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

I think it's a perfect reason to ban pets.

I do not owe you the house I paid for. You have to apply for it like everyone else and agree to the terms of my lease. If you don't like it, literally rent from anyone else, but you are not entitled to my property. Peroid.

I do not owe you the house I paid for.

Even small-time landlords are not typically paying for the house. They're just considered a better loan risk than the tenants.

Are you suggesting that they do not pay some monthly fees for said house? Or more important, are you suggesting they won't have to pay one hundred percent of any damages done to said house? The government or bank will cover that?

I'm suggesting that they not only turn a profit in most cases, but that also they keep all of the equity.

I said that in the past tense for a reason. I paid off my house before moving and renting it out. That's not the bank's house, that's my house, and you are still not entitled to it.

And let me be clear, I don't care what the law is, I will continue to discriminate against my applicants for any reason that suits me. Do you have dogs, too many kids, or job hop too often? Then your application is going in the trash. I don't fucking need you, so come right if you're going to come at all.

If you don't agree with the terms society requires of landlords you are free to sell the property and invest in something else.

Bitch please. We are the society. Look at the god damn rent prices and tell me again what "we as a society" value.

We value landlords and existing homeowners wealth over the ability for people to live their lives.

Some of you soft bitches need to hear this. The world doesn't owe you sht. Fight for what you need, but blame yourself if you fail.

-- a landlord who feels entitled to half your paycheck for sitting on his ass

1 more...
1 more...
1 more...

Except you actually don't get to unilaterally decide who can live in your house. You can't ban black people, you can't ban children, you can't ban the handicapped. And soon, if you live in California, you may not be able to ban pets. You live in a society, with rules for what you can and cannot do with the real estate you own.

And how do you realistically plan to enforce that? I have 100 applicants a month for 1 house that has never been vacant. If the current tennant ever decides to leave, how can you expect anyone to pick a potentially bad tennant when a potentially good one has the same right?

1 more...