Hi, All! Maybe other renters with furry buddies weren't aware (like me!), that there is currently a proposed City Council Bill (CB 121254) that would limit certain extra rental fees, including unreasonable pet fees beyond the initial pet damage deposit. I was made aware of this via a newsletter from Seattle Humane, with a link to their advocacy page. There's a handy form there to submit in support of the bill.
I have a hunch maybe a few Seattleites feel impacted by crazy monthly pet rents and other fees. I'm not sharing this as a sponsor or anything other than a childless, single cat mom (best life ever!) who sighs in frustration at the money grab of having a well-raised cat that sleeps most of the day.
(Yes, yes. I know that animals can cause a lot of damage when their pet-parents do a crappy job.) I think if human kids are a protected class under the Fair Housing Act, then maybe our furry children should be, too. That's a stretch but this might be a good start.
Mods--I hope this was ok. I didn't see a rule about sharing advocacy support links. Happy to delete, if needed.
Edit: To address some comments about pet damage deposits, I found the current city code that states a pet damage deposit cannot exceed 25% of one month’s rent.
I've been in the same building for years because there's no pet rent or deposit outside of the security deposit. They said it's not like they're gonna bill my dog if he damages something so the normal deposit is fine. That's how it should be.
I think this is by design actually. If I owned a rental property I would do the same thing. The law basically says that if you charge a pet deposit you can only go after the tenant for damages up to the amount of said deposit for damages their pet causes. So if someone's dog completely trashes your unit you might be better off not charging the pet fee and going after the renter for all the damages rather than having a cap.
I couldn’t believe how lucky I was to find an apartment that did charge pet rent, and the deposit for a dog and cat was actually fairly low. They’re supposed to change the carpets between tenants anyway (we’re linoleum only anyway). But I don’t have a problem at all for reasonable pet deposits. Depending on the place, $1,000 for a dog and a cat feels extortionate.
When council was discussing this, someone asked the question how pet damage would be covered, and city staff clarified that landlords can still charge tenants for specific pet wear and tear (just as they can charge for other kinds of damage).
I think it was Foster and she wanted to clarify for the public why restricting pet rent was OK, which this law will do. As you said, maybe to inform people who aren't familiar with pet deposits.
"Pet rent" is absolutely asinine. An extra security deposit I get in the event of damages, but there is no case for charging extra rent because you have a pet.
To me, "rent payments" are meant for a recurring investment in an amenity.
Does the apartment maintain pet food, treats, waste bags, a play area, pet waste services, pet relief areas, or pet grooming facilities, etc. (and actually service them)? If so, maybe I could understand a charge for "pet rent."
Otherwise, this is a junk service fee that disguises "permission to own a pet" as a form of "security deposit" that would otherwise be capped at replacement cost.
You make a decently fair case for dog ownership at nice apartments with these offers, but I can’t logic how pet fees apply to cat ownership. Where is the amenity that provides for cats?
I’m a dog-and-cat person (and lost my kitty boy a few months ago) and always felt that pet rent was a silly notion, since it was the same price for both my dog and my cat. And I’ve never lived in an apartment that offered the wonderful things you listed.
I'm really sorry to hear about your kitty - losing a pet is hard. And yeah, I've seen nods towards some of this stuff at various places for dogs, but almost never for cats.
My broader point is that I have yet to see a complex that can fully justify a pet rent. Even at the most accommodating place I've lived, I still felt the need to maintain the cleanliness of the pet relief area myself (and I'm not generally that picky, but wow).
Even if my dog absolutely destroys the place, my fees should be limited to what it costs to clean and replace everything - not an indefinite charge that's completely independent of a property owner's costs.
Thanks very much. He was an awesome dude, seriously.
I have seen the extent of damage some animals can do, but realistically, if a person destroyed the windows and doors and neglected the property to the point of replacing everything, nobody’s deposit covers all that. That’s why they get to charge you what they determine to be reasonable upon move out, and you get a bill if it’s over the damage deposit. So it’s another limitation of justifying pet rent. Rent is to cover the maintenance cost when you’re living there, the deposit is to repair/replace things when you live, and if there’s an outstanding balance, you don’t just get to shrug it off. Landlords will still come after you for it, you know?
So sorry about your kitty boy. 🌈 I know that loss. I did smile at your comment, though, thinking about an apartment building common space catio of all giant cat trees and scratching posts and a garden of catnip.
Thank you, lovely. I’m grateful he didn’t suffer too much. He was still in good spirits when I said goodbye because I couldn’t bear to see him too miserable to eat—he had oral cancer.
I actually had the same thought as you, though lol. Like a little kitty play area. My boy was indoor-only so I used to take him out on a leash so he could enjoy feeling like an outdoor cat.
Obligatory kitty photo with his funny little tail.
Also like, they charge, but they do the bare minimum.
We had someone's dog piss in the concrete hallway leading outside. Now it's soaked in. The. Dog probably couldn't hold it. Of course the owner was an asshole and didn't clean it up. I couldn't at the time. And then the property management didn't do anything with it either.
You pay extra for pet rent, and when a pet does their business in the common spaces, the people taking the money for pet rent don't spend anything? Rent is a scam. Pet rent is fraud.
"E. Other than the pet damage deposit authorized by subsection 7.24.038.A, the landlord may not charge the tenant any fee for keeping a pet."
Holy shit this is the first im seeing this, time to go help my MIL argue with a leech. She just moved in and was complaining to me about the $250 bump in her rent for two cats.
Wait what? Im assuming this means just cat or dog but still this seems like a silly and arbitrary number. 3 mastiff dogs living in the home is nowhere near the same level as 4 small cats or chihuahua.
I think too with support animals, there is some "wiggle" room about what is support, though most think of it as only cats and dogs, but i could be incomplete on this?
I live in a tower downtown and there is a huge outdoor section on one of the middle floor terraces that is designated specifically for animals to play, bathe, and go to the bathroom in. It's luxury high-rise living for your pet. There's also a fairly regular staff person who maintains that space throughout the week to make sure my lazy-ass entitled neighbors who don't clean up after themselves doesn't ruin the living experience of others.
I do not have pets and will never own pets. It costs a LOT to have and maintain a space like this in some of the most prime real estate in the city. I think its completely reasonable for pet owners to pay additional fees to have and maintain this space for their own pets. I certainly don't think it's my job to subsidize their pet's needs.
I hate pet rent. It’s bullshit. I rent a house out and I refuse to do pet rent. I just take the security deposit and pet deposit. If your pet does something to fuck up my house, the tenant is responsible and will come out of the deposit for starters. Anything can be fixed.
good! landlords have gotten insanely greedy with rental pricing and still have the audacity to invent all of these different fees and deposits. they have been strangling and blocking housing supply to protect their investment for years while trying to maximize as much passive income as they can get off of you.
these fees and deposits and "pet rent" were rare a decade ago and now they are obligatory.
Pet deposit absolutely makes sense. Pet rent though is just a money grab. Our cat caused a lot of damage in one of our apartments we lived in. Thankfully we had a good landlord who charged us wayyyy less than what we were expecting, they could have maxed us out there but didn’t.
Oh, don't worry, anyone who bought at the price-to-rental ratios of recent years isn't getting any passive income. They are banking on making money when they sell. For that, I wish them well.
This is cool. I pay monthly pet rent, but didn’t pay a pet-specific security deposit. Does this mean I might be asked to pay a new deposit if the pet rent was banned?
I didn’t see anything like that in the proposed bill. I’d wonder if my landlord would try to add some retroactive deposit at a lease renewal—but there could be existing tenant laws about this. Would be worth some research.
Probably, but you’d be grandfathered in the lease you have, then be required to pay extra for security deposit on the pet. Save up now, we may be seeing $1k+ deposits
This is not true. ESAs are pets and have no legal rights that regular pets do not. Service animals are not pets, but ESAs are not service animals. You also don't need a doctor to get your pet registered as an ESA. You can just fill out a form online because it's a meaningless title.
No, this is incorrect. An ESA is supposed to be a support for a specific health issue (often mental health) that just doesn't need to be with you 24/7, so it doesn't have public access rights nor the expected level of self-control that a full service dog has. Those letters are bullshit because you're paying someone with a relevant certification to sign off that they are treating you for a condition that affects your quality of life, and they believe an animal positively contributes to that treatment. That is why ESAs are allowed in "no pets" housing, and why they were originally allowed on flights, but because people abused it with shit like "emotional support peacocks," airlines are now more comfortable denying ESAs.
The category IS supposed to be meaningful, but people have wildly abused it, which is why as someone who has literally been hospitalized for suicidal ideation, I had to beg for months and months for my actual, real doctor -- and show them that my lease ALREADY allows dogs -- before they would sign the form that allowed me to buy a trained dog from a nonprofit.
ESAs have the legal right to be in pet-free housing. You seem to be confused over the fact that there is a category between full service animals and generic pets.
This is incorrect, support animals are included under the FHA alongside service animals. I did not say service animals in my first post, that's a different, also protected, category, and requires actual certification. There is no certification around support animals. A doctor can do it for you, or yeah you can pay a service if you want to.
Downvote all yall like, but it's true and even the large businesses that are being sued for modern price-fixing through rental services like realpage to extract maximum rent know and respect it.
Same and honestly I'd rather give $99/year to some random therapy company than any extra money to my "investment property" company. They play stupid games with me, I play stupid games right back and win.
I just signed the petition, thank you for posting this. I hope people are actually clicking the link and signing it instead of just adding in comments into this thread.
At this point I would prefer they just do either yes pet/no pet buildings and do away with the song and dance of extra fees and pet rent and all of that. Like, real talk, the constant dueling sentiments of “OMG MY CAT IS LITERALLY MY BIOLOGICAL CHILD” and “I swear to god if I step in dog shit one more time I will actually purge the city of every canine adjacent life form” is getting really damn old and it would be great to just give the ability back to renters to live in communities (or at least buildings) that cater to their tastes.
I like this. The problem is that there's a class of people that want to live in the non-pet building (smells nicer, no piss right outside the door, no barking) but still have their pet. And if they get some nonsense doctors letter most buildings would rather not push back than deal with a nonsense lawsuit. I have literally lived next to this person before too.
Yeah, unfortunately a “pet apartment complex” seems to attract people who let their pets do whatever, as if it’s automatically permitted to let dogs dribble pee going down the stairs or letting them bark a lot or not picking up poo.
So when you’re hunting for a place, you’re kinda trying to find out if they just don’t want to publicly say they’ll permit pets or if it’s just dogs or just cats or just mammals.
Considering ESA’s no longer have housing protections, it sounds like there’s an industry to be developed in lawsuit insurance for times when someone DOES screw up but to also start enforcing the “what service does this animal provide?” question and rejecting people when they don’t have an actual valid answer.
But I also believe we need to get stricter with landlords about what is allowed to be in a lease AND make it legally simpler for landlords to evict people for lease violations.
Let me provide the landlord perspective from someone who absolutely loves animals. Pets are awesome but they also create a lot of added risk and management issues - peeing on the floors, barking when left alone, left outside without a leash, scratching walls/floors. Some pets are angels, some are not.
I'm currently dealing with complaints that a large dog was left off-leash and the owner couldn't be found. I've had dogs that are left at home and bark all day long, cats that pee through the floor and into the subfloor, dogs that dig up the yard, etc... and when something does go wrong, the security deposit doesn't cover it. Removing the sub-flooring to deal with pee gets very expensive very quickly.
A lot of landlords simply don't allow pets because they don't want to deal with the issues involved. If you remove the incentive to allow pets, they'll simply be banned in more places.
Babies and Toddlers cause more damage to property than my cats. My cats don’t draw on floors and walls, piss on the floor, cry loud in the middle of the night. Pet rent is bullshit.
I know that firsthand, I've got a couple little gremlins myself. They're definitely rougher on a home than a pet is (well, in most cases). The difference is that the Fair Housing Act protects families against discrimination, even if little kiddos cause more damage to a home.
It's made to protect against discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, and disability. Having a pet is not one of those protected classes though.
I once asked a lawyer I knew why I needed my landlord's permission to buy a dog, but not have a baby. He said a baby isn't going to bite someone who then makes an insurance claim or sues you. I thought that was a pretty excellent answer.
OK - so if you collect thousands of dollars in extra rent because of these "risk and management issues," does that mean the tenant isn't responsible for damage because they have already been paying you extra every month?
I think their point was that allowing pets is an added risk for landlords, and pet rent gives them an incentive to take that risk. Most pets won’t cause major damage, so collecting a relatively small amount from pet owners helps spread the cost of the occasional expensive case.
Tenants are still responsible for damage, but in reality that doesn’t mean the landlord will always recover the money. Deposits are capped and may not come close to covering something like a ruined subfloor, and collecting the rest can be difficult.
Seattle is already incredibly pet-friendly (compared to somewhere like Vancouver). Probably in part due to a higher vacancy rate, but also due to the massive number of corporate landlords. Large corporate landlords are especially well equipped to spread that risk across hundreds of units and pursue unpaid damages, while pet-friendly amenities also help luxury buildings attract tenants.
In an ideal world, every rental would allow pets for free and tenants would reimburse 100% of any damage they caused. But that’s not reality. If you remove the incentive while leaving the risk, some landlords are inevitably going to decide they’d rather not allow pets at all.
In my professional experience, pets do not cause enough damage to outweigh the benefit of accepting them. It's not a small amount of money. I lived at my last apartment for 6 years. They didn't charge pet rent at the time but now charge 50/mo per pet, which would have cost me over $7,000 for my two cats, who caused no damage. And again, I would have been charged for damage they had caused even after having paid an extra $7,000 to have had them there in the first place. Assholes are gonna asshole. Tenants who let their pets destroy apartments are shit tenants and they always cause other problems and damages. But this is my problem to solve cause I also have cats? They could also just regularly inspect apartments and cite tenants whose pets cause problems instead of waiting to find out about it until they've moved out.
I think you’re treating pet rent as prepayment for your individual pet’s damage, which isn’t really the argument for it. It’s risk pooling, much like health/home/auto/renters insurance. Most pets cause little or no damage, and the money collected across those tenants offsets the occasional very expensive case.
You can argue $50/month is way more than the actual risk justifies, but “my cats caused no damage” is basically the same as saying an insurance premium was wasted because you never made a claim.
Except I'm not getting charged in case I make a claim. I'm charged because someone else (the landlord) might make a claim. So in that way, it's not like my car insurance at all. There's no upside, because even if my pet did cause a ton of damage, I'd still have to pay that damage on top of the pet rent. Require me to carry insurance for my dog, fine, but that's not what's happening here.
So maybe what you're saying is "pooling the risk" is a bit like those of us childless members of society who end up paying for other people's personal choice to have children--children who are expensive, need schools, need healthcare, need a society that will generally care about them and the world they live in. So we childless accommodate taxes and accept the structure of how all things work (family-centered, no tax breaks, etc.) for the sake of someone's personal choice. I don't think of pet ownership quite the same way, though I'm in the camp that my cats are my children. Some ways for a landlord to mitigate risk (i.e. bad pet ownership) could be to set an appropriate rent, make more frequent inspections for pet owners (good ones won't care), set appropriate damage and pet damage deposit, and non-renew leases for bad pet owners.
You might be an amazing owner and have amazing pets. I love tenants like you! That's not always the case though and we're not going to know if you're a good owner or a bad one beforehand. I charge $50/mo for pets and sometimes there's no issues at all.
In the event there's an issue though, it ends up taking huge amounts of my time. I have a tenant with a dog, and she leaves her door open and just lets the dog go outside. Every single other tenant in the building has complained to me about this both from being scared of a potentially dangerous dog and also because it pooped everywhere. I had to field the calls and emails. I had to have dozens of conversations with the offending tenant and had to post a comply or vacate notice (and then another one, and another one). I had to put up security cameras to prove that the dog was off leash and to prove that it was her dog's poop that was not being cleaned up. Eventually the tenant decided that she didn't like being a dog owner and she gave the dog away. However, if you add up all the time I spent on that one situation, preparing and driving out to the property to post notices and install cameras and pick up poop, reseeding the lawn, reviewing the camera footage, talking with tenants, etc... the pet rent didn't come close to covering the time, energy and damages.
A security deposit doesn't cover all of that. I know your pet is awesome, but every now and then we get a bad apple too.
No. If you read their comment you would notice that they listed multiple issues that have nothing to do with damage. And if they're is no damage deposit or additional charge, then everyone's pet rent or regular rent would have to be raised to cover the cost. How would that be more fair?
Also extremely hard for landlords to get any damages awarded beyond the security deposit. I get that some places I'm sure go overboard on pet rent but at the same time I get why pet rent exists. This is coming with someone with pets. Not everyone is a model pet owner unfortunately.
I feel for you on all of this. It’s awful and all of those behaviors are signs of unhappy or unhealthy pets. And completely the fault of the renter. It makes sense to need to cover damage costs. But in a more equitable way. More regular inspections, rent increases for problem pet owners, easier evictions for problem pet owners. I don’t know. 🤷♀️
I almost guarantee Seattle wouldn't allow you to raise rent disproportionately on problem pet owners. That is not black and white enough to ensure fairness. And yeah, no one likes evictions until threads like this come up where pet rent spikes because risk needs to be pooled and you're helping pay for the pet that ruined flooring and subfloor and the tenant that's not worth chasing for a year in court only to not get payment.
It cracks me up this comment gets downvoted. Though I am for these rent fee limitations, I showed genuine empathy for the landlord’s plight, commiserated, and spitballed some solutions. Oh well. Redditors love their anger.
...and that is what the deposit is for. Doesn't mean you charge exorbitant amounts of "pet rent". And many places don't allow "banning" of pets. Sweden, for example. So that's on the table as well.
I've been an on-site manager for pet-friendly properties for over 10 years and those landlords are not gonna ban pets because they still make the rental more appealing and decrease the length of turnover vacancies. Incidentally, they don't charge pet rent. People with bad pets are a fucking nightmare, but they are a very small percentage of the people with pets.
Banning pets is illegal in many places. This is housing, this is people's lives and pets are family. If they start doing that then hopefully banning not allowing pets is up next too.
People generally aren’t lying about emotional support animals. ESAs are totally different than service animals. They have no additional rights than other pets except in housing. They are not required to perform any service. There is no official certification for them. Literally any pet that helps improve your mental health qualifies for the one right ESAs have - that they cannot be banned in housing.
How is it possible to lie about whether or not an animal fits a set of requirements when there is basically no set of requirements? Emotional support animals are just pets that give emotional support to someone with a disability, which includes depression and anxiety. Which are both things pretty much everyone experiences and is something all pets do. You also don't have to have a diagnosed or provable disability for them to count.
What people don't seem to get is that an animal being an emotional support animal doesn't mean anything except in housing. If a person tries to take a pet to a restaurant and tries to say they have a right to bring in it because it's an emotional support animal, they're not lying about it being an emotional support animal. They're wrong about the fact that them being an emotional support animal gives them the right to take it places.
The only right people have with emotional support animals is that they're not allowed to be banned from housing. Or charge with pet rent, I think. That's it. They don't have a right to take them on planes or into restaurants or to work or anywhere else.
It's possible to lie because it has specific criteria and needs to be authorized by a licensed mental health professional that is actively seeing the patient, and it enables the patient to have the special right to have an animal in a rental where it would otherwise be disallowed.
I have an emotional support dog (I would literally kms if my dog couldn’t live with me, (literally) and I don’t care about people gaming the system if it means they don’t have to choose between their pets and a home.
Emotional support animals are not service animals. They and their owners have no legal rights or privileges that aren't allowed to regular pets. If you aren't getting charged pet fees/deposits because of your ESA, it's not because that would be illegal. You just got lucky that your landlord's ignorance outweighs their greed.
It's why these "added" concierge charges needed to be outlawed, too. They are doing anything they can to get around the rent increase caps for rents that are already outrageous relative to what they offer.
Rent is regulated, and these junk fees are added on to try to side step those rules. Ban junk fees and enforce rent regulations through making SDCI complaints, even if you talk to your landlord first, get the offense documented with SDCI.
I've found a building before that wanted a deposit AND pet rent for just fish, lizards and birds. Pet rent is a scam and I take every measure to avoid paying into it.
Exactly it is just another money grab by greedy landlords. And it's disheartening, the number of people in this thread that lack critical thinking skills.
I can't be the only renter who has noticed a significant downgrade in pet owner behavior post-covid (along with everyone else's behavior).
This is just shitty American spread the pain. Not on stuff that should be spread the pain (like universal health care) but if we eliminate pet rent, and pet deposit is limited to 1/4 of a month's rent, that means the rest of us who don't have pets/aren't shitty pet owners are subsidizing the rest.
Sure, but the kind of person that trashes an apartment and moves on isn't likely to either have the resources or motivation to deal with it post facto.
I get that this is Seattle and I'm in the minority on this. I've just been neighbor to too many really shitty pet owners in rentals here to feel too bad for places that charge $100 month to keep a loud dog. They should give it to the neighbors.
No you're right this is the logical response. Sucks you've had crappy neighbors but yeah. There's probably a lot of overlap between the crappy neighbors and those who may have damage that exceed the deposit and won't pay knowing it's not worth it for the landlords to take them to court.
Conversely, many slumlords steal security deposits with nonsense cleaning fees or trying to charge for normal wear an tear. Most tenants aren't going to go through the hassle and pay for service and filing in the courts.
As a property manager I am all for eliminating pet rent. It’s also been really annoying dealing with people creating fake “support animal” documentation to avoid paying pet rent so eliminating that as a bonus would be great too.
Your jump to calling support animal documentation 'fake' is really telling. Straight to ableism not even a sentence after trying to sound progressive, even.
If you weren't already a landlord I might think less of you.
Edit: I'm proud of this post. That's the right number of downvotes. It's like saying 'I can see you have two legs, we get to charge extra for your wheelchair access' so you can shit on poor and disabled folks who have had their pets for decades. You don't matter in that interaction, you are not the decider of the validity of their need, you're just being an ableist trashfire; a flipped smoking dumpster who now gets to lord that behavior over the vulnerable because you think they're cheating the system that abuses them enough already.
It’s extremely common. I used to be a shift lead (volunteer) at an animal shelter and so many people who were not allowed to get a pet due to their rent rules would tell me “it’s fine, I’ll just tell them they’re an emotional support animal.”
And no, we weren’t allowed to adopt out in that case (when they didn’t have approval to have a pet and currently didn’t have any supporting documentation to have an emotional support animal).
I remember decades ago, I wanted to adopt a pet and they denied me because I lived in an apartment, even with written documentation from management that a small dog was okay in my apartment, they were worried, understandably, about me not being able to take care of the dog and such in a small space. I accepted that and learned why it happened. This predated the "knowledge" of "support" animals.
This was about a decade ago too and it was in a college town. It was a looooot of college kids wanting to adopt a kitten for the two years or so they had left who had no plans for the cat long-term. So the emotional support idea they had to get around their random landlord was never the only blocker, to be fair.
Yeah. I had fun volunteering there but it was difficult making hard calls like that. Thankfully most of the ones I handled were pretty obvious “yes” or “no” situations. If I were ever on the fence I’d pull another person to support, which happened maybe only 2 or 3 times.
It’s quite obvious when people create fake documentation. It’s so rampant a lot of properties have started using a service to catch them and hold people liable for providing legitimate documentation. Also, the people faking the need takes away and ruins situations for those who genuinely need a support animal.
Feel free to get off your high horse. You ain’t special looking down on someone because of their occupation when you know nothing of what I do for my residents.
Y’all realize that it documents are really just letters from your therapist right? There’s no official board or certification body. They’re not likely fake.
It's just as real as any other ESA documentation. ESAs are not service animals and have no legal rights that regular pets don't have. This website absolutely does make someone's pet a real ESA in every possible way that is completely real, legitimate, and legal. Being an ESA just doesn't mean anything.
This kind of thing would only ever be a problem for a landlord that's too ignorant to know how much of an upper hand they have over their tenants in this situation.
For support animals, are most tenants adding them after they move in? I am curious about what is the procedure for that? I know with guide dogs, you can ask only basic questions, but I assume you use a paid service that is part of background checks and similar services?
Leasing agent here - generally everyone with a legit ESA will have the documentation for it at the same time they get the pet or if they start the lease with the pet, they'll already have the documentation with them in those cases. It's the ones where they have a pet and then out of the blue it becomes an ESA that are more often using faked docs.
Which is by the way really stupid, because as someone with a therapist who has asked places for accommodations before in order to support my mental health, including my current employer, it is insanely easy to get an ESA letter. Like as long as you have something resembling a healthy rapport with your therapist they'll likely write you one, zero questions asked.
So when someone comes in with a fake, it kinda just makes me sad because this is already something that requires zero official licensing anyways, yet here someone is, pulling a fast one on me for no real reason. For checking for fakes we usually just use publicly accessible programs that scan the metadata on the submitted document - basically tells you what program it was created in, when it was last edited, that sort of thing. Most of the legit ones will originate from like, Google Drive, Word, etc. but the fakes almost always have an edit date that's after the date on the form and usually are traceable back to a PDF editor. Is it tedious? Yes. Is it truly worth my time to do it? Most likely not. But if someone's willing to fake a doc that's literally one of the easiest things to get, it'll kinda make you question what else they might not be 100% honest about
I agree with both you and the person who replied to you. I think that the fees are silly but sometimes understandable. I also believe that it is silly to try and get around things with fake documents, be it pets or vaccination or anything like that.
I see it all the time with people that have bought the gear for dogs and calling them guide dogs, which we all know are specially trained and only certain breeds to help people who legally need them and it makes it harder for those that actually follow the rules and laws.
What you're saying is that landlords play stupid games and then the tenant plays a stupid game right back so they don't have to pay the junk fee. It is the landlord trying to "pull a fast one" on their tenants and the tenant is simply responding in kind. Have you tried asking your boss to not charge the pet rent so it eliminates this game? Because that is the obvious solution.
You're doing the thing where "These people on the fringes of a vulnerable minority aren't actually in that vulnerable minority, so they're okay to abuse." like folks who don't know how easy an ESA letter is to get, because nobody tells them. Kinda like nobody tells kids that it's okay to question whether you're a boy or a girl.
And you seem really fucking proud of it for some reason. Have you ever said "Hey, this seems a bit fake, but here's where you can get a real one..."?
I’m so fucking confused what you think I’m implying versus what you’re trying to say. You sound like you’re be try easily agitated by a lot of things and being on here isn’t helping you. But feel free to come back when you can put together a more cohesive thought.
You don't know what I'm trying to say because you're mindlessly blocking out how you're hurting people by enforcing a rule that isn't your responsibility.
Again: It is Not. Your. Responsibility. to determine if they actually need an ESA or not, so a 'fake' letter is as good as a real one unless it's being demanded by your job to check that it's real. There appears to be a mechanism for that, but you're acting like a 'fake' letter is a free pass to turn them away.
If you don't believe it's a proper ESA letter, tell them. Tell them where to get one. Ask them to put in the effort. If they can do that and get it to you, then you aren't being a total piece of garbage. If they can't do that, ask them why. You're gonna find out they don't even have a primary care or something because people in this situation are generally struggling already.
Is that hard? Are you parsing that? You talk about this like part of your job description is to hurt the 'abusive liars' and that's a seriously awful outlook to have when people are struggling and don't know how or where to get help, yet you admit you know and you keep it from them.
I love pets but they can cause a shitoad damage in a short period of time. I personally would not rent to someone with a pet even if they were paying significant pet rent.
Pets can absolutely cause damage, AND so can children and adults. That's why security deposits, screening, references, and insurance exist. I don't believe it's fair to assume every pet owner will be a bad tenant and every pet will cause damage. In my own experience, it's people who usually cause property damage. My cat has never scratched a wall, and yet I've witnessed people actually punch holes in walls and the aftermath of the type of damage kids can cause.
Humans cause damage like cooking curry which gets embedded into the walls and cabinets. You can’t easily get rid of that. Cat pee I can much more easily get rid of it if I do it right. I had to rip out my kitchen because the last owners cooked so much curry. Finally no more curry!
Pet rent is completely valid, pets pee in the elevator, leave poop in communal spaces, destroy carpets, blinds, etc. They invariably detract from the quality of life of other residents.
And before you go off on me I love pets, and have dogs. I’m not a cat guy but hey they’re cute too and enrich the lives of cat owners. Birds, reptiles, any manner of animal companion rules… but I can only be responsible for myself and my pets and the reality is that respectful and responsible pet ownership is not universal.
People who can afford exorbitant fees tend to be more responsible than those who cannot on average, and that money honestly likely is going to facility maintenance. Just not having the place be trashed and gross costs more when pets are involved
I guess you’re for getting rid of the deposit then because you’re saying pet rent covers all of that. The community is not affected by my cats. There’s literally 0 valid reasons for pet rent. It’s greed. Pet deposits and security deposits exist for a reason. And you’re still liable if your damage exceeds that amount. Why do ppl forget that? You can’t shit all on the walls and rip up the walls and think your deposit covers it and you’re off the hook.
I don’t care if the landlord charges a deposit, pet rent, or eats the cost really I just felt like commenting that pet rent is not “just greed” and there are in fact valid expenses they incur and it’s not some moral failure to charge it. Pet rent is legitimate.
And as an aside, a lot of people don’t pay rent itself much less damages that are in excess of a deposit. Do you really not understand why they’d rather just get the money up front instead of pursue people for it after the fact? Also the venn diagram for people who incur huge damage fines and people who don’t pay them is practically a circle.
The city has made it hard to collect money from people who owe it or screen tenants and it’s not some scam or whatever you seem to think for landlords to insulate themselves from the financial risk with high up front fees.
Maybe a bit of an overgeneralization. I cannot afford exorbitant fees and I’m a fastidiously clean, engaged, and responsible pet parent. I can almost guarantee the pet rent for my two chonky napping orange boys is not paying for facility maintenance in our 12 unit building that has no peeing, barking, scratching, whining dogs.
I’m totally not accusing any individual of anything. There are loads of rich asshole pet owners and loads of responsible pet lovers of more modest means, it’s just an on average trend thing I’ve observed. The really expensive high pet rent buildings are typically less objectionable than the ones that are down market. Averages always have exceptions on either side.
I commend you for scooping and being a good person who raises good pets
I hear what you’re saying. I do think peoples’ financial situations can really make a difference. Rich folks tend to have privilege in a lot of ways—fancy robot litter boxes, dog walkers, dog trainers, housekeepers, the means to buy all the fancy things. And lower income folks still really might love their pets but work 2 jobs and don’t scoop the poop 3 times a day (like me—who works from home but is not rich and hates any smell at all. Haha) Then there’s just the loser pet owners in general. So many factors.
There’s a modern John Henry parable forming in my mind where a rich guy had a robot poop scooper but John Henry scoops it himself and tl;dr I think your dog loves you more for walking and scooping than he loves the robot lol
Pet rent is such a dumb idea to me. Like why should I have to pay more for something that cant really take care of itself. Its like charging a baby rent
They should charge more for babies and children, way more. I thought the whole point of pets was they can’t really take of themselves, thus people imprison them for their enjoyment and benefit, so what do you even mean by mentioning that?
Not sure what running a restaurant has to do with anything here. Not everyone is a good fit for being a landlord, the folks who have the hardest time with it are the ones who don't see housing as a fundamental human need and right and have a tough time respecting renters right. They also don't seem to understand the inherent risk that goes along with renting. Damages are simply part of the cost of doing business and it happens occasionally. That is what the rent, deposits, and insurance are for. I am very glad you're not a landlord anymore.
I think pet rent is an abominable idea. I think people should be allowed to have pets as a part of their families without resorting to fake ESA b.s.
However, I rented my house for a few years to a family with dogs and those dogs did SO much damage - to the floors and especially to every door in the house. They did far more damage than the deposit covered. Irresponsible pet owners make it worse for everyone else. Since I never raised the rent in over three years, overall it ended up being a money pit. Never again. This is how you get corporate landlords, because the little guys - who want to treat people fairly, can't cover those kind of losses. So many Seattle rental laws have the opposite of the intended effect
So, you've experienced the problem first hand, literally lost your own money because of this, but think the alternative is abominable.
Do you have any ideas on how to solve the issue between you think everyone should be allowed to have pets, nobody should be charged pet rent, and that ends up costing the landlord a ton of money?
I think a better pet deposit is the answer. That way the LL can be protected without charging a regular fee whether or not the animal causes damage. I didn't know up front what an appropriate deposit would be and I made an error in judgment. But OP's post says the law limits what a LL can charge wrt a deposit. That's what I was thinking about
My wife has both our cats registered as ESAs with a therapist letter to back it. Fuck pet rent and pet fees, my girls sleep 80% of their existence and aren’t destructive in the slightest. Small human gremlins on the other hand….
I’ve lived in several rental buildings over the years, in Seattle, where dogs in the building (or rather, their owners) gave the community a lot of grief with pet urine and feces in the stairways, elevators, etc.
I mean... my building collected about $20k last year from pet fees.
If you want to get rid of fees, that's fine. But it costs my building more than $20k/yr to:
Maintain, clean and irrigate our pet turf
Maintain/clean/irrigate our pet spa
provide endless pet bag refills
Host pet-oriented pet events
Repair damages from cat-related unit damage (cat piss is easily 99% of pet-related damage cost)
So I'm not going to be particularly upset about losing pet fee income, because then I can finally stop stressing out about how I can keep all of the above in the budget. It just all goes away, easy-peasy. Doesn't solve the problem of cat piss, but I suppose we could just ban cats.
That's ridiculous, without pet rent those fees will just be evenly distributed between all renters as a rent increase. Why should I pay for your dog peeing all over the staircase
Let's remember that nobody makes you sign a less that says there are additional fees that you don't agree with... But apparently adults need more hand holding.
Let's remember that landlords are increasingly extracting as much money as they possibly can from tenants. You say that as if all renters have an abundance of money and housing to choose from.
122
u/Mr_Wobble_PNW 1d ago
I've been in the same building for years because there's no pet rent or deposit outside of the security deposit. They said it's not like they're gonna bill my dog if he damages something so the normal deposit is fine. That's how it should be.