2 ms·

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

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 5d ago
Probably should be a fee for heavy-handed people banging doors and drawers and faucets around too.
- anticorporate 5d ago
  This is the only junk rental fee I might actually support, for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with property damage.
loeg 5d 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 5d ago
  Depends on the kid
- edgyquant 5d ago
  Nobody is subsidizing anything. If damage occurs the tenant pays for it
  - benoau 5d 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.
mediaman 5d ago
We protect kids because they are people, and we socially recognize that even if a person is potentially more likely to cause damage, there is a public interest in not discriminating against people based on age, or gender, or race. Dogs are not people. Many in Seattle think their dogs are people, or even prefer dogs over people, but they are not, and they do not enjoy the same protections against discrimination. If you have never been a landlord, I can see why you would think that "if they damage the property, they pay for it" is a reasonable rule that would work, because if your dog destroyed a door, the carpet, and the blinds, you are likely to be willing (if unhappy) to pay to fix it. If you have been a landlord, you know why this doesn't work, and you would also know why pursuing the damages in court also doesn't work. (If you are wondering why: people do not pay. Deposits, which they also now capped in Seattle, often don't cover the damage. And suing people who have no money in order to get a judgment that you can't collect on is expensive and pointless.) This just socializes the cost of pet damage onto everyone, which is why this is populist slop. (Some of the other junk fees make much more sense: mandatory fees that you have to pay, that are fixed in nature, should just be in the advertised lease price. Think "common area fees" you can't opt out of.)
- hugeBirb 5d ago
  womp womp, 100% empty argument. This happens with or without pets. Maybe find better tenants instead of trying to pin it on "pet owners" as a whole. Guaranteed the same tenants who let their dogs eat doors, blinds and also don't have the money to pay for damages did their own damage and/or didn't take care of the property.
  - missinglugnut 5d ago
    Expected damage(broke with pet) > Expected damage(broke and no pet). When a person doesn't pay for damages, how much damage they did very much matters. Why is that hard for you to wrap your head around?
- the_real_cher 5d ago
  There's historically massive public interest towards discriminating against people on age, gender, or race and many other attributes. Literally happens all the time. Jobs discriminate in hiring, women and men discriminate in dating, apartments discriminate,etc. etc. So your Human Resources version of reality is actually the opposite of what's true currently and what always has been true. As a matter of fact there's a great deal of science showing that people feel more comfortable around their own race and age. Dogs on the other hand do not discriminate and will love you with no bias.
mc32 5d ago
Adults were kids. Without kids there are no adults. Without adults there is no society. Without pets life is a bit duller but society goes on as it did before people adopted animals as pets.

benoau 5d ago

Probably should be a fee for heavy-handed people banging doors and drawers and faucets around too.

anticorporate 5d ago
This is the only junk rental fee I might actually support, for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with property damage.

loeg 5d 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 5d ago
Depends on the kid
edgyquant 5d ago
Nobody is subsidizing anything. If damage occurs the tenant pays for it
- benoau 5d 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.

mediaman 5d ago

We protect kids because they are people, and we socially recognize that even if a person is potentially more likely to cause damage, there is a public interest in not discriminating against people based on age, or gender, or race. Dogs are not people. Many in Seattle think their dogs are people, or even prefer dogs over people, but they are not, and they do not enjoy the same protections against discrimination. If you have never been a landlord, I can see why you would think that "if they damage the property, they pay for it" is a reasonable rule that would work, because if your dog destroyed a door, the carpet, and the blinds, you are likely to be willing (if unhappy) to pay to fix it. If you have been a landlord, you know why this doesn't work, and you would also know why pursuing the damages in court also doesn't work. (If you are wondering why: people do not pay. Deposits, which they also now capped in Seattle, often don't cover the damage. And suing people who have no money in order to get a judgment that you can't collect on is expensive and pointless.) This just socializes the cost of pet damage onto everyone, which is why this is populist slop. (Some of the other junk fees make much more sense: mandatory fees that you have to pay, that are fixed in nature, should just be in the advertised lease price. Think "common area fees" you can't opt out of.)

hugeBirb 5d ago
womp womp, 100% empty argument. This happens with or without pets. Maybe find better tenants instead of trying to pin it on "pet owners" as a whole. Guaranteed the same tenants who let their dogs eat doors, blinds and also don't have the money to pay for damages did their own damage and/or didn't take care of the property.
- missinglugnut 5d ago
  Expected damage(broke with pet) > Expected damage(broke and no pet). When a person doesn't pay for damages, how much damage they did very much matters. Why is that hard for you to wrap your head around?
the_real_cher 5d ago
There's historically massive public interest towards discriminating against people on age, gender, or race and many other attributes. Literally happens all the time. Jobs discriminate in hiring, women and men discriminate in dating, apartments discriminate,etc. etc. So your Human Resources version of reality is actually the opposite of what's true currently and what always has been true. As a matter of fact there's a great deal of science showing that people feel more comfortable around their own race and age. Dogs on the other hand do not discriminate and will love you with no bias.

mc32 5d ago

Adults were kids. Without kids there are no adults. Without adults there is no society. Without pets life is a bit duller but society goes on as it did before people adopted animals as pets.