How would it reduce housing? By having landlords sell so they don’t have to have a pet in their rental unit?
I think that would be one effect - the law does effectively promote owner-occupancy as opposed to renting. I wouldn't count that as reducing housing because someone still lives in the apartment, but it does make renting more expensive (and buying cheaper).
The more general problem is that renting to poor people is risky. They don't have enough money to be worth suing but they (or their pets) are still capable of causing very expensive damage. This law would prevent landlords from mitigating some of that risk, and that means the cost either gets passed on to the renters (including those with no pets) or incentivises the landlords to convert their property to something other than affordable rental housing.
Owner occupancy won’t go up. Landlords are already occupying a place.
As far as passing the cost goes, it won’t be. Rent is already as high as it can be and will continue to go up as long as our regulations allow this artificial shortage to be maintained. See The End Hedge Fund Control of American Homes Act as an example.
As far as the damage goes, it’s pretty much counted on by landlords. Anything they do on the property counts as a tax deduction and the repairs are usually half asses at best. See “landlord special”.
And, in particular, the poorer renters have a massive incentive to take care of the place, as any unpaid damage gets them kicked off of housing assistance.
Furthermore, the law doesn’t blindly allow any and all pets for any reason. AB 2216 will require landlords to have reasonable reason(s) for not allowing a pet in a rental unit and only allows landlords to ask about pet ownership after a tenant’s application has been approved.
I think this is a good change overall. Landlords shouldn’t be allowed to tell their tenants how to live their lives.
How would it reduce housing? By having landlords sell so they don’t have to have a pet in their rental unit?
I think that would be one effect - the law does effectively promote owner-occupancy as opposed to renting. I wouldn't count that as reducing housing because someone still lives in the apartment, but it does make renting more expensive (and buying cheaper).
The more general problem is that renting to poor people is risky. They don't have enough money to be worth suing but they (or their pets) are still capable of causing very expensive damage. This law would prevent landlords from mitigating some of that risk, and that means the cost either gets passed on to the renters (including those with no pets) or incentivises the landlords to convert their property to something other than affordable rental housing.
Owner occupancy won’t go up. Landlords are already occupying a place.
As far as passing the cost goes, it won’t be. Rent is already as high as it can be and will continue to go up as long as our regulations allow this artificial shortage to be maintained. See The End Hedge Fund Control of American Homes Act as an example.
As far as the damage goes, it’s pretty much counted on by landlords. Anything they do on the property counts as a tax deduction and the repairs are usually half asses at best. See “landlord special”.
And, in particular, the poorer renters have a massive incentive to take care of the place, as any unpaid damage gets them kicked off of housing assistance.
Furthermore, the law doesn’t blindly allow any and all pets for any reason. AB 2216 will require landlords to have reasonable reason(s) for not allowing a pet in a rental unit and only allows landlords to ask about pet ownership after a tenant’s application has been approved.
I think this is a good change overall. Landlords shouldn’t be allowed to tell their tenants how to live their lives.