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.
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.
Owner occupancy won’t go up. Landlords are already occupying a place.
As far as passing the cost goes, it won’t be. Rent is already as high as it can be and will continue to go up as long as our regulations allow this artificial shortage to be maintained. See The End Hedge Fund Control of American Homes Act as an example.
As far as the damage goes, it’s pretty much counted on by landlords. Anything they do on the property counts as a tax deduction and the repairs are usually half asses at best. See “landlord special”.
And, in particular, the poorer renters have a massive incentive to take care of the place, as any unpaid damage gets them kicked off of housing assistance.
Furthermore, the law doesn’t blindly allow any and all pets for any reason. AB 2216 will require landlords to have reasonable reason(s) for not allowing a pet in a rental unit and only allows landlords to ask about pet ownership after a tenant’s application has been approved.
I think this is a good change overall. Landlords shouldn’t be allowed to tell their tenants how to live their lives.
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?
How am I entitled? I’m not the one expecting to disrupt the peace of others where they live and increase the living costs of others because I just have to have a fucking dog in an apartment.
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.
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.
Owner occupancy won’t go up. Landlords are already occupying a place.
As far as passing the cost goes, it won’t be. Rent is already as high as it can be and will continue to go up as long as our regulations allow this artificial shortage to be maintained. See The End Hedge Fund Control of American Homes Act as an example.
As far as the damage goes, it’s pretty much counted on by landlords. Anything they do on the property counts as a tax deduction and the repairs are usually half asses at best. See “landlord special”.
And, in particular, the poorer renters have a massive incentive to take care of the place, as any unpaid damage gets them kicked off of housing assistance.
Furthermore, the law doesn’t blindly allow any and all pets for any reason. AB 2216 will require landlords to have reasonable reason(s) for not allowing a pet in a rental unit and only allows landlords to ask about pet ownership after a tenant’s application has been approved.
I think this is a good change overall. Landlords shouldn’t be allowed to tell their tenants how to live their lives.
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?
Actually I’ve noticed that it’s the no-pet Karens/Kevins who sound entitled and insufferable.
You sound like a lovely human being.
Why are YOU so goddamn entitled and fucking insufferable? Holy shit
How am I entitled? I’m not the one expecting to disrupt the peace of others where they live and increase the living costs of others because I just have to have a fucking dog in an apartment.
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.