California Bill Would Require Landlords to Accept Pets

return2ozma@lemmy.world to politics @lemmy.world – 554 points –
California Bill Would Require Landlords to Accept Pets | KQED
kqed.org
262

You are viewing a single comment

Again, that's an outlier and an anecdote.

I would wager that the average wear and tear exceeds $50+/mo or whatever the going rate is. The average animal will just wear things down stupidly fast. Rubbing on walls, carpet wear, stains, and then the extra thing every pet dies at least once, all adds up, and repair time and materials aren't cheap. I think OP's situation is probably in the more extreme side, but animals degrade property.

i've owned pets all my life. they've never wrecked anything, not potty in the house, rubbed on walls, stained or worn carpet. they did die, but what does that matter? it didn't do anything whatsoever to the house. and this seems to be the norm when i've visited others with pets too. for sixty years now.

Why do you think pets dying wears out your property? 4 people cause more wear than 2 which causes more wear than 1. Kids cause wear and tear and yet generally speaking rent is a singular figure based on the value of the property. Landlords usually buy the cheapest flooring they can get and clean it between tenants until it actually falls apart virtually always changing flooring between tenants for obvious reasons. You want to collect rent per month and then redo the cheap flooring as infrequently as you were already planning on. The only difference is that the flooring you intend to throw away will be slightly more worn when the tenant leaves not meaningfully increasing costs for you while you collected $600 a year.

2 more...

Outlier. Anecdotal. Do you actually have reliable statistics to say otherwise, or are you walrusing?

I mean, it's definitely anecdotal. But I agree neither of them are using actual stats to back up anything.

2 more...