The bill, formally known as AB 2216, was introduced by Assemblymember Matt Haney (D- San Francisco) and is considered to be the first legislation of its kind in the nation.
The bill is intended to “bar property owners from asking about pets on applications, prohibit additional monthly fees for pet owners, also known as ‘pet rent,’ and limit pet deposits,” KQED reported.
*****
Landlord's property, landlord's rules.
I rented in California for years. There were times when I ran into property owners that didn't allow pets, but I didn't whine about it, I just kept looking.
I never ran into this so-called pet rent, nor have I come across a landlord wanting more than a hundred bucks as a pet deposit. If I had, I would've (you guessed it) just kept looking.
Last time we went rental shopping we ran into an "add-on happy" mgmt company that wanted an extra $100 each monthly for our 2 box-trained cats, plus an extra $200 deposit. Needless to say, we did the appropriate thing...and left.
ReplyDeleteAnd the property owner was happy you left. You were not a good fit. Cat urine is a risk they were not willing to take if you were not willing to reimburse them for the risk. Property owners get their property back trashed often enough without the risk of pets. I have been a landlord it takes months to get a bad tenant out and cost to refurbish are never covered by the tenant because you cannot squeeze blood from a turnip. If you cannot afford to buy a home then you might try saving some money and not have the expense of a pet for a few years until you can buy a home. Then get a pet when it's your own home at risk.
DeleteExamplary leftists... HAVE TO force their will on everyone.
ReplyDeleteI truly think they are incapable of stopping themselves, it's almost sad, the way they feel so self-righteous.
Read about my problem with a recent tenant whose pet ruined the floors in my rental property because pet urine was left on the floor, a wood laminate. That caused the laminate to swell and ruined the floor. Replacing it will cost in the neighborhood of $8,000. If I can't charge a tenant extra deposits or rent because they have a pet, that cost will have to be borne by all tenants, whether they have pets or not. I will just raise rent or deposits for everyone to compensate for me having to buy floors that are more pet resistant.
ReplyDeleteOn top of that, the other damages to the place were in the five figures.
The story is here:
https://areaocho.com/busy-2/
"Your" property, comrade?
ReplyDeleteI run a short term rental and do not allow pets. Especially cats. My aunt was a cat owner and when she died we literally threw out carpets because the ammonia smell was so bad even Servpro couldn't get it out. The smell also lingered in the wood floors under the carpets.
ReplyDeleteMy property, my rules. Don't like it? Go somewhere else.
We have a 90 lb German Shepherd because of our widely distributed kids, we rent Airbnbs occasionally. Obviously we look for pet friendly places, and generally have no problem. But this is in no way the government’s issue. Property rights belong to the owner.
ReplyDeleteAnother reason for sane, hard-working people to leave that septic tank of a state.
ReplyDeleteI have rental property and they pay for their pets. They’re not mine! Damage is on them, period! Who lives with, “pet urine”‘ without cleaning it up?
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, due to a ratdog most of the family said no to but someone brought home anyway, I do. Small dogs piss on absolutely everything and when I remodel my bedroom this summer, I'm installing a baby gate.
Delete- Arc
Typical commie seeking to pass typical commie laws. Laws that interfere with the rights of property owners to control their own property. The leftists always seek to control everyone and everything.
ReplyDeleteIf only "my property, my rules" were still the way it was. If landlords can bar renters with pets then they should be able to bar renters based on race and politics as well. If we can charge different prices for different people based on pet ownership, then my own tribe should be able to give their own a discount or charge additional fees to those hostile to us and to those conducting themselves in unapproved ways.
ReplyDeleteThe flip side is that landlords shouldn't be able to bar pets and pet owners, just as they can't bar anyone else, but they should be able to charge whatever they will for a security deposit as long as it applies to everyone.
- Arc
Check out this money grabbing company out of St Louis, Storyboard... They say no pets but everyone has one. Fine for waste from pet, $95 per occurrence, if its found by your apartment, they fine you, even if you don't have a pet. The lease is 37 pages. DO NOT RENT from this company. One page of repairs upon move out, of course they decide what needs replaced, cleaned or is damaged. Oh, and you probably could never guess who runs this company...
ReplyDeleteIt is not the government's job to micromanage rental property. The California legislature needs to be cut back to part time, only meeting a few weeks a year. Allow them extra time solely for the purpose of repealing laws, rules, and regulations.
ReplyDeleteI do not allow pets in my rental and if the government mandated I must, I will simply sell it. The cost to recarpet from a negligent pet owner would be over $20,000. Not to mention scratched to hell patio doors and hardwood floors, ruined lawns, etc.
ReplyDeleteLandlords would have to charge much, much higher pet deposits and that would then exclude pet owners.