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.
I feel like you are overstating the risk involved in allowing pets onto the property. There is only a low chance of a pet doing any major damage, and if it does happen, i feel like said damage is already implicitly included in the rent you are paying to your landlord.
I have lasting damage from a tenant's dog having made a substantial deposit on the carpet.
I feel like this an exception rather than the rule. Once again it's an overstated risk.
Also this bill is likely to lead to people not rent to people with an animal.
Once again, being able to have a pet should be implicit, as you are already paying rent to your landlord. Why have an extra fee, when rent is supposed to pay for everything?
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.
Apparently there is only court fees when it's landlord, let's ignore the fact that the pet owner has to pay a similar amount if they decide not to pay up. Oh no the poor landlord has to have insurance, for the small chance that an animal actually does something. Rent should already implicitly cover pets, so there is no need for an extra fee.
landowners should be allowed to charge whatever they want when it comes to pets. Additionally, if this passes, landowners could just outlaw pets. This doesn't help at all. Let private negotiations settle the conflict.
No, it should already be considered implicitly covered by the rent. And i don't really think that outlawing pets is a viable option for landowners.
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.
Oh no! Will someone think of the poor landlords. Once again the chance of a pet doing significant damage is low, and i don't agree that it would somehow make easier by removing this fee, as it should already be implicitly covered by the rent.
