California Bill Would Require Landlords to Accept Pets

“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.
To be fair, right after that, the article says:
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.
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.
- 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.

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.
Amazingly we can have multiple conversations at once.
- Great, when are lawmakers going to start having multiple conversations at once?
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"
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.

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.
- 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.
- Way to be disingenuous
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.

“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.

This bill also assures soundproof apartments and funding to enforce waste pickup right?

It can and should come out of the profit margins of the landlord.

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.

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.

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.

I've run out of landlord necks to shit down. Any of you human beings got one you'd borrow me?

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.

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

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.
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

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.
- 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?
- 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.
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.
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.

Fucking NO god damn it we hate people like you SO MUCH

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.
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
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.
Fuck you buddy!
I didn’t do shit to you
- Lol, point proven 🤡

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.
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?
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.