S.19.3-13: END PET RENT ACT (Failed)

[fhtagn]

Landlords should absolutely have the right to charge an extra fee for pet owners. As a pet owner myself, I realize the damage that can be done to a property I do not own.

These people are taking a risk by allowing pets onto their property, and many times, a simple security deposit just isn't enough to cover the damages.

[fhtagn]

Landlords should absolutely have the right to charge an extra fee for pet owners. As a pet owner myself, I realize the damage that can be done to a property I do not own.

These people are taking a risk by allowing pets onto their property, and many times, a simple security deposit just isn't enough to cover the damages.

If the pets cause damage, there's nothing preventing the tenants from having to pay up. But the truth is, most pets don't cause any lasting damage, and pet owners shouldn't be forced to pay extra because of this.

There are many cases where pet owners don't pay up, which eats up a lot of costs on the landlord trying to make up for it (for example, court costs). People also fail to realize allowing pets on your rental property requires you to have insurance to cover this, which is also why many landlords charge pet rent, and is a valid reason to do so.

Having a pet is a luxury, not a necessity (with the exception of valid service and emotional support animals). This comes at a cost. If you cannot afford all that comes with it, including pet deposits or pet rent if you do not own a home, don't get a pet.

[fhtagn]

If pet owners don't pay up when their pet damages the place, that's on them, and breaking the terms of their contract shouldn't force responsible pet owners to have to pay hundreds extra per year in useless rent, especially when many of them are barely making ends meet in the first place.

If someone is barely making ends meet as is, then it's a pretty irresponsible personal choice to take on a pet.

[fhtagn]

If pet owners don't pay up when their pet damages the place, that's on them, and breaking the terms of their contract shouldn't force responsible pet owners to have to pay hundreds extra per year in useless rent, especially when many of them are barely making ends meet in the first place.

If someone is barely making ends meet as is, then it's a pretty irresponsible personal choice to take on a pet.

Well, it happens. And adding on extra fees certainly doesn't help, does it?

People renting generally know to factor in these costs when obtaining a pet.

Landlords offering to rent THEIR property to a complete stranger don't have a responsibility to make it easier for someone who is obtaining something that is more likely to damage said property than what a non-pet owner would have.

All this bill would do if passed and signed into law is encourage more landlords to prohibit pets in their rental units, which doesn't help pet owners in the least bit.

[fhtagn]

I think this could be simply modified to something that bans it in the case of a disability(not Emotional support that is way too widely used)

Also section 3 is clearly unconstitutional if Atlasia has the no post ex facto.

Landlords cannot legally charge pet rent for valid emotional support animals under the Fair Housing Act.