord is free to sue. None of this is relevant to this thread, though, because pet fees have been banned for 10 years in Seattle. This legislature isn't about pet fees.

kentm 12d ago

> If you want to know why big, progressive cities have the most unaffordable housing, look no further than this law. This is an unsubstantiated assertion. I'd want to see evidence that things like this actually move the needle on rent vs things like available housing stock, zoning, etc which seem much more likely to actually impact affordability.

bryanrasmussen 12d ago

OK so this law, enacted now and not in effect yet, which bans rental fees, is the cause of why big progressive cities that in general do not have this law, have the most unaffordable housing. That's a theory, I guess.

graemep 12d ago

It makes costs more transparent, which means the market works better. We had legal changes in the UK limiting what fees could be charged to tenants and it had no noticeable effect. The main impact was to stop letting agents charging both landlords and tenants, which reduced what they charge overall. This is not a comment on more recent changes, or other changes, just those around fees.

stetrain 12d ago

Are these unaffordable housing units sitting empty? If not, then high prices generally comes back to supply and demand, which is driven a lot more by zoning and building restrictions than by small differences in rental law. Generally cities are expensive because people want to live there, and there is limited space for housing. The US especially has been very restrictive on density in urban and suburban areas compared to counterparts found elsewhere around the world. People wanting to live somewhere and a lack of dense housing for them increases prices. A lot of arguments against "big, progressive cities" seem to boil down to some form of "See, nobody wants to live in these cities because it's so crowded and expensive!" which doesn't make basic economic sense.

wk_end 12d ago
> If not, then high prices generally comes back to supply and demand, which is driven a lot more by zoning and building restrictions than by small differences in rental law. Not discounting the importance of supply/demand, or the damage that restrictive zoning regimes have done, but I'm not sure if this should be so strongly stated, depending on how you want to define "small differences in rental law". For example, per Wikipedia: > In 1971, the Swedish economist Assar Lindbeck, a housing expert, said that "rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city – except for bombing". In 1989, Nguyễn Cơ Thạch, then Foreign Minister of Vietnam, observed, "The Americans couldn't destroy Hanoi, but we have destroyed our city by very low rents. We realized it was stupid and that we must change policy." Obviously banning junk rental fees is not the same as rent control, but in either case we're talking about rental law that as an unintended second-order effect is going to (to some degree or another) discourage supplying rentals by making it harder to make money renting. So, in the interest of being charitable to the OP, I think they're including zoning laws, building regulations, and so on in what they're saying: these cities claim to view housing as a human right, yet simultaneously seemingly do everything in their power to make it incredibly hard, expensive, and risky to supply it. I don't agree that this attitude is exclusive to big progressive cities: the right theoretically claims to love free enterprise and deregulation, but in practice they're often just as happy with overbearing government control as long as it's their guy doing it. And if anything these days the right more than the left fetishizes certain images of American life that motivate stricter regulations on development; NIMBYism cuts across the political spectrum. But it's an attitude that maybe makes better bedfellows with the left and its intrinsic distrust of markets, and maybe afflicts those left-leaning coastal cities more because they're otherwise much better places to live and thus have higher demand.

uses 12d ago

Well, the main reason is that locals have a lot of tools to stop construction of housing, and they've been using those tools to prevent new housing from getting built for decades. But yes, this won't do anything to lower costs. It'll just get baked into the rent everyone pays.

amluto 12d ago

To be fair, it seems like landlords may still ban pets and they are explicitly permitted to have a pet damage deposit.

delecti 12d ago

I had a pet who caused damage to a rental. I had been paying pet rent, and was also charged for the damage. What exactly was the pet rent covering? Charge for damage if and when there is damage. Anything else is ridiculous.

pishpash 12d ago
It's a price discriminator, to dissuade the pet owning group from renting. Why? Because they also cause negative externality to other units. That's what I can think of. If they could do a child charge I'm sure they would.

hugeBirb 12d ago

What an insanely narrow and purposely ignorant opinion. Subsidizing pet owners? Good tenants are subsidizing bad tenants, people w/o kids subsidizing people w/kids. What is the conclusion of your argument? After i sign I do an insurance style risk assessment and they get to tack on a bunch of fees? I don't think a landlord is jacking up prices cause I have a pet and it is insane to think that I would need to pay more than someone else for that reason. I don't think it was about having or not having a pet, it was designed to squeeze as much as you can out of someone. What is the difference between human caused damage or animal caused damage? The person signing the agreement is still liable for whatever damages at the end of the day. Why can't we just leave it at that?

tgv 12d ago

Ridiculous take. It doesn't increase the average rent.

xboxnolifes 12d ago

It bans pet fees, but it does not ban pet damage deposits. Try reading before complaining.

verdverm 12d ago

Greystar's near monopoly on rentals is why

solid_fuel 12d ago

> If you want to know why big, progressive cities have the most unaffordable housing, look no further than this law. And how exactly does the causality for this work, in your head? Rent is already high in the big, highly desirable cities, before this law. Is this some new form of retro-causality? A law passed today drove rent up 5 years ago?

matchbok3 12d ago
It is an example of how cities regulate housing, which I believe pushes prices up, not down.

verdverm 12d ago

to support the fledgling private pet security industrial complex, who's going to stop the undesirables from dining on our furry friends? /s

throw8383939 12d ago
The only "undesirables" feeding on furry friends are dogs and cats. Their owners should be prosecuted for animal torture! Somehow squirrel hunting is still tolerated in 21dt century!