3 ms·
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 Res
by 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 agoone-time, refundable deposit is very different from a monthly non-refundable fee
- vkou 12d agoThere'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.