“Goolsby now has four dogs, seven cats, a fish and a bird.”
The woman in the article has over 10 animals. This isn’t a renters vs landlords thing this is an irresponsible pet owner.
You should instead be asking why they chose an obvious outlier to represent pet owners. That one lady has 10+ pets doesn't change that 2/3rds of families have pets and only 20% of rental housing allows cats and dogs of all sizes.
It’s a very odd choice.
I am a renter with pets, and don't think landlords should be forced to accept renters with pets.
I also acknowledge that pets can do an insane amount of damage to a property if not properly cared for.
I helped my brother repair the damage from a squatter (long story) after he allowed 4 dogs to completely destroy the interior. We were sanding pee saturated studs and priming over them, after ripping out all of the drywall, just to try to defeat the stink.
That's more damage than any plausible pet deposit can hope to cover. It was absolutely disgusting.
People can also cause insane amounts of damage, that doesn't mean it's the norm. I'm sorry about your brother's property, but that's not a reason to allow banning of pets. Nightmare tenants (or squatters) exist, it's just the gamble taken for renting out an investment property. Most pet owners take care of their pets and have no serious problems, after all, they're actually living with the results of their pet care.
As someone who works in pest control and spends a lot of time in people's houses, especially those that are nasty and need my services, I assure you, most people live with the results of not only their lack of pet care, but their own. I've seen some shit and there's more nasty fucking people than you think. They don't even know they're nasty either, like it's my fault they have roach issues because they haven't admittedly cleaned their house in 17 years. (Not exaggerating)
You've got a sampling bias, because, as you mention, one of the main reasons people need your services is because they're nasty, and anything serious enough to impact the apartment's value is well outside of even that norm. Most people absolutely do not simply let their pets pee wherever they want, because they don't want to live that way.
I installed internet into people houses for fifteen years. My sample is pretty broad. It is far nastier than most people realize. There majority is decent but it would be close to one in ten is very nasty then another one in ten that will have nice common 'public guest ' areas but when their basement and different story. It is really hard to tell from the outside and often the people seem normal. Hording is really common but then you get hording wet garbage as well.
True, but plenty of these people are quite well off and just simply don't notice it. I have a lot of clients who aren't actually nasty but their habits are. As the saying goes, it takes all kinds, I guess.
Not denying I have a sampling bias, but I've seen plenty of people who just seem oblivious to their lifestyle choices.
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
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?
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.
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.
Renting houses, I would say half the pet owning renters would result in some pet related damage. A rug replacement or scratched wall. Repairable but not expensive. Then there would be one in ten that could do a significant amount of damage. Pee being the biggest one. A rug replacement is free thousand dollars. Let cats pee everywhere and you can have costs exceeding 40,000 dollars.
There is no real easy way to know which renter you have.
There are a lot of disgusting ass motherfuckers that let pets piss and shit wherever, and don't bother cleaning it. I don't understand how people are ok with a room of shit, but I've seen it house shopping more than once.
I would agree with you more if there wasn't such a housing shortage and an increasing number of properties being swallowed up by large rich renters.
It steadily means that people have little choices, and are forced not to be able to have pets in their lives. Something people have been doing with dogs and cats for thousands of years.
If there's a risk, renters should be required some reasonable cost or deposit to cover it (not something gouging).
Edit: in general, too, I think that the normal "rules" of capitalism should go out the window when we're talking about basic human needs like food, housing, or health care.
Haney said his legislation would likely limit the number of pets landlords must accept and allow landlords to require pet liability insurance. Details on how many pets would be covered under the bill are still being worked out.
But I also don't think this bill is worth giving a shit about when people without pets can't even afford to rent.
That’s true, I think it’s disengenuous of the article to try and play both sides here. Luckily I don’t live in the hell hole that is San Fransisco.
Whether you do or not, people have to because that's where the jobs are. And they can't afford to. And that's the real problem.
Learn to plumb or be an electrician. Both are very in demand and pay well.
While i support trades, specifically those that have unions, even a journeyman plumber would have problems affording rent at $37.80 per hour. The average rent in San Francisco is $3276. Not including taxes, medical, retirement, food, Union dues, or anything else, a plumber would have to work 100 hours to cover rent. Using round numbers, that far exceeds the target of rent being 30% or less of someone's income.
That would also involve moving to less expensive areas where the pay is good and cost of living is lower. Not everyone that lives in the bay area should live in the bay area.
What solution would you like to see that resolves the pay to rent gap? I'm pretty sure cities need the trades people, we're just haggling over "how" now.
Poor people cannot afford the city, if wages rise so will rents and other products in turn, leading to overregulation and strangles on the market until landlords would rather have empty homes than deal with tenants.
Landlords are already leaving housing empty rather than lower rents. Perhaps heavy handed regulations are needed because unfettered capitalism isn't offering any solutions.
Houses are going empty precisely because people are still submitting applications and attempting to live in them. The landlords are waiting for the perfect tennant instead of accepting the ten substandard ones rn. The market will either adjust or these landlords will lose out on revenue streams.
So wait, is anyone supposed to be left there other than the few well off people who can already afford it comfortably??
How do you expect that not to immediately collapse?
That’s the point, the people doing the work move away, the market falls to a level people can live in the city, everything balances out again. The only issue would be making sure the people stay away and the issue doesn’t happen again.
But that’s not what would happen because the people who can’t afford to live there are mostly the people who make society function.
You can’t have a working city without the people at the bottom. So what you are proposing is that the city should collapse.
Rather than, you know… just making sure people can afford to live there instead..
The person you are replying to, refers to the working class as "leftovers". I'm not sure they are worth debating.
The city won’t collapse, the rich that want to live in the bay will see to it. The whole point is there’s an overabundance of people that want to live in the same area, if the leftovers move to cheaper areas away from the bay than the housing crisis will be less impacted as a whole and prices will begin to fall.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Do you think everyone in San Francisco can be a plumber or an electrician?
People need to do things like work the espresso machine at Starbucks because, at least for now, we don't have robots to do it. And they can't afford to live in the city.
No, not everyone in San Fransisco can be an electrician or plumber, but the many that are complaining about high prices of rent can learn a trade and move to lower cost areas where the pay is good. The people working Starbucks espresso machines are in the same boat. If you’re working 40+ hours a week and can’t find a place with roomates to live you need to move somewhere more affordable.
If you’re working 40+ hours a week and can’t find a place with roomates to live you need to move somewhere more affordable.
Fine. Who is going to make the coffee? Or flip the burgers? Or wash the dishes? Or deliver pizza?
Should San Francisco not have any low-cost food options?
Because you sure don't sound like you think service industry workers deserve more pay.
If you cannot afford to live in San Fransisco you shouldn’t live in San Fransisco. If all of these people left, the market would fall to the point where the city becomes affordable again. The rich hate being inconvenienced more than anything, and if all these workers moved to cheaper areas they would feel it.
You think only rich people drink coffee and expect to eat off of clean dishes? Really?
Also, what cheaper areas would those be? And why should they have to endure even longer commutes than they already endure?
All of this sounds like you want to punish poor people because they're poor.
If you’re poor you shouldn’t be getting Starbucks regularly, make your own coffee for cheaper. Cheaper areas are all around, smaller cities across America where your wages stretch farther. Not everyone needs to live in the bay area.
I see, so because people "shouldn't be" getting Starbucks "regularly," poor people should commute two hours to get to the job from the apartment they share with five people because that's all they can afford on the sort of low-wages all such establishments pay. Also, most people can't make things like caramel macchiatos at home. Because that requires an expensive machine rather than spending a few bucks on coffee, something many people who are not rich can afford.
So this still sounds pretty anti-poor to me. Poor people who work there have to suffer, poor people who want to drink or eat there don't get to do it.
What kind of world do you live in where Starbucks only have rich clientele who get coffee there every day or every week?
Also, what kind of world do you live in where there also aren't privately-owned coffee shops?
So the Starbucks employee should like in eternal squalor and be grateful to barely make ends meet. But hey, those more fortunate needs their expensive coffee too, that money will trickle down any day now.
Ok, where do you live. I want a town name. You tell us where the cheap housing is, and I guarantee that Californians will fuck up your housing market because we have the money to do so. Ask literally anyone in rural America about Californians and the housing prices.
And both destroy your body. People who say what you just did neglect to explain that they can’t walk stairs without pain and their shoulder aches painfully when it gets cold.
Weak, my grandfather was a master plumber, lived his whole 92 years completely fine until he caught the black lung after 9/11. The people’s whose bodys are destroyed are the ones who don’t take care of them in the first place, take care of your body, prioritize yourself, and you’ll be fine.
Blah blah you have an anecdote. George burns worked until nearly 100 and lived a terribly unhealthy lifestyle. Don’t copy him.
And? People work these kinds of jobs and are fine for all their life, but because some don’t take care of themselves it vilifies the job as being hard on your knees and you’ll never be able to walk again.
Because the people who do this sort of work know that they are destroying their bodies so they fashion themselves into some sort of folk hero warrior that are some of the few people who live an authentic life compared to all the idiots around them. All of what you said is really something that exists within your own brain.
Sad that you couldn’t leave a simple comment without insulting hundreds of thousands of people for no reason. Pretty pathetic really.
It’s sad millions of people want to live wall to wall in a city that treats illegal aliens and street shitters better than the tax payer.
lol lol stop. You literally don’t believe that.
No, people like that drink their right wing Flavor Aid and assume the talking points reflect reality. The person everyone is arguing with also believes that rent will come down if Starbucks employees leave, ignoring both the actual price fixing scheme in the rental market and the fact that prices keep being driven up by external factors unrelated to the labor and consumer markets in San Francisco.
The City of San Fransisco is currently more worried about making space for illegal immigrants and homeless people more than improving the lives of taxpayers and upstanding citizens. Any govenment that has such housing epidemics that they must overegulate to even try and have a semblance of normalcy while also touting the area as a safe haven for illegals is corrupt.
LOL you're never going to stop pushing your personal narrative against reality, are you? Why even come here to spout nonsense that people will attack you over? You should find a MAGA rock and hide under it again.
While Americans toil and struggle to find housing in these areas, the city of San Fransisco would rather focus on improving the city for illegal immigrants over helping Americans. If San Fransisco wants to solve some of their issues they can start by repealing Sanctuary City laws and working with ICE to remove criminals from the US.
Thanks for admitting you are lying. No need to respond. I already have you tagged as a "anti-proletariat leftover liar."
I mean, a fish is pretty negligible in this case, but yeah. There's no way that 4 dogs and 7 cats are being given an acceptable quality of life in a rental. Honestly, I take issue with dogs in apartments, point blank, as conforversial of an opinion as I'm sure that is. The cherry on top is the bird, which tells me everything I need to know about this woman.
This bill will result in all rental costs increasing slightly. You can legislate anything but the costs will always be one hundred percent covered by those using the services. There is no way around this.
I own pets and love them but I can expect an additional cost to house them.
Alternate take: the post rental cleanup industry becomes more competitive.
It won't. Will simply result in more damages this increase in overall rent and less people willing to invest in rental properties this fewer homes to rent. Thus a double hit on increased rental rates.
similar to how min wage eats into profits and ceo pay without affecting overall employment, the scam deposit fee bullshit industry can actually absorb the hit and I'd wager more rental managers would just start using actual cleaners instead of their cousins phony cleaning company that charges way too much
You can legislate anything but the costs will always be one hundred percent covered by those using the services.
This smells of what I've heard described before as "the fallacy of immutable profits". Landlord profit margins aren't set in stone. The state could pass any number of additional renter protection measures to force landlords to eat the costs if they wanted to.
But they won't
You can not force people to become landlords. Pass all the laws you want but that just means fewer and fewer places to rent. Is that hard to understand? What do you think happens when there are 100 houses to rent and 200 families needing shelter? Prices keep rising until it becomes profitable for people to invest money into rental.
What the protection measures result in is pretty much only large commercial operations can be landlords due to the need of someone trained to get the maximum out of renters and have the ability to navigate the courts if they do any damages. We see that already as rental costs rise and low inventory is common in most markets.
The government could actually force people to rent out vacant property if they wanted to, but that doesn't really have much to do with anything.
Sure. Because doing something about landlords charging way too much for rent would help too many people.
There's tons of legislation, proposed and enacted, aimed at lowering rent prices, primarily aimed at increasing supply. Things like prohibiting zoning restrictions that limit single family housing, providing incentives for infill developments and affordable housing bonuses, and allowing rent control ordinances.
The article doesn't say "there is only one bill related to housing this legislative session and it's for pets". Just because a bigger problem exists doesn't mean you have to ignore every other problem until the big one is fixed.
Landlords prohibiting pets is a housing issue because it effectively limits the housing that is available to people. I know when I was looking for an apartment because I had two cats that eliminated probably 50% of housing options I had. I don't know what this does to the market overall, but I'd bet it does something.
Per ownership is also an objectively positive thing, both for animals in shelters that need homes and for the mental health of people. Landlord restrictions functionally turn pet ownership into a privilege only available to the landed gentry. It's shitty.
So anyway, this bill addresses a problem and does some good. Just because it won't singlehandedly solve all the country's housing affordability problems in one swoop doesn't mean you have to dismiss it.
Love this take. Thank you!
I haven't seen any of this in my state. California isn't the whole world
There’s tons of legislation, proposed and enacted, aimed at lowering rent prices, primarily aimed at increasing supply. Things like prohibiting zoning restrictions that limit single family housing, providing incentives for infill developments and affordable housing bonuses, and allowing rent control ordinances.
If that is the case, I have certainly not been hearing about them. Maybe those are what should be reported on rather than this, which is nowhere near as consequential.
I have been seeing political commercials for at least 3 different bills/campaigns to write bills aimed at fixing housing issues recently; though they are all California specific. One of which uses the motto "the rent is too damn high."
I am not in California (anymore) but I would definitely like more information if you have it.
"If I haven't already come across it, it doesn't exist, because I am aware of everything that is reported on" right?
Or, you know, an example could be given rather than me just "trust me bro."
Our state government tackles a ton of stuff on the regular. There's literally too much stuff going on for anyone to keep track of all of it.
Amazingly we can have multiple conversations at once.
Great, when are lawmakers going to start having multiple conversations at once?
When we break the Repuglicans hold on the legislature.
I see you don't have any pets.
I have two dogs and a fish.
Please outlaw pet rent. I get a refundable deposit, but pet rent is bullshit.
As deposits sometimes aren't sometimes aren't enough, I'd also go for needing a pet-owner plan with their renters insurance.
One of the things that has prevented me from finding a new apartment is my cat. Been on the market for ages, and 90% of listings are automatically off the table because they don’t allow pets. It’s an extremely common restriction. This would be a huge win. Obviously doesn’t solve any of the more important problems with landlords and excessive rates; but it’s definitely something that a lot of people would notice and benefit from.
This is so weird. Around where I live most apartments accept pets up to, usually, 50lbs with a pet deposit and only bar certain breeds. Some have quantity restriction as well but very few won't accept pets at all.
Trust me it's not weird at all. I've lived in bigger cities in nine states, every single one of those had severe limitations when it came to any pets unless they were fish. Some areas are more lenient than others but I had a hell of a time finding a place that would except a medium sized dog in every single city and never once did I not pay an additional deposit as well as additional "pet rent"
Sometimes even fish because an aquarium malfunction can cause serious damage.
Hmm. Never had trouble in CA.
Moving there in 2 weeks from Oklahoma and had no issues finding houses that allowed pets myself. In fact most seemed to welcome them.
The rental market for houses is kinda weird out here. It's the apartment complexes/ condos/ multi-family units that have the ridiculous restrictions. In my city more than 70% of the residents rent.
Also welcome to the state, we have bumpier land out here than OK, also trees.
Yeah it is absolutely beautiful. We are in Sacramento and the company flew us out last month to check it out before we committed and we are in love with it. I'm an outdoorsy type so it's great for me. Looking forward to milder summers than here for sure.
Yo, every pet owner on the planet thinks their pet is perfect and its like pretty much almost never the case. Pet owners will downvote me, but that piece of chewed trim is not cute. Property damage to rentals caused by pets also keeps property vacant between renters for repairs.
So the landlord will use the money from the rent to personally hand repair that furniture himself, right? He won't just jack up the price and hire a cheap fixture repair place, right?
It's not just furniture, piss soaking into the floor for extended periods of time can require work to fix. I bought a house that had a renter with a large dog and I had to rip up the floor to find the spot soaked through to the subfloor where the dog always peed during the day while the owner was out, it reaked.
Okay. That would happen if you bought from a non renter too. Pets are a part lf the human experience and humans need housing. Landlords can live with the costs or sell up so people can buy.
Pets don't need to be "part of the human experience" any more than drugs do. They're optional and some people choose to have them and some don't. Some people don't like pets and don't want to be forced to live around others' pets.
Have you even thought for a second that some people might CHOOSE housing based on the fact that a community doesn't allow pets? And by "mandating all landlords allow pets" you are eliminating housing options for these people? God you people are like religious zealots and think everyone should be forced to believe in the same things you do.
Friggin crazy fascists. "You're going to like my pitbull (oh he's harmless and you're dog-racist if you believe otherwise) and now I want to force you to raise your kids around my untrained shit factory and step in his crap and listen to him bark constantly or you're a horrible person."
Holy hell I hate you with the passion of a thousand suns.
Lol
Well it didn’t take long to go from “housing is a human right” to “pets are a human right” lmao
Imagine cum guzzling landlords rights on Lemmy of all places lmao
next the peasants might be asking for healthcare lmao
Or they can just not allow pets wtf?
Or we can mandate that pets should be allowed because humans want pets and landlords have driven humans out of home ownership, so now they need to be massively regulated.
If landlord's don't like it, they can sell up and people can buy homes again.
Not all humans want pets. And those humans don't like to be forced to live among other people's pets.
Oh that definitely overrides anything else. I don't like the colour orange so I'll just go ahead and claim no one else can have orange stuff incase we need to room together
Dude you're arguing opposite your position. The internal consistency of your argument has broken down.
You say above you're against a rule like "no one else can have orange stuff because I don't like orange stuff" while at the same time arguing "everyone else has to like pets because I like pets." Can't you see how that's hypocritical?
And to be clear, you completely misrepresent my position in the first place. I'm not for requiring anyone to do anything. I'm against requiring landlords to allow pets. If they want to allow pets, great 👍.
But if a property owner wants to advertise their community as quieter (no barking), cleaner, with less poop and pee on the grass, and less dander in the air, then why would you prohibit renters from seeking a nicer place like that for them to live?
Lol
This dog?
Actually, at least in my state, tools and labor done by a landlord can't be listed as an expense for taxes. If they hire someone they can list it as an expense on taxes.
Well, the only thing my dog did was start to lose her bladder control before I put her down. But she managed to make it to the pee pad every time even then.
Not all dogs bro. My girl was perfect. Didn’t even bark. I’ll probably never find another one like her though.
Sorry for your loss. There really are perfect good bois and good girls out there. I have met a couple.
Babies and old people shit in carpet way more than pets, make more noise too.
That is definitely not true, and it's obvious you've never let an apartment.
My sister's kid has definitely left more shit on my carpet than all 4 of my cats combined.
You, as a landlord, simply have no idea whether pets or people shit in your apartment. It's not radioactive waste, people can just clean it up.
Way to be disingenuous
Way to disregard other people's experience, easy to do if you never leave your basement.
Not at all true.
Some of my pets are shits, some are angels. My wife thinks some are angels and some are shits.
We were very fortunate to find a place the; landlord doesn't seem to care about, and the previous tenant was a... Crazy pet owner, rumor was he was breeding dogs, so the floors were shot already, no monthly pet fee, no extra pet deposit, no need to have them repair anything, we probably won't get the deposit back, but I doubt we would've if we had an up to snuff place, as our puppy was still learning the difference between outside and inside (he knows now)
Uh, case in point. You found a place trashed by pets, brought your 'shits and angels' in to wreck it more, and are oblivious to their effects on a home. This is what I was talking about.
The rental was vacant for months before our moving in, not earning any money, the "repairs" on it were sub par where done at all, the property is almost certainly illegally subdivided, the landlord offered a "give me sex for no rent next month" agreement with the other tenant (who had never brought up financial difficulties, nor is in a spot that would require leniency), has turned down multiple grants to take care of fire damaged trees on the hill sloping towards our back door, and it's their only property in my state from looking at the other holdings dude is a slum lord. Also we're paying way too much for the amount of upkeep that's being put into the place. Also learned from a neighbor (who renovated, might have had the idea to flip the house) that the person who built 3 of the houses on this street (including ours) "followed a code, but it wasn't {states} code. We're out in the boonies, nobody wants any more attention here than required. If we hadn't rented this place it would probably still be on the market what they were asking for it (half hour of heavy mountain road out of town), but we get no questions asked, a 2 car garage, no electric gas or water bill (hence illegal subdivision) and twice the sqf for less than what we'd be paying for half that space, no garage, and"communal" billing rates.
We're being taken advantage of financially, they don't ask questions (was one of the selling points) regarding our animals. Our animals btw haven't trashed the place, they don't urinate outside of their designated areas, they don't tear up the carpets or chew on the walls, nature is taking care of plenty of those things, but the animals we keep have nothing to do with it.
“When you put them all into a package, it’s so rife with possibilities for errors on the part of the landlord,” Gulbransen said. “That makes people think twice about renting out that empty unit.”
Oh no.
Plus, she said the state already has laws in place to protect renters with disabilities or mental health issues who rely on emotional support or service animals.
Oh, well since they are already bending over backwards following ADA guidelines obviously that's argument enough
Btw to those who didn't read the article, it also mentions how a lot of pets are surrendered because the owners couldn't find housing that accommodates them.
Lmao ITT: cats and dogs have evolved next to humans for thousands of years
Commentor: well that's the first I've heard of this, they probably don't even tip their landlord!
I assume this (and really any extra mandates for landlords) is going to drive more small/private landlords out of the business, and that won't necessarily increase housing availability on its own, but will instead be filled by larger corporate landlords that can afford to deal with administrative work required. As I've gotten older, I've found small landlords to be where you can find the best experience (but also maybe the worst, it's more variable), having just corporate landlords feels like you'll always get a shittier place (minimal work done) for market rates.
Definitely a YMMV situation, with corporate landlords when I've called them out for breaking the law they usually backpedal. Mom and pop landlords in my experience always attempt to skirt around laws and just out right down respect them.
The golden experience to me has always been small businesses landlords who aren't quite corporate yet, might own a building or two, but generally small in the grand scheme of things. They ofc eventually sell out to the corporate ownership anyways.
In Belgium landlords can't prohibit pets. In reality they often say pets aren't allowed anyways, but if you keep quiet until after everything is signed they can't really do anything about it. Of course pissing off your landlord by doing something they specifically requested you avoid isn't going to keep them on good terms, and if it's an option, finding a home that allows them is better.
Of course this law only applies to pets that are suitable for the space. If you keep a massive dog in a tiny studio appartment you might find yourself in legal hot water, but something like a cat should never be an issue.
Depends on the breed. My best friend in university had an absolutely MASSIVE Newfoundland Retriever, and they were quite happy in a 450 sq ft efficiency apartment. I'll fully admit that is cheating, as Newfies routinely get to 200-250 lbs, but they are lazy as all fuck, and mostly nap all day.
That makes people think twice about renting out that empty unit.
Yes I can totally see landlords being so dismayed by the new complexity of housing rules that they just let the $150,000 they could have earned in high rent areas over the next 5 years just go to pot instead of hiring a professional property manager or selling. Sure real.
Granted I'm not in California, but is this actually an issue? As someone with fairly intense dog/cat allergies it's actually been really hard to find NON-pet-friendly places to rent - those seem to be the exception rather than the rule.
It seems like different areas of the country have different rental "cultures". Where I live now it's incredibly difficult to find a pet-friendly apartment, with or without any sort of fee or deposit. And most locals think it's normal and well justified. In the places I've lived previously it was mostly just restrictions on large dogs or reasonable limits to the number of pets. I've spent my entire life around pets (both my own and those of family/roommates). It feels VERY weird to me that the many people here don't consider owning pets a normal lifestyle choice many people make even if they're not in a position to own their own home.
Was somewhat common in San Francisco to see no pets allowed listings last time I rented there.
bar property owners from asking about pets on applications, prohibit additional monthly fees for pet owners — or “pet rent” — and limit pet deposits.
I love animals and have a dog, but it seems like all this will do is raise everyone's rent.
They are going to raise rents anyways, might as well get a dog out of it.
If I have the liability of ripping up carpet and subfloor to eliminate the piss smell, you're rent is going way the fuck up pal.
Adam "The Father of Capitalism" Smith, on land leeches:
"the landlords love to reap where they never sowed and demand a rent even for its natural produce.”
If you can't risk it then don't buy it 🤷🏽
or...transfer the risk on to you. As your behavior is the risk.
I've run out of landlord necks to shit down. Any of you human beings got one you'd borrow me?
You're obviously a shitass, but since you asked: a dog bit through my hand right before a music gig. The owner pulled the classic "oh she's never done anything like that before!" and gave zero reprimand to the dog and didnt answer "WHY IN THE FUCK IS IT UNLEASHED IN PUBLIC??!"
Idk who you're replying too but, yeah dogs should be on leashes. No exceptions.
I don't really see how this relates to landlords being made to accept pets. Most people will opt for a more expensive home than part with their pets
My apartment only allows pets up to 25 pounds and I HATE it SO much. I really want a dog but that's so limiting... I don't want a Chihuahua or a tiny curly haired yappy little Shih Tzu. I'm allergic to cats too otherwise I would totally do that :(
Get a Shiba Inu, they're the perfect apartment cat. Especially as they get older. My 13 year old is a total loaf.
They’re a great size, but they are pricey and if you want a good breeder then you’ll be on a wait list.
I’ll also throw a little caution, though, as a shiba can be very…stubborn. You have to be patient with them. I have two (our previous one passed away of old age) and they all have very very different personalities. One is definitely high energy and the other loafs around a lot.
My point is, they’re a great dog breed but they can also require a lot of work with (positive) training and energy needs. Even after training - they are still stubborn and drama queens.
Consider a Jack Russell Terrier, they need decent amounts of exercise but make great companions!
Just be warned: they are neurotic as all fuck. Super cool dogs though.
I would love it. Finding anything that can fit the bill for dogs is absolutely horrible in the bay area.
Sounds wonderful for tenants who are allergic to dog or cat dander.
Apartments have walls. Shocking!
Apartment walls are thin and leak. Never smelled your neighbors cooking or smoking?
Apartments have common areas.Never walked down a shared hallway or staircase or used an elevator in an apartment building?
People move. So someone moving into an apartment after someone who’s had a dog or cat is going to have to deal with the leftover dander. You can’t get it all, even with a good cleaning and ripping out carpet. It’s similar to when a non smoker moves into a unit previously occupied by a smoker.
Look — I’m fine with allowing pets in apartment complexes — I just don’t think it should be mandatory. Perhaps this legislation could compromise by saying something like “when there are over X number of units, Y percentage of units must allow pets of up to Z size and number.” That way the pet and non pet people apartments can be separated from each other.
I have lived my entire adult life in apartments. Aside from a few foolish times I was in a complex, I’ve spent the rest in buildings put up before 1930. I’ve never experienced the issues you mention. Older construction is better because it was overbuilt. Today things are built as closely to standard as possible to cost save.
Then we get reptile-only living communities, this is a plus.
FWIW I think most "no pets" policies are sort of understood to apply to cats and dogs only. I never had any issue w/r/t my reptiles when I rented
Just don't mention that your reptiles come with a live insect petting zoo.
I strictly forbid Gila Monsters.
I'm all for this as long as shitty pet owners are wildly prosecuted for the damage they cause.
And don't give me that "emotional support animal" bullshit. I've seen you fuckers and your piss- and shit- ridden slums. If you need an emotional support animal then you probably can't handle the responsibility.
Wait why wouldn't they? People piss and shit and if you damage a rental with it, you're billed for it. I feel like you're very angry about a problem you made up.
Landlords, of course, can sue for damages, but it's almost always in small claims court, and the former tenant is almost always "judgement proof" -- no real assets and no real wages to garnish. These same individuals are often the sort of tenant who allows their pets to destroy a home, let cat urine soak into the floor boards, and so on.
Not everyone, of course. and in fact, probably a very small minority of tenants, but it only takes one terrible tenant to utterly destroy a home.
I wouldn't say made up.
I think they are referring to the times when the cost of damages (think a pet hoarder) outweigh what the deposit would normally cover. Rather than taking the previous tenant to court (if even possible) to pay for the excess, some landlords will just slap on fresh coat of paint to appeal to the eyes and ignore everything else that need to be done.
With cat urine for instance, you may be able to hide the smell temporarily, but unless you replace the carpet/flooring, add an odor blocking primer to other stained permanent surfaces, replace odor-impregnated things like cabinetry or sheet rock, the smell will just keep coming back. It can sometimes be about as bad, cost-wise, as flood/mold remediation.
My friends' mother had several cats and she did not take care of any place she lived in. When visiting her there was a separation of the outside air and inside air which was more "dense", and had a smell which took a few minutes to adjust to. Her rent did not cover the damages she caused; mold, stains, rot if she lived there long enough.
It's actually a bit risky to keep a deposit. If the tenant says you've done so unjustly, and a court agrees, the LL can be sued for triple what they kept. I have an owner occupied two unit and it would really need to be a lot of damage with evidence of intent or negligence. Why risk keeping a deposit and then being sued for triple while still having to carry out repairs caused by a careless tenant or their animal.
My place doesn't make me any money, it's a loss every year, but at least I'm building equity right?
My place doesn’t make me any money, it’s a loss every year, but at least I’m building equity right?
If you're building equity, it's not a loss every year.
Have you ever known anyone who tried to rent out their place? My understanding is that it's near impossible to keep someone's security deposit when they damage your place, if they choose to fight you on it. I very much doubt that non-corporate landlords would be able to successfully collect damages from a renter with pets who trashed the place. This move will absolutely hurt individual landlords in favor of the corporate landlords that can afford lawyers.
Boo hoo. I'll definitely cry for the land leeches. Maybe they can get a job.
Sounds like you're simping for corporate landlords.
Nope. All land leeches are leeches. To quote Adam "The Father of Capitalism" Smith:
"the landlords love to reap where they never sowed and demand a rent even for its natural produce.”
Aren't there typically already clauses within rental agreements about damage to the property (especially when moving out), though?
They aren't that helpful. You can't get 40k from someone who has less than 10k in assets.
I like animals but I don't like the idea of having pets of my own, or go to places where they have pets.
Having said that, you absolutely NOT know what you're talking about.
I absolutely DO know what the fuck I'm talking about. I have pets. My friends have pets. I 'adopt' all of my clients' pets. Know what we all have in common?...hatred and intolerance for shitty pet owners. I have to assume that you're one of them by your response; responsible pet owners aren't insulted by this.
I was about to think that you knew what you were talking about, then I kept reading.
How did you miss the part where I mentioned that I don't own any pets? See? How can I trust that you didn't jump into conclusions so quickly about ALL the people who need emotional support animals as well?
Because I assumed they had been taken from you
Your assumptions don't inspire confidence in what you claim you know.
Let's just leave it at that. Have a nice weekend.
À dog hurt you wen you was a kid ?
No, as an adult. And the owner claimed it was such a friendly family dog before it started to maul my leg because it didn't like my smell.
Now do hotels.
Fucking NO god damn it we hate people like you SO MUCH
Hugs and Kisses! 🥰
I can see that this is super funny to you, but some people with chronic allergies can't enjoy their vacations or go about their lives because inconsiderate people demand to bring their pets to public areas such as hotels or stores.
Not all rooms would have to be pet friendly. But maybe some?
I am allergic as well.
You want rent prices to go even higher? Because this is how you get higher rent prices. The cost to deal with a pet before the next tenant is much higher than a no pet tenancy. Obvious, on average.
If everyone can have pets and no discrimination, then your rent will have to be priced on assuming you will have a pet. The house will have to be recarpeted and ozoned and off market for at least a week or two in between tenants to allow for it.
If you think that California landlords aren’t already charging the absolute most they can for renting houses, you’re probably paying less than $3800/month for a 2/1 built in 1906.
All these "this will cause X to raise prices" responses always inherently assume that the people currently setting the prices are just giving everyone a deal because they feel like they've made enough profit and don't need any more. Maybe you've got a sweetheart landlord here or there, but the market writ large isn't leaving money on the table. The only reason rents aren't higher is because at some point the preferable alternative is moving away or homelessness
And the first time a tenants dog does $5k in damage to your house, you look at the next tenant wanting a year lease and say that's an extra $400/mo minimum. That's how it works. Being a landlord isn't a charity.
It’s totally not how it works. If you could get an extra $400/month because someone was willing to pay that, you’d do it.
That's not how it works. You advertise at market rates. If the rules change, the market rates will rise
It will rise to the level where the supply and demand curves meet, modulo market uncertainty and information imbalance.
I’ve rented several places that listed “no pets,” and after telling them I’d pay an extra $200 per month or whatever because I had two 75lb pit bulls, no one even blinked. If they had originally thought they could get away with charging the extra $200 and people would snap it up, they would have.
Most people renting houses do not do sufficient due diligence on market rates, and there’s enough variability in both housing and tenants that it’s probably a bit difficult to price ideally. If you have a large enough company that you can write some kind of statistical analysis and are renting similar/identical places in the same building, that’s one thing. If you’re a new buyer just purchasing a second house to rent over on 2nd Street because it’s $800k and you think you can cover the mortgage in rent after looking at Zillow, that’s something else.
That has been true historically, I'm not so sure now. They have started using algorithms. There's some sort of Zillow type shit for landlords that monitors every market and is helping them price gouge, market fix, and pluropolize. Thank fuck I don't have to worry about that
The law allows them to require pet liability insurance if the tenant has a pet.
Nobody is filing a claim for pet damage. You risk losing your entire policy or raising the rates. You keep catastrophic by law, and never use it. You've obviously never landlorded
"the landlords love to reap where they never sowed and demand a rent even for its natural produce.”
Adam Smith
There is a shortage of property. The price of rent is already what the highest bidder is prepared to pay for it.
Adam "The Father of Capitalism" Smith on land leeches:
"the landlords love to reap where they never sowed and demand a rent even for its natural produce.”
As always, California and the Champagne Democrats will enact half measures that will only hurt people in the long run but look good on billboards come election season. There's so much deeper problems to address before something like this can be implemented beneficially.
Uhhh... a a renter, there a lot of issues that need to be addressed in the market. My asshole neighbors not having pets is not one of them. In fact, pet owners contribute to the shittiness of my situation. Fuck 'em.
You sound like a pretty shitty person ngl
Based on what? Not wanting to step in your dog's shit and listen to it bark incessantly in tight living quarters with little soundproofing? 🤡
You're an entitled piece of shit who makes the lives of everyone around you worse. Marinate on that, though your narcissism is likely in the way.
Yo dawg, people are getting pissed at you but after living next to some shitty dogs I can understand the trauma that leads to someone not wanting to live next to shitty dog owners. After 5 years of my neighbor's sheep hearding dog's barking I reported them to animal control for letting their dog roam off leash and I've never slept better. I would have reported the barking but its actually much harder to report barking since you need 2 other neighbors to agree and all these boomers around me are buddies.
Oh I can definitely understand being mad at some pet owners. It can suuuuck.
But a blanket statement is just disingenuous
100%
Based on the way you're acting as if all pet owners are assholes who don't take care of their pets.
So many seem to be that way? Sure definitely know some people who train their pets, but so many don’t seem to. Let your dog out at all hours to bark? Sure why not!
You'll never notice the good ones.
Fuck you buddy!
I didn’t do shit to you
Lol, point proven 🤡
Really, bro? I set you up for the Terrance and Phillip, and threw the word shit in there for you to riff off of, and you still took it serious?
I've never really watched Southpark and your comment sounds exactly like the response of shitty pet owners... so yeah, lol.
Sorry but you really sound insecure.
Is this the sort of thing that the government should be regulating in principle? I don't think it is. (But then, I do tend to lean libertarian.) Plus, it seems like it would reduce the supply of and increase the price of housing.
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.
youre only looking it in the POV of a non pet owner. in a perspective of a pet owner that would increase the supply of houses because their initial choices were already (artificially) limited. again it only increases the prices of other houses because of more competition to rent, but in the pet owners perspective, it lowers it because the supply itself rapidly grew.
Who gives a fuck about a pet owner's perspective? Owning pets is a choice. Existing in the society we're born to is not a choice. So, if you can't afford the increased cost of pet ownership, you're not entitled to increase the costs for everyone else to accommodate your main character syndrome. Why are pet owners so goddamn entitled and fucking insufferable?
Actually I’ve noticed that it’s the no-pet Karens/Kevins who sound entitled and insufferable.
Why are YOU so goddamn entitled and fucking insufferable? Holy shit
How am I entitled? I'm not the one expecting to disrupt the peace of others where they live and increase the living costs of others because I just have to have a fucking dog in an apartment.
You sound like a lovely human being.
Owning pets is a pretty normal sort of lifestyle choice with proven benefits for mental health and even increased lifespan (when the owner is getting up in years). It's not quite to the level of "having a child" as far as being a fundamental human right, but it's something humans have been doing for millennia and that rises to the level of potentially protecting it.
I think it might increase supply, but only in a paradoxical sense. I've had to deal with tremendous damage done to my home by one of our pets, and I've only put up with it because the animal responsible was incredibly dear to my wife. If I was renting the house out and had to deal with similar damage done by some stranger's pet every time the house turned over, I think I'd throw in the towel and put it up for sale. It's just not worth it.
Most pets, like most people, are not incredibly damaging.
If you're renting, you either cannot afford a pet, or your lifestyle is too volatile to responsibly care for a pet.
Gosh I didn’t know you needed to be a landowner. TIL
Lol clearly you never considered that some people would rather not own a home and prefer to rent. Or people like myself, who make plenty of money and live a comfortable life, but are still saving up for the now-required six figure down payment for a house with a somewhat reasonable since the housing market went ape shit. But sure, I'm too poor and irresponsible, let's go with that.
Lol clearly you never considered that some people would rather not own a home and prefer to rent.
That's called a "condominium". All the benefits of a rented home, plus equity.
"Land Contract" is another option. Unlike a rental, where the cost increases year after year, a land contract typically has a fixed rate. It's more like ownership than renting, though.
The concept of renting needs to die in a goddamn fire. All that money paid for housing should be turning into equity, not being pissed away on the "services" of an extortionate landlord.
“Goolsby now has four dogs, seven cats, a fish and a bird.”
The woman in the article has over 10 animals. This isn’t a renters vs landlords thing this is an irresponsible pet owner.
You should instead be asking why they chose an obvious outlier to represent pet owners. That one lady has 10+ pets doesn't change that 2/3rds of families have pets and only 20% of rental housing allows cats and dogs of all sizes.
It’s a very odd choice.
I am a renter with pets, and don't think landlords should be forced to accept renters with pets.
I also acknowledge that pets can do an insane amount of damage to a property if not properly cared for.
I helped my brother repair the damage from a squatter (long story) after he allowed 4 dogs to completely destroy the interior. We were sanding pee saturated studs and priming over them, after ripping out all of the drywall, just to try to defeat the stink.
That's more damage than any plausible pet deposit can hope to cover. It was absolutely disgusting.
People can also cause insane amounts of damage, that doesn't mean it's the norm. I'm sorry about your brother's property, but that's not a reason to allow banning of pets. Nightmare tenants (or squatters) exist, it's just the gamble taken for renting out an investment property. Most pet owners take care of their pets and have no serious problems, after all, they're actually living with the results of their pet care.
As someone who works in pest control and spends a lot of time in people's houses, especially those that are nasty and need my services, I assure you, most people live with the results of not only their lack of pet care, but their own. I've seen some shit and there's more nasty fucking people than you think. They don't even know they're nasty either, like it's my fault they have roach issues because they haven't admittedly cleaned their house in 17 years. (Not exaggerating)
You've got a sampling bias, because, as you mention, one of the main reasons people need your services is because they're nasty, and anything serious enough to impact the apartment's value is well outside of even that norm. Most people absolutely do not simply let their pets pee wherever they want, because they don't want to live that way.
I installed internet into people houses for fifteen years. My sample is pretty broad. It is far nastier than most people realize. There majority is decent but it would be close to one in ten is very nasty then another one in ten that will have nice common 'public guest ' areas but when their basement and different story. It is really hard to tell from the outside and often the people seem normal. Hording is really common but then you get hording wet garbage as well.
True, but plenty of these people are quite well off and just simply don't notice it. I have a lot of clients who aren't actually nasty but their habits are. As the saying goes, it takes all kinds, I guess.
Not denying I have a sampling bias, but I've seen plenty of people who just seem oblivious to their lifestyle choices.
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.
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
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?
Again, that's an outlier and an anecdote.
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.
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.
Renting houses, I would say half the pet owning renters would result in some pet related damage. A rug replacement or scratched wall. Repairable but not expensive. Then there would be one in ten that could do a significant amount of damage. Pee being the biggest one. A rug replacement is free thousand dollars. Let cats pee everywhere and you can have costs exceeding 40,000 dollars.
There is no real easy way to know which renter you have.
There are a lot of disgusting ass motherfuckers that let pets piss and shit wherever, and don't bother cleaning it. I don't understand how people are ok with a room of shit, but I've seen it house shopping more than once.
I would agree with you more if there wasn't such a housing shortage and an increasing number of properties being swallowed up by large rich renters.
It steadily means that people have little choices, and are forced not to be able to have pets in their lives. Something people have been doing with dogs and cats for thousands of years.
If there's a risk, renters should be required some reasonable cost or deposit to cover it (not something gouging).
Edit: in general, too, I think that the normal "rules" of capitalism should go out the window when we're talking about basic human needs like food, housing, or health care.
To be fair, right after that, the article says:
But I also don't think this bill is worth giving a shit about when people without pets can't even afford to rent.
That’s true, I think it’s disengenuous of the article to try and play both sides here. Luckily I don’t live in the hell hole that is San Fransisco.
Whether you do or not, people have to because that's where the jobs are. And they can't afford to. And that's the real problem.
Learn to plumb or be an electrician. Both are very in demand and pay well.
While i support trades, specifically those that have unions, even a journeyman plumber would have problems affording rent at $37.80 per hour. The average rent in San Francisco is $3276. Not including taxes, medical, retirement, food, Union dues, or anything else, a plumber would have to work 100 hours to cover rent. Using round numbers, that far exceeds the target of rent being 30% or less of someone's income.
That would also involve moving to less expensive areas where the pay is good and cost of living is lower. Not everyone that lives in the bay area should live in the bay area.
What solution would you like to see that resolves the pay to rent gap? I'm pretty sure cities need the trades people, we're just haggling over "how" now.
Poor people cannot afford the city, if wages rise so will rents and other products in turn, leading to overregulation and strangles on the market until landlords would rather have empty homes than deal with tenants.
Landlords are already leaving housing empty rather than lower rents. Perhaps heavy handed regulations are needed because unfettered capitalism isn't offering any solutions.
Houses are going empty precisely because people are still submitting applications and attempting to live in them. The landlords are waiting for the perfect tennant instead of accepting the ten substandard ones rn. The market will either adjust or these landlords will lose out on revenue streams.
So wait, is anyone supposed to be left there other than the few well off people who can already afford it comfortably??
How do you expect that not to immediately collapse?
That’s the point, the people doing the work move away, the market falls to a level people can live in the city, everything balances out again. The only issue would be making sure the people stay away and the issue doesn’t happen again.
But that’s not what would happen because the people who can’t afford to live there are mostly the people who make society function.
You can’t have a working city without the people at the bottom. So what you are proposing is that the city should collapse.
Rather than, you know… just making sure people can afford to live there instead..
The person you are replying to, refers to the working class as "leftovers". I'm not sure they are worth debating.
The city won’t collapse, the rich that want to live in the bay will see to it. The whole point is there’s an overabundance of people that want to live in the same area, if the leftovers move to cheaper areas away from the bay than the housing crisis will be less impacted as a whole and prices will begin to fall.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Do you think everyone in San Francisco can be a plumber or an electrician?
People need to do things like work the espresso machine at Starbucks because, at least for now, we don't have robots to do it. And they can't afford to live in the city.
No, not everyone in San Fransisco can be an electrician or plumber, but the many that are complaining about high prices of rent can learn a trade and move to lower cost areas where the pay is good. The people working Starbucks espresso machines are in the same boat. If you’re working 40+ hours a week and can’t find a place with roomates to live you need to move somewhere more affordable.
Fine. Who is going to make the coffee? Or flip the burgers? Or wash the dishes? Or deliver pizza?
Should San Francisco not have any low-cost food options?
Because you sure don't sound like you think service industry workers deserve more pay.
If you cannot afford to live in San Fransisco you shouldn’t live in San Fransisco. If all of these people left, the market would fall to the point where the city becomes affordable again. The rich hate being inconvenienced more than anything, and if all these workers moved to cheaper areas they would feel it.
You think only rich people drink coffee and expect to eat off of clean dishes? Really?
Also, what cheaper areas would those be? And why should they have to endure even longer commutes than they already endure?
All of this sounds like you want to punish poor people because they're poor.
If you’re poor you shouldn’t be getting Starbucks regularly, make your own coffee for cheaper. Cheaper areas are all around, smaller cities across America where your wages stretch farther. Not everyone needs to live in the bay area.
I see, so because people "shouldn't be" getting Starbucks "regularly," poor people should commute two hours to get to the job from the apartment they share with five people because that's all they can afford on the sort of low-wages all such establishments pay. Also, most people can't make things like caramel macchiatos at home. Because that requires an expensive machine rather than spending a few bucks on coffee, something many people who are not rich can afford.
So this still sounds pretty anti-poor to me. Poor people who work there have to suffer, poor people who want to drink or eat there don't get to do it.
What kind of world do you live in where Starbucks only have rich clientele who get coffee there every day or every week?
Also, what kind of world do you live in where there also aren't privately-owned coffee shops?
So the Starbucks employee should like in eternal squalor and be grateful to barely make ends meet. But hey, those more fortunate needs their expensive coffee too, that money will trickle down any day now.
Ok, where do you live. I want a town name. You tell us where the cheap housing is, and I guarantee that Californians will fuck up your housing market because we have the money to do so. Ask literally anyone in rural America about Californians and the housing prices.
And both destroy your body. People who say what you just did neglect to explain that they can’t walk stairs without pain and their shoulder aches painfully when it gets cold.
Weak, my grandfather was a master plumber, lived his whole 92 years completely fine until he caught the black lung after 9/11. The people’s whose bodys are destroyed are the ones who don’t take care of them in the first place, take care of your body, prioritize yourself, and you’ll be fine.
Blah blah you have an anecdote. George burns worked until nearly 100 and lived a terribly unhealthy lifestyle. Don’t copy him.
And? People work these kinds of jobs and are fine for all their life, but because some don’t take care of themselves it vilifies the job as being hard on your knees and you’ll never be able to walk again.
Because the people who do this sort of work know that they are destroying their bodies so they fashion themselves into some sort of folk hero warrior that are some of the few people who live an authentic life compared to all the idiots around them. All of what you said is really something that exists within your own brain.
Sad that you couldn’t leave a simple comment without insulting hundreds of thousands of people for no reason. Pretty pathetic really.
It’s sad millions of people want to live wall to wall in a city that treats illegal aliens and street shitters better than the tax payer.
lol lol stop. You literally don’t believe that.
No, people like that drink their right wing Flavor Aid and assume the talking points reflect reality. The person everyone is arguing with also believes that rent will come down if Starbucks employees leave, ignoring both the actual price fixing scheme in the rental market and the fact that prices keep being driven up by external factors unrelated to the labor and consumer markets in San Francisco.
The City of San Fransisco is currently more worried about making space for illegal immigrants and homeless people more than improving the lives of taxpayers and upstanding citizens. Any govenment that has such housing epidemics that they must overegulate to even try and have a semblance of normalcy while also touting the area as a safe haven for illegals is corrupt.
LOL you're never going to stop pushing your personal narrative against reality, are you? Why even come here to spout nonsense that people will attack you over? You should find a MAGA rock and hide under it again.
Yawn
Do you have a source for this claim?
https://www.vox.com/a/homeless-san-francisco-tech-boom Establishes the housing crisis for more than just the very poor, affects normal people with decent paying jobs.
https://www.sf.gov/information/sanctuary-city-ordinance Establishes the city as a sanctuary for illegal immigrants. Including not asking if people are citizens for city funds, benefits, and services.
While Americans toil and struggle to find housing in these areas, the city of San Fransisco would rather focus on improving the city for illegal immigrants over helping Americans. If San Fransisco wants to solve some of their issues they can start by repealing Sanctuary City laws and working with ICE to remove criminals from the US.
Thanks for admitting you are lying. No need to respond. I already have you tagged as a "anti-proletariat leftover liar."
Wait, how do we do tagging?
I use sync and it still has an option to do so
I mean, a fish is pretty negligible in this case, but yeah. There's no way that 4 dogs and 7 cats are being given an acceptable quality of life in a rental. Honestly, I take issue with dogs in apartments, point blank, as conforversial of an opinion as I'm sure that is. The cherry on top is the bird, which tells me everything I need to know about this woman.
This bill will result in all rental costs increasing slightly. You can legislate anything but the costs will always be one hundred percent covered by those using the services. There is no way around this.
I own pets and love them but I can expect an additional cost to house them.
Alternate take: the post rental cleanup industry becomes more competitive.
It won't. Will simply result in more damages this increase in overall rent and less people willing to invest in rental properties this fewer homes to rent. Thus a double hit on increased rental rates.
similar to how min wage eats into profits and ceo pay without affecting overall employment, the scam deposit fee bullshit industry can actually absorb the hit and I'd wager more rental managers would just start using actual cleaners instead of their cousins phony cleaning company that charges way too much
This smells of what I've heard described before as "the fallacy of immutable profits". Landlord profit margins aren't set in stone. The state could pass any number of additional renter protection measures to force landlords to eat the costs if they wanted to.
But they won't
You can not force people to become landlords. Pass all the laws you want but that just means fewer and fewer places to rent. Is that hard to understand? What do you think happens when there are 100 houses to rent and 200 families needing shelter? Prices keep rising until it becomes profitable for people to invest money into rental.
What the protection measures result in is pretty much only large commercial operations can be landlords due to the need of someone trained to get the maximum out of renters and have the ability to navigate the courts if they do any damages. We see that already as rental costs rise and low inventory is common in most markets.
The government could actually force people to rent out vacant property if they wanted to, but that doesn't really have much to do with anything.
Sure. Because doing something about landlords charging way too much for rent would help too many people.
There's tons of legislation, proposed and enacted, aimed at lowering rent prices, primarily aimed at increasing supply. Things like prohibiting zoning restrictions that limit single family housing, providing incentives for infill developments and affordable housing bonuses, and allowing rent control ordinances.
The article doesn't say "there is only one bill related to housing this legislative session and it's for pets". Just because a bigger problem exists doesn't mean you have to ignore every other problem until the big one is fixed.
Landlords prohibiting pets is a housing issue because it effectively limits the housing that is available to people. I know when I was looking for an apartment because I had two cats that eliminated probably 50% of housing options I had. I don't know what this does to the market overall, but I'd bet it does something.
Per ownership is also an objectively positive thing, both for animals in shelters that need homes and for the mental health of people. Landlord restrictions functionally turn pet ownership into a privilege only available to the landed gentry. It's shitty.
So anyway, this bill addresses a problem and does some good. Just because it won't singlehandedly solve all the country's housing affordability problems in one swoop doesn't mean you have to dismiss it.
Love this take. Thank you!
I haven't seen any of this in my state. California isn't the whole world
If that is the case, I have certainly not been hearing about them. Maybe those are what should be reported on rather than this, which is nowhere near as consequential.
I have been seeing political commercials for at least 3 different bills/campaigns to write bills aimed at fixing housing issues recently; though they are all California specific. One of which uses the motto "the rent is too damn high."
I am not in California (anymore) but I would definitely like more information if you have it.
"If I haven't already come across it, it doesn't exist, because I am aware of everything that is reported on" right?
Or, you know, an example could be given rather than me just "trust me bro."
https://www.assembly.ca.gov/schedules-publications/todays-events
Our state government tackles a ton of stuff on the regular. There's literally too much stuff going on for anyone to keep track of all of it.
Amazingly we can have multiple conversations at once.
Great, when are lawmakers going to start having multiple conversations at once?
When we break the Repuglicans hold on the legislature.
I see you don't have any pets.
I have two dogs and a fish.
Please outlaw pet rent. I get a refundable deposit, but pet rent is bullshit.
As deposits sometimes aren't sometimes aren't enough, I'd also go for needing a pet-owner plan with their renters insurance.
One of the things that has prevented me from finding a new apartment is my cat. Been on the market for ages, and 90% of listings are automatically off the table because they don’t allow pets. It’s an extremely common restriction. This would be a huge win. Obviously doesn’t solve any of the more important problems with landlords and excessive rates; but it’s definitely something that a lot of people would notice and benefit from.
This is so weird. Around where I live most apartments accept pets up to, usually, 50lbs with a pet deposit and only bar certain breeds. Some have quantity restriction as well but very few won't accept pets at all.
Trust me it's not weird at all. I've lived in bigger cities in nine states, every single one of those had severe limitations when it came to any pets unless they were fish. Some areas are more lenient than others but I had a hell of a time finding a place that would except a medium sized dog in every single city and never once did I not pay an additional deposit as well as additional "pet rent"
Sometimes even fish because an aquarium malfunction can cause serious damage.
Hmm. Never had trouble in CA.
Moving there in 2 weeks from Oklahoma and had no issues finding houses that allowed pets myself. In fact most seemed to welcome them.
The rental market for houses is kinda weird out here. It's the apartment complexes/ condos/ multi-family units that have the ridiculous restrictions. In my city more than 70% of the residents rent.
Also welcome to the state, we have bumpier land out here than OK, also trees.
Yeah it is absolutely beautiful. We are in Sacramento and the company flew us out last month to check it out before we committed and we are in love with it. I'm an outdoorsy type so it's great for me. Looking forward to milder summers than here for sure.
Yo, every pet owner on the planet thinks their pet is perfect and its like pretty much almost never the case. Pet owners will downvote me, but that piece of chewed trim is not cute. Property damage to rentals caused by pets also keeps property vacant between renters for repairs.
So the landlord will use the money from the rent to personally hand repair that furniture himself, right? He won't just jack up the price and hire a cheap fixture repair place, right?
It's not just furniture, piss soaking into the floor for extended periods of time can require work to fix. I bought a house that had a renter with a large dog and I had to rip up the floor to find the spot soaked through to the subfloor where the dog always peed during the day while the owner was out, it reaked.
Okay. That would happen if you bought from a non renter too. Pets are a part lf the human experience and humans need housing. Landlords can live with the costs or sell up so people can buy.
Pets don't need to be "part of the human experience" any more than drugs do. They're optional and some people choose to have them and some don't. Some people don't like pets and don't want to be forced to live around others' pets.
Have you even thought for a second that some people might CHOOSE housing based on the fact that a community doesn't allow pets? And by "mandating all landlords allow pets" you are eliminating housing options for these people? God you people are like religious zealots and think everyone should be forced to believe in the same things you do.
Friggin crazy fascists. "You're going to like my pitbull (oh he's harmless and you're dog-racist if you believe otherwise) and now I want to force you to raise your kids around my untrained shit factory and step in his crap and listen to him bark constantly or you're a horrible person."
Holy hell I hate you with the passion of a thousand suns.
Lol
Well it didn’t take long to go from “housing is a human right” to “pets are a human right” lmao
Imagine cum guzzling landlords rights on Lemmy of all places lmao
next the peasants might be asking for healthcare lmao
Or they can just not allow pets wtf?
Or we can mandate that pets should be allowed because humans want pets and landlords have driven humans out of home ownership, so now they need to be massively regulated.
If landlord's don't like it, they can sell up and people can buy homes again.
Not all humans want pets. And those humans don't like to be forced to live among other people's pets.
Oh that definitely overrides anything else. I don't like the colour orange so I'll just go ahead and claim no one else can have orange stuff incase we need to room together
Dude you're arguing opposite your position. The internal consistency of your argument has broken down.
You say above you're against a rule like "no one else can have orange stuff because I don't like orange stuff" while at the same time arguing "everyone else has to like pets because I like pets." Can't you see how that's hypocritical?
And to be clear, you completely misrepresent my position in the first place. I'm not for requiring anyone to do anything. I'm against requiring landlords to allow pets. If they want to allow pets, great 👍.
But if a property owner wants to advertise their community as quieter (no barking), cleaner, with less poop and pee on the grass, and less dander in the air, then why would you prohibit renters from seeking a nicer place like that for them to live?
Lol
This dog?
Actually, at least in my state, tools and labor done by a landlord can't be listed as an expense for taxes. If they hire someone they can list it as an expense on taxes.
Well, the only thing my dog did was start to lose her bladder control before I put her down. But she managed to make it to the pee pad every time even then.
Not all dogs bro. My girl was perfect. Didn’t even bark. I’ll probably never find another one like her though.
Sorry for your loss. There really are perfect good bois and good girls out there. I have met a couple.
Babies and old people shit in carpet way more than pets, make more noise too.
That is definitely not true, and it's obvious you've never let an apartment.
My sister's kid has definitely left more shit on my carpet than all 4 of my cats combined.
You, as a landlord, simply have no idea whether pets or people shit in your apartment. It's not radioactive waste, people can just clean it up.
Way to be disingenuous
Way to disregard other people's experience, easy to do if you never leave your basement.
Not at all true.
Some of my pets are shits, some are angels. My wife thinks some are angels and some are shits.
We were very fortunate to find a place the; landlord doesn't seem to care about, and the previous tenant was a... Crazy pet owner, rumor was he was breeding dogs, so the floors were shot already, no monthly pet fee, no extra pet deposit, no need to have them repair anything, we probably won't get the deposit back, but I doubt we would've if we had an up to snuff place, as our puppy was still learning the difference between outside and inside (he knows now)
Uh, case in point. You found a place trashed by pets, brought your 'shits and angels' in to wreck it more, and are oblivious to their effects on a home. This is what I was talking about.
The rental was vacant for months before our moving in, not earning any money, the "repairs" on it were sub par where done at all, the property is almost certainly illegally subdivided, the landlord offered a "give me sex for no rent next month" agreement with the other tenant (who had never brought up financial difficulties, nor is in a spot that would require leniency), has turned down multiple grants to take care of fire damaged trees on the hill sloping towards our back door, and it's their only property in my state from looking at the other holdings dude is a slum lord. Also we're paying way too much for the amount of upkeep that's being put into the place. Also learned from a neighbor (who renovated, might have had the idea to flip the house) that the person who built 3 of the houses on this street (including ours) "followed a code, but it wasn't {states} code. We're out in the boonies, nobody wants any more attention here than required. If we hadn't rented this place it would probably still be on the market what they were asking for it (half hour of heavy mountain road out of town), but we get no questions asked, a 2 car garage, no electric gas or water bill (hence illegal subdivision) and twice the sqf for less than what we'd be paying for half that space, no garage, and"communal" billing rates.
We're being taken advantage of financially, they don't ask questions (was one of the selling points) regarding our animals. Our animals btw haven't trashed the place, they don't urinate outside of their designated areas, they don't tear up the carpets or chew on the walls, nature is taking care of plenty of those things, but the animals we keep have nothing to do with it.
Oh no.
Oh, well since they are already bending over backwards following ADA guidelines obviously that's argument enough
Btw to those who didn't read the article, it also mentions how a lot of pets are surrendered because the owners couldn't find housing that accommodates them.
Lmao ITT: cats and dogs have evolved next to humans for thousands of years
Commentor: well that's the first I've heard of this, they probably don't even tip their landlord!
I assume this (and really any extra mandates for landlords) is going to drive more small/private landlords out of the business, and that won't necessarily increase housing availability on its own, but will instead be filled by larger corporate landlords that can afford to deal with administrative work required. As I've gotten older, I've found small landlords to be where you can find the best experience (but also maybe the worst, it's more variable), having just corporate landlords feels like you'll always get a shittier place (minimal work done) for market rates.
Definitely a YMMV situation, with corporate landlords when I've called them out for breaking the law they usually backpedal. Mom and pop landlords in my experience always attempt to skirt around laws and just out right down respect them.
The golden experience to me has always been small businesses landlords who aren't quite corporate yet, might own a building or two, but generally small in the grand scheme of things. They ofc eventually sell out to the corporate ownership anyways.
In Belgium landlords can't prohibit pets. In reality they often say pets aren't allowed anyways, but if you keep quiet until after everything is signed they can't really do anything about it. Of course pissing off your landlord by doing something they specifically requested you avoid isn't going to keep them on good terms, and if it's an option, finding a home that allows them is better.
Of course this law only applies to pets that are suitable for the space. If you keep a massive dog in a tiny studio appartment you might find yourself in legal hot water, but something like a cat should never be an issue.
Depends on the breed. My best friend in university had an absolutely MASSIVE Newfoundland Retriever, and they were quite happy in a 450 sq ft efficiency apartment. I'll fully admit that is cheating, as Newfies routinely get to 200-250 lbs, but they are lazy as all fuck, and mostly nap all day.
Yes I can totally see landlords being so dismayed by the new complexity of housing rules that they just let the $150,000 they could have earned in high rent areas over the next 5 years just go to pot instead of hiring a professional property manager or selling. Sure real.
Granted I'm not in California, but is this actually an issue? As someone with fairly intense dog/cat allergies it's actually been really hard to find NON-pet-friendly places to rent - those seem to be the exception rather than the rule.
It seems like different areas of the country have different rental "cultures". Where I live now it's incredibly difficult to find a pet-friendly apartment, with or without any sort of fee or deposit. And most locals think it's normal and well justified. In the places I've lived previously it was mostly just restrictions on large dogs or reasonable limits to the number of pets. I've spent my entire life around pets (both my own and those of family/roommates). It feels VERY weird to me that the many people here don't consider owning pets a normal lifestyle choice many people make even if they're not in a position to own their own home.
Was somewhat common in San Francisco to see no pets allowed listings last time I rented there.
I love animals and have a dog, but it seems like all this will do is raise everyone's rent.
They are going to raise rents anyways, might as well get a dog out of it.
If I have the liability of ripping up carpet and subfloor to eliminate the piss smell, you're rent is going way the fuck up pal.
Adam "The Father of Capitalism" Smith, on land leeches:
"the landlords love to reap where they never sowed and demand a rent even for its natural produce.”
If you can't risk it then don't buy it 🤷🏽
or...transfer the risk on to you. As your behavior is the risk.
I've run out of landlord necks to shit down. Any of you human beings got one you'd borrow me?
You're obviously a shitass, but since you asked: a dog bit through my hand right before a music gig. The owner pulled the classic "oh she's never done anything like that before!" and gave zero reprimand to the dog and didnt answer "WHY IN THE FUCK IS IT UNLEASHED IN PUBLIC??!"
Idk who you're replying too but, yeah dogs should be on leashes. No exceptions.
I don't really see how this relates to landlords being made to accept pets. Most people will opt for a more expensive home than part with their pets
My apartment only allows pets up to 25 pounds and I HATE it SO much. I really want a dog but that's so limiting... I don't want a Chihuahua or a tiny curly haired yappy little Shih Tzu. I'm allergic to cats too otherwise I would totally do that :(
Get a Shiba Inu, they're the perfect apartment cat. Especially as they get older. My 13 year old is a total loaf.
They’re a great size, but they are pricey and if you want a good breeder then you’ll be on a wait list.
I’ll also throw a little caution, though, as a shiba can be very…stubborn. You have to be patient with them. I have two (our previous one passed away of old age) and they all have very very different personalities. One is definitely high energy and the other loafs around a lot.
My point is, they’re a great dog breed but they can also require a lot of work with (positive) training and energy needs. Even after training - they are still stubborn and drama queens.
Consider a Jack Russell Terrier, they need decent amounts of exercise but make great companions!
Just be warned: they are neurotic as all fuck. Super cool dogs though.
I would love it. Finding anything that can fit the bill for dogs is absolutely horrible in the bay area.
Sounds wonderful for tenants who are allergic to dog or cat dander.
Apartments have walls. Shocking!
Apartment walls are thin and leak. Never smelled your neighbors cooking or smoking?
Apartments have common areas.Never walked down a shared hallway or staircase or used an elevator in an apartment building?
People move. So someone moving into an apartment after someone who’s had a dog or cat is going to have to deal with the leftover dander. You can’t get it all, even with a good cleaning and ripping out carpet. It’s similar to when a non smoker moves into a unit previously occupied by a smoker.
Look — I’m fine with allowing pets in apartment complexes — I just don’t think it should be mandatory. Perhaps this legislation could compromise by saying something like “when there are over X number of units, Y percentage of units must allow pets of up to Z size and number.” That way the pet and non pet people apartments can be separated from each other.
I have lived my entire adult life in apartments. Aside from a few foolish times I was in a complex, I’ve spent the rest in buildings put up before 1930. I’ve never experienced the issues you mention. Older construction is better because it was overbuilt. Today things are built as closely to standard as possible to cost save.
Then we get reptile-only living communities, this is a plus.
FWIW I think most "no pets" policies are sort of understood to apply to cats and dogs only. I never had any issue w/r/t my reptiles when I rented
Just don't mention that your reptiles come with a live insect petting zoo.
I strictly forbid Gila Monsters.
I'm all for this as long as shitty pet owners are wildly prosecuted for the damage they cause.
And don't give me that "emotional support animal" bullshit. I've seen you fuckers and your piss- and shit- ridden slums. If you need an emotional support animal then you probably can't handle the responsibility.
Wait why wouldn't they? People piss and shit and if you damage a rental with it, you're billed for it. I feel like you're very angry about a problem you made up.
Landlords, of course, can sue for damages, but it's almost always in small claims court, and the former tenant is almost always "judgement proof" -- no real assets and no real wages to garnish. These same individuals are often the sort of tenant who allows their pets to destroy a home, let cat urine soak into the floor boards, and so on.
Not everyone, of course. and in fact, probably a very small minority of tenants, but it only takes one terrible tenant to utterly destroy a home.
I wouldn't say made up.
I think they are referring to the times when the cost of damages (think a pet hoarder) outweigh what the deposit would normally cover. Rather than taking the previous tenant to court (if even possible) to pay for the excess, some landlords will just slap on fresh coat of paint to appeal to the eyes and ignore everything else that need to be done.
With cat urine for instance, you may be able to hide the smell temporarily, but unless you replace the carpet/flooring, add an odor blocking primer to other stained permanent surfaces, replace odor-impregnated things like cabinetry or sheet rock, the smell will just keep coming back. It can sometimes be about as bad, cost-wise, as flood/mold remediation.
My friends' mother had several cats and she did not take care of any place she lived in. When visiting her there was a separation of the outside air and inside air which was more "dense", and had a smell which took a few minutes to adjust to. Her rent did not cover the damages she caused; mold, stains, rot if she lived there long enough.
It's actually a bit risky to keep a deposit. If the tenant says you've done so unjustly, and a court agrees, the LL can be sued for triple what they kept. I have an owner occupied two unit and it would really need to be a lot of damage with evidence of intent or negligence. Why risk keeping a deposit and then being sued for triple while still having to carry out repairs caused by a careless tenant or their animal.
My place doesn't make me any money, it's a loss every year, but at least I'm building equity right?
If you're building equity, it's not a loss every year.
Have you ever known anyone who tried to rent out their place? My understanding is that it's near impossible to keep someone's security deposit when they damage your place, if they choose to fight you on it. I very much doubt that non-corporate landlords would be able to successfully collect damages from a renter with pets who trashed the place. This move will absolutely hurt individual landlords in favor of the corporate landlords that can afford lawyers.
Boo hoo. I'll definitely cry for the land leeches. Maybe they can get a job.
Sounds like you're simping for corporate landlords.
Nope. All land leeches are leeches. To quote Adam "The Father of Capitalism" Smith:
"the landlords love to reap where they never sowed and demand a rent even for its natural produce.”
Aren't there typically already clauses within rental agreements about damage to the property (especially when moving out), though?
They aren't that helpful. You can't get 40k from someone who has less than 10k in assets.
I like animals but I don't like the idea of having pets of my own, or go to places where they have pets.
Having said that, you absolutely NOT know what you're talking about.
I absolutely DO know what the fuck I'm talking about. I have pets. My friends have pets. I 'adopt' all of my clients' pets. Know what we all have in common?...hatred and intolerance for shitty pet owners. I have to assume that you're one of them by your response; responsible pet owners aren't insulted by this.
I was about to think that you knew what you were talking about, then I kept reading.
How did you miss the part where I mentioned that I don't own any pets? See? How can I trust that you didn't jump into conclusions so quickly about ALL the people who need emotional support animals as well?
Because I assumed they had been taken from you
Your assumptions don't inspire confidence in what you claim you know.
Let's just leave it at that. Have a nice weekend.
À dog hurt you wen you was a kid ?
No, as an adult. And the owner claimed it was such a friendly family dog before it started to maul my leg because it didn't like my smell.
Now do hotels.
Fucking NO god damn it we hate people like you SO MUCH
Hugs and Kisses! 🥰
I can see that this is super funny to you, but some people with chronic allergies can't enjoy their vacations or go about their lives because inconsiderate people demand to bring their pets to public areas such as hotels or stores.
Not all rooms would have to be pet friendly. But maybe some? I am allergic as well.
You want rent prices to go even higher? Because this is how you get higher rent prices. The cost to deal with a pet before the next tenant is much higher than a no pet tenancy. Obvious, on average.
If everyone can have pets and no discrimination, then your rent will have to be priced on assuming you will have a pet. The house will have to be recarpeted and ozoned and off market for at least a week or two in between tenants to allow for it.
If you think that California landlords aren’t already charging the absolute most they can for renting houses, you’re probably paying less than $3800/month for a 2/1 built in 1906.
All these "this will cause X to raise prices" responses always inherently assume that the people currently setting the prices are just giving everyone a deal because they feel like they've made enough profit and don't need any more. Maybe you've got a sweetheart landlord here or there, but the market writ large isn't leaving money on the table. The only reason rents aren't higher is because at some point the preferable alternative is moving away or homelessness
And the first time a tenants dog does $5k in damage to your house, you look at the next tenant wanting a year lease and say that's an extra $400/mo minimum. That's how it works. Being a landlord isn't a charity.
It’s totally not how it works. If you could get an extra $400/month because someone was willing to pay that, you’d do it.
That's not how it works. You advertise at market rates. If the rules change, the market rates will rise
It will rise to the level where the supply and demand curves meet, modulo market uncertainty and information imbalance.
I’ve rented several places that listed “no pets,” and after telling them I’d pay an extra $200 per month or whatever because I had two 75lb pit bulls, no one even blinked. If they had originally thought they could get away with charging the extra $200 and people would snap it up, they would have.
Most people renting houses do not do sufficient due diligence on market rates, and there’s enough variability in both housing and tenants that it’s probably a bit difficult to price ideally. If you have a large enough company that you can write some kind of statistical analysis and are renting similar/identical places in the same building, that’s one thing. If you’re a new buyer just purchasing a second house to rent over on 2nd Street because it’s $800k and you think you can cover the mortgage in rent after looking at Zillow, that’s something else.
That has been true historically, I'm not so sure now. They have started using algorithms. There's some sort of Zillow type shit for landlords that monitors every market and is helping them price gouge, market fix, and pluropolize. Thank fuck I don't have to worry about that
The law allows them to require pet liability insurance if the tenant has a pet.
Nobody is filing a claim for pet damage. You risk losing your entire policy or raising the rates. You keep catastrophic by law, and never use it. You've obviously never landlorded
"the landlords love to reap where they never sowed and demand a rent even for its natural produce.”
There is a shortage of property. The price of rent is already what the highest bidder is prepared to pay for it.
Adam "The Father of Capitalism" Smith on land leeches:
"the landlords love to reap where they never sowed and demand a rent even for its natural produce.”
As always, California and the Champagne Democrats will enact half measures that will only hurt people in the long run but look good on billboards come election season. There's so much deeper problems to address before something like this can be implemented beneficially.
Uhhh... a a renter, there a lot of issues that need to be addressed in the market. My asshole neighbors not having pets is not one of them. In fact, pet owners contribute to the shittiness of my situation. Fuck 'em.
You sound like a pretty shitty person ngl
Based on what? Not wanting to step in your dog's shit and listen to it bark incessantly in tight living quarters with little soundproofing? 🤡
You're an entitled piece of shit who makes the lives of everyone around you worse. Marinate on that, though your narcissism is likely in the way.
Yo dawg, people are getting pissed at you but after living next to some shitty dogs I can understand the trauma that leads to someone not wanting to live next to shitty dog owners. After 5 years of my neighbor's sheep hearding dog's barking I reported them to animal control for letting their dog roam off leash and I've never slept better. I would have reported the barking but its actually much harder to report barking since you need 2 other neighbors to agree and all these boomers around me are buddies.
Oh I can definitely understand being mad at some pet owners. It can suuuuck.
But a blanket statement is just disingenuous
100%
Based on the way you're acting as if all pet owners are assholes who don't take care of their pets.
So many seem to be that way? Sure definitely know some people who train their pets, but so many don’t seem to. Let your dog out at all hours to bark? Sure why not!
You'll never notice the good ones.
Fuck you buddy!
I didn’t do shit to you
Lol, point proven 🤡
Really, bro? I set you up for the Terrance and Phillip, and threw the word shit in there for you to riff off of, and you still took it serious?
I've never really watched Southpark and your comment sounds exactly like the response of shitty pet owners... so yeah, lol.
Sorry but you really sound insecure.
Is this the sort of thing that the government should be regulating in principle? I don't think it is. (But then, I do tend to lean libertarian.) Plus, it seems like it would reduce the supply of and increase the price of housing.
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.
youre only looking it in the POV of a non pet owner. in a perspective of a pet owner that would increase the supply of houses because their initial choices were already (artificially) limited. again it only increases the prices of other houses because of more competition to rent, but in the pet owners perspective, it lowers it because the supply itself rapidly grew.
Who gives a fuck about a pet owner's perspective? Owning pets is a choice. Existing in the society we're born to is not a choice. So, if you can't afford the increased cost of pet ownership, you're not entitled to increase the costs for everyone else to accommodate your main character syndrome. Why are pet owners so goddamn entitled and fucking insufferable?
Actually I’ve noticed that it’s the no-pet Karens/Kevins who sound entitled and insufferable.
Why are YOU so goddamn entitled and fucking insufferable? Holy shit
How am I entitled? I'm not the one expecting to disrupt the peace of others where they live and increase the living costs of others because I just have to have a fucking dog in an apartment.
You sound like a lovely human being.
Owning pets is a pretty normal sort of lifestyle choice with proven benefits for mental health and even increased lifespan (when the owner is getting up in years). It's not quite to the level of "having a child" as far as being a fundamental human right, but it's something humans have been doing for millennia and that rises to the level of potentially protecting it.
I think it might increase supply, but only in a paradoxical sense. I've had to deal with tremendous damage done to my home by one of our pets, and I've only put up with it because the animal responsible was incredibly dear to my wife. If I was renting the house out and had to deal with similar damage done by some stranger's pet every time the house turned over, I think I'd throw in the towel and put it up for sale. It's just not worth it.
Most pets, like most people, are not incredibly damaging.
If you're renting, you either cannot afford a pet, or your lifestyle is too volatile to responsibly care for a pet.
Gosh I didn’t know you needed to be a landowner. TIL
Lol clearly you never considered that some people would rather not own a home and prefer to rent. Or people like myself, who make plenty of money and live a comfortable life, but are still saving up for the now-required six figure down payment for a house with a somewhat reasonable since the housing market went ape shit. But sure, I'm too poor and irresponsible, let's go with that.
That's called a "condominium". All the benefits of a rented home, plus equity.
"Land Contract" is another option. Unlike a rental, where the cost increases year after year, a land contract typically has a fixed rate. It's more like ownership than renting, though.
The concept of renting needs to die in a goddamn fire. All that money paid for housing should be turning into equity, not being pissed away on the "services" of an extortionate landlord.