3 ms·

Banning junk fees / truth in advertising is good. But I absolutely hate that pet rent was bundled in to this. Pets occasionally cause very high amounts of rea

by loeg 11d ago

Banning junk fees / truth in advertising is good. But I absolutely hate that pet rent was bundled in to this. Pets occasionally cause very high amounts of real damage that should be covered by pet owners, not tenants without pets. And Seattle has banned every other possible avenue of passing this expense only to the parties responsible (higher deposits).

bigfishrunning 11d ago
This will likely result in more "No pets allowed" leases
deleted 11d ago
[deleted]
RHSeeger 11d ago
Pet deposit is for that, not pet rent. Or just deposit in general. Humans _can_ cause just as much damage as pets.
sheikhnbake 11d ago
Can property owners not just go to small claims court?
- doublerebel 11d ago
  Typically these claims are completely unrecoverable. The tenants don’t have the money, and the cost of pursuing further is too high. The only way to ensure payment is to get it upfront.
  - nightpool 11d ago
    That's what damage deposits are for, no?
    - dghlsakjg 11d ago
      Damage deposits are capped. It is not hard for an irresponsible renter to do way more damage than a deposit can cover.
      - sheikhnbake 11d ago
        Maybe we'll see an exodus of landlords as this becomes a less economically viable lifestyle.
        jollyllama 11d ago
        Which is exactly what another post was saying: that large corporations will step in instead.
doublerebel 11d ago
Yes this will absolutely raise rents for everyone in order to cover pet damage costs, which can easily reach thousands, exceeding any profit for the lease term. They are the top cause of rental unit damage. Many smaller landlords will choose to exclude pets entirely in order to keep rental rates competitive. (I have worked in housing in Seattle and have seen this first hand. And I love pets, have them myself!)
- nightpool 11d ago
  If you worked in housing in Seattle you would know it's not really legal or practicable for landlords to exclude pets, considering the expansiveness of ESA designations. Almost every landlord already excludes pets outside of ESAs
  - doublerebel 11d ago
    Yes and the ESA program is unfortunately regularly abused. Without judging tenants, I know multiple people from my personal network who proudly got the ESA designation simply to get around the rule. There are numerous pet-friendly landlords, but typically the rent is not cheap. Pets have a real cost — they aren’t cheap for the owner, I don’t know why the owner assumes they don’t add cost to their living situation. The main complaint seems to be that there is not a glut of cheap pet-friendly rentals, which is an unrealistic expectation in Seattle where the housing market is already extremely competitive.
- throw8383939 11d ago
  > Many smaller landlords will choose to exclude pets That would be amazing! Imagine no poop and no smell! And no barking! And no subsidizing others peoples farm animals! Funny how "pets" does not usually include rabbits, mouse, aquarium fish or snakes.
verdverm 11d ago
land lords assess and charge for damages, regardless of source why should pets require a monthly, non refundable fee regardless of damages or not? My main gripe is my building charges $50 more for EV spots and then wants to charge as much as the charging stations, that's a nope for me, I'll just charge while buying groceries
skort 11d ago
Is there data to show that pets actually cause more damage? I see this argument get thrown around quite frequently (often by landlords), but I don't buy that it's a major issue.
- x0x0 11d ago
  Well, there are plenty of lies. Because tenants are liable for the supposed damages regardless of whether landlords can grab $100/mo or whatever. That's not to say that pets can cause tons of damage: if someone let's a cat spray inside and doesn't immediately clean it, that can cost tens of thousands if it seeps down to the underlayment. But (1) that ain't getting covered by the $50 - $100 they want to gouge people for; and (2) tenants are liable for that either way.
- dghlsakjg 11d ago
  Yes, absolutely. It isn't that every pet causes more damage as a rule, its that very frequently pets do damage that is quite expensive. Urine can require floor and subfloor replacement. I've seen dogs chew through walls, etc. Pets in common areas leaving tracks and fur, etc. I'm a dog lover, but it would be folly to pretend that owning a dog does not cause additional wear and tear on my house. That said, damage from pets should be handled through the damage deposit. Pet rent is just another way to pad the bill.
  - jambalaya8 11d ago
    I am thinking it might be less about the damages (which the tenants are obliged to pay for anyway) and more about the extra work the property must do to deal with noise complaints, escaped pets, possible legal actions, hassles the maintenance might need to show up for, possible extra hours staff might need to work, pooper scoopering, yellowing grass, etc.
jawns 11d ago
I would think that if a pet causes a high amount of real damage, the landlord should still be able to seek remuneration for that damage. They just can't charge for it in advance.
- dmitrygr 11d ago
  Now we know you have never been a landlord... "Seek it after the fact" works out in ~0% of the time. Best case is you can sell the debt to a collections agency for ten cents on the dollar, and that is after a court case that you are unlikely to win in the first place. This is why security deposits exist. Cause "get it after" rarely works out.
  - lokar 11d ago
    Because it exceeds the security deposit?
    - dmitrygr 11d ago
      security deposits are set such that "exceeds" is rare precisely because collecting is impossible on average
- throw8383939 11d ago
  Did you ever had to salvage house after cats or dogs? Normal deposit or insurance does not cover that! Usually it means replacing carpets, wooden floors and bottom part of walls! Urine contamination gets everywhere , there is no way to remove that smell!!
  - verdverm 11d ago
    the monthly fee is not going to cover that amount of damage either we already have courts and torts to cover those rare occasions
    - throw8383939 11d ago
dghlsakjg 11d ago
Damage is what damage deposits are for, and Seattle allows pet damage deposits.
wolrah 11d ago
> And Seattle has banned every other possible avenue of passing this expense only to the parties responsible (higher deposits). From the very legislation this article is about: 7.24.040 Fees permitted and prohibited <...> B. A landlord may charge the following fees in addition to rent: <...> 4. Pet damage deposits pursuant to Section 7.24.038; https://library.municode.com/wa/seattle/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT7COPR_CH7.24REAGRE_7.24.038PEDADE&showChanges=true https://library.municode.com/wa/seattle/codes/municipal_code... tl;dr: Pet damage deposits may not exceed 25% of the first full month's rent, no other fees are allowed. If I'm reading this correctly the current version of that ordinance was passed in 2016.

by loeg 11d ago

bigfishrunning 11d ago

This will likely result in more "No pets allowed" leases

deleted 11d ago

[deleted]

RHSeeger 11d ago

Pet deposit is for that, not pet rent. Or just deposit in general. Humans _can_ cause just as much damage as pets.

sheikhnbake 11d ago

Can property owners not just go to small claims court?

doublerebel 11d ago
Typically these claims are completely unrecoverable. The tenants don’t have the money, and the cost of pursuing further is too high. The only way to ensure payment is to get it upfront.
- nightpool 11d ago
  That's what damage deposits are for, no?
  - dghlsakjg 11d ago
    Damage deposits are capped. It is not hard for an irresponsible renter to do way more damage than a deposit can cover.
    - sheikhnbake 11d ago
      Maybe we'll see an exodus of landlords as this becomes a less economically viable lifestyle.
      - jollyllama 11d ago
        Which is exactly what another post was saying: that large corporations will step in instead.

doublerebel 11d ago

Yes this will absolutely raise rents for everyone in order to cover pet damage costs, which can easily reach thousands, exceeding any profit for the lease term. They are the top cause of rental unit damage. Many smaller landlords will choose to exclude pets entirely in order to keep rental rates competitive. (I have worked in housing in Seattle and have seen this first hand. And I love pets, have them myself!)

nightpool 11d ago
If you worked in housing in Seattle you would know it's not really legal or practicable for landlords to exclude pets, considering the expansiveness of ESA designations. Almost every landlord already excludes pets outside of ESAs
- doublerebel 11d ago
  Yes and the ESA program is unfortunately regularly abused. Without judging tenants, I know multiple people from my personal network who proudly got the ESA designation simply to get around the rule. There are numerous pet-friendly landlords, but typically the rent is not cheap. Pets have a real cost — they aren’t cheap for the owner, I don’t know why the owner assumes they don’t add cost to their living situation. The main complaint seems to be that there is not a glut of cheap pet-friendly rentals, which is an unrealistic expectation in Seattle where the housing market is already extremely competitive.
throw8383939 11d ago
> Many smaller landlords will choose to exclude pets That would be amazing! Imagine no poop and no smell! And no barking! And no subsidizing others peoples farm animals! Funny how "pets" does not usually include rabbits, mouse, aquarium fish or snakes.

verdverm 11d ago

land lords assess and charge for damages, regardless of source why should pets require a monthly, non refundable fee regardless of damages or not? My main gripe is my building charges $50 more for EV spots and then wants to charge as much as the charging stations, that's a nope for me, I'll just charge while buying groceries

skort 11d ago

Is there data to show that pets actually cause more damage? I see this argument get thrown around quite frequently (often by landlords), but I don't buy that it's a major issue.

x0x0 11d ago
Well, there are plenty of lies. Because tenants are liable for the supposed damages regardless of whether landlords can grab $100/mo or whatever. That's not to say that pets can cause tons of damage: if someone let's a cat spray inside and doesn't immediately clean it, that can cost tens of thousands if it seeps down to the underlayment. But (1) that ain't getting covered by the $50 - $100 they want to gouge people for; and (2) tenants are liable for that either way.
dghlsakjg 11d ago
Yes, absolutely. It isn't that every pet causes more damage as a rule, its that very frequently pets do damage that is quite expensive. Urine can require floor and subfloor replacement. I've seen dogs chew through walls, etc. Pets in common areas leaving tracks and fur, etc. I'm a dog lover, but it would be folly to pretend that owning a dog does not cause additional wear and tear on my house. That said, damage from pets should be handled through the damage deposit. Pet rent is just another way to pad the bill.
- jambalaya8 11d ago
  I am thinking it might be less about the damages (which the tenants are obliged to pay for anyway) and more about the extra work the property must do to deal with noise complaints, escaped pets, possible legal actions, hassles the maintenance might need to show up for, possible extra hours staff might need to work, pooper scoopering, yellowing grass, etc.

jawns 11d ago

I would think that if a pet causes a high amount of real damage, the landlord should still be able to seek remuneration for that damage. They just can't charge for it in advance.

dmitrygr 11d ago
Now we know you have never been a landlord... "Seek it after the fact" works out in ~0% of the time. Best case is you can sell the debt to a collections agency for ten cents on the dollar, and that is after a court case that you are unlikely to win in the first place. This is why security deposits exist. Cause "get it after" rarely works out.
- lokar 11d ago
  Because it exceeds the security deposit?
  - dmitrygr 11d ago
    security deposits are set such that "exceeds" is rare precisely because collecting is impossible on average
throw8383939 11d ago
Did you ever had to salvage house after cats or dogs? Normal deposit or insurance does not cover that! Usually it means replacing carpets, wooden floors and bottom part of walls! Urine contamination gets everywhere , there is no way to remove that smell!!
- verdverm 11d ago
  the monthly fee is not going to cover that amount of damage either we already have courts and torts to cover those rare occasions
  - throw8383939 11d ago

dghlsakjg 11d ago

Damage is what damage deposits are for, and Seattle allows pet damage deposits.

wolrah 11d ago

> And Seattle has banned every other possible avenue of passing this expense only to the parties responsible (higher deposits). From the very legislation this article is about: 7.24.040 Fees permitted and prohibited <...> B. A landlord may charge the following fees in addition to rent: <...> 4. Pet damage deposits pursuant to Section 7.24.038; https://library.municode.com/wa/seattle/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT7COPR_CH7.24REAGRE_7.24.038PEDADE&showChanges=true https://library.municode.com/wa/seattle/codes/municipal_code... tl;dr: Pet damage deposits may not exceed 25% of the first full month's rent, no other fees are allowed. If I'm reading this correctly the current version of that ordinance was passed in 2016.