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

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

END PET RENT ACT

HOUSE BILL

Be it resolved in the Southern Chamber of Delegates Assembled,

SECTION 1.

1. This Act may be cited as the "End Pet Rent Act”.

SECTION 2.

1. A landlord may not increase the rent or charge to a tenant a one-time, monthly or other periodic amount based on the tenant’s possession of one or more pets.
2. Section 1 shall not apply to properties rented out for a short period of time (30 days or less in total)
3. Landlords charging such fees prior to the enactment of this law must reimburse current tenants who had been paying such fees with an amount totaling the sum of all fees payed based on the tenant’s possession of one or more pets in the prior year, or, should the tenant have leased the property for less than a year, an amount totaling the sum of all fees payed for the duration of their lease.

Sponsor: Delegate Elcaspar

[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.

[Dr. MB]

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.

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

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.

I have lasting damage from a tenant's dog having made a substantial deposit on the carpet. The result of this bill would be massive bonds making it harder for all renters to obtain an affordable place to live. If you reckon you can afford a pet you need to factor ALL costs. Also this bill is likely to lead to people not rent to people with an animal.

[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.

[Saint Milei]

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.

[Dr. MB]

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.

[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.

[Dr. MB]

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?

[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.

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

Delegate Elcaspar, would you like to advocate for your bill?

[Elcaspar]

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. 

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

END PET RENT ACT

HOUSE BILL

Be it resolved in the Southern Chamber of Delegates Assembled,

SECTION 1.
1. This Act may be cited as the "End Pet Rent Act”.

SECTION 2.
1. A landlord may not increase the rent or charge to a tenant a one-time, monthly or other periodic amount based on the tenant’s possession of one or more pets.
2. Section 2.1 shall not apply to properties rented out for a short period of time (30 days or less in total)
3. Landlords charging such fees prior to the enactment of this law must reimburse current tenants who had been paying such fees with an amount totaling the sum of all fees payed based on the tenant’s possession of one or more pets in the prior year, or, should the tenant have leased the property for less than a year, an amount totaling the sum of all fees payed for the duration of their lease.

Amendment
Small change to make it obvious what is actually being referred too. Original wording made it read that the title of the act will not apply to properties. Rather than point one of section 2 of the act.

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

24 hours to object to the amendment. I will take proxies in the event of an objection.

In the event of an objection, I vote in favor of the above amendment.

[lfromnj]

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.

[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.

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

END PET RENT ACT

HOUSE BILL

Be it resolved in the Southern Chamber of Delegates Assembled,

SECTION 1.
1. This Act may be cited as the "End Pet Rent Act”.

SECTION 2.
1. A landlord may not increase the rent or charge to a tenant a one-time, monthly or other periodic amount based on the tenant’s possession of one or more pets.
2. Section 2.1 shall not apply to properties rented out for a short period of time (30 days or less in total)
3. Landlords charging such fees prior to the enactment of this law must reimburse current tenants who had been paying such fees with an amount totaling the sum of all fees payed based on the tenant’s possession of one or more pets in the prior year, or, should the tenant have leased the property for less than a year, an amount totaling the sum of all fees payed for the duration of their lease.

Amendment
Small change to make it obvious what is actually being referred too. Original wording made it read that the title of the act will not apply to properties. Rather than point one of section 2 of the act.

As there have been no objections the amendment is the working version of the bill.

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

I motion for a final vote.

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

As there have been no objections the final vote is now open for:
S.19.3-13: END PET RENT ACT.

Ring the bells. (Delegates will be DM'd)

Voting will last 48 hours or until all Delegates have voted which ever come first.

Voting Options are:
[   ] Aye
[   ] Nay
[   ] Abstain

Bill reads as follows:

END PET RENT ACT

HOUSE BILL

Be it resolved in the Southern Chamber of Delegates Assembled,

SECTION 1.
1. This Act may be cited as the "End Pet Rent Act”.

SECTION 2.
1. A landlord may not increase the rent or charge to a tenant a one-time, monthly or other periodic amount based on the tenant’s possession of one or more pets.
2. Section 2.1 shall not apply to properties rented out for a short period of time (30 days or less in total)
3. Landlords charging such fees prior to the enactment of this law must reimburse current tenants who had been paying such fees with an amount totaling the sum of all fees payed based on the tenant’s possession of one or more pets in the prior year, or, should the tenant have leased the property for less than a year, an amount totaling the sum of all fees payed for the duration of their lease.

[Elcaspar]

Aye

[Saint Milei]

Nay

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Nay

[John Henry Eden]

Nay

[reagente]

nay

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

Nay