3 ms·
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
by 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 agowomp 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 agoExpected 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 agoThere'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.
- SR2Z 5d agoOn average, a dog or cat probably causes so little damage to the apartment that the landlord will not do anything beyond maybe throw a fresh coat of paint on the walls. I'm sure there are exceptions which trash apartments, but OTOH... so do human beings. You know what behavior HASN'T been exceptional in my experience? Landlords playing stupid games with my deposit, trying to hold me accountable for nonexistent or preexisting damage, or just generically being irritating. Let landlords ban pets other than registered service animals if they want to (none of this ESA nonsense), make sure the eviction process is timely and fair, and otherwise crack the hell down on the games they play with their tenants. Landlording is so morally fraught that Adam Smith called it out in the Wealth of Nations as an example of unproductive rent-seeking. "Populist slop" is absolutely called for - there is almost no other industry of that size where so many unearned benefits accrue to the already-wealthy.